In a message dated 2/23/99 9:21:41 AM Central Standard Time,
richard@brodietech.com writes:
<< It's a good point. Since you see everything through the narrow
Level-2 worldview you have constructed for yourself, you don't see the
difference between Reed's participation and your own. You don't understand
why he is generating support and goodwill and you are generating resentment
and dislike. You don't understand why Reed's posts are attractive and yours
are repulsive. >>
Seeing the nature of his participation, and agreeing with his premises are two completely different things. You assume that I am blind, just because I select a world view to operate on. I see the difference.
I think that you are exaggerating quite a bit. My posts are not repulsive and do not generate resentment. If they did, nobody would be talking to me or responding to my ideas. I am not here for a popularity contest. I am not defending, protecting, or nurturing any celebrity status here, though I don't assume that others aren't. I am here to engage in intelligent discussion, and on that count, I have gotten the attention of quite a few people.
Reed on the other hand occassionally acts like he wants an intelligent discussion, but I haven't sensed any genuineness in that, due to his constant evasion of important premises, without which no intelligent discussion is possible. Instead, I think Reed is nurturing some other more emotional needs through his participation here. If you are in a pure popularity contest, of course people are going to like the person who lets it "all hang out" and shares a lot of personal humanizing details, more than they will like the more reserved person.
Reed tries to capitalize on that, by painting as many of the rationalists here
as he can, as authoritarian, inhumane and dogmatic, and then impliedly pleads
with us to "not shit on him." All the while, he spouts about the virtues of
fighting to the puking end in defense of faith. He accuses us of being
"unimaginative", and then acts like he doesn't understand what we are saying.
We tell him that we are satisfied to agree to disagree, and then he goes on
about how we all should agree in the pursuit of some unidentified "universal
human goals". Its not enough for him that we can be tolerant of faith, he
acts like we are assholes for not agreeing that faith can be a good thing.
Since I know he is probably going to persist in this erratic behavior, I don't mind being the lightening rod for some that. I think it is obvious to quite a number of people what he is doing. He is banking on the fact that he can paint rationality as an enslaving force rather than a liberating one, and that consistent proponents of it must be intent on crushing opposition - just like he described his own past "rational" behavior. So if I am going to be a lightening rod, I might as well be good one and oblige the image that he paints. He thinks we are logic nazis. The parody, whether he likes it or not, shows how ridiculous he is being about the whole situation.
So far at least as meany people have indicated that they appreciate the imagery and find it funny as have expressed distaste for it. And those are the people that I am interested in, because they are THINKING. If they wanted to just be entertained, they could go watch Ally McBeall or the X-Files (my favorite semi-mindless entertainment show). And even those that don't like it, are still responding to me, so I don't think that they are repulsed as you say they are.
Why even you must be paying at least SOME attention to me. I don't think I have even seen you grace Reed lately with as long a reply on this list as you gave me this time. It certainly beats the terse two-liners that you typically put out as response.
-Jake