The Chronicles of Narnia

Ted,

Could you expand upon what the game theorist’s premises are, and what real world actions it is that they were surprised by? I believe I know what you're talking about, but would like a more explicit exposition, and feel it would profit us all.

The researchers themselves say it better than I could. Take a gander at THIS ...

Fairness versus reason in the ultimatum game. Science. 2000 Sep 8;289(5485):1773-5.
Nowak MA,
Page KM,
Sigmund K.
Institute for Advanced Study, Einstein Drive, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA. nowak@ias.edu

In the Ultimatum Game, two players are offered a chance to win a certain sum of money. All they must do is divide it. The proposer suggests how to split the sum. The responder can accept or reject the deal. If the deal is rejected, neither player gets anything. The rational solution, suggested by game theory, is for the proposer to offer the smallest possible share and for the responder to accept it. If humans play the game, however, the most frequent outcome is a fair share.

Note how the game theory researchers simply ASSUME that a "rational" solution is one of pure exploitation -- as if humans were indeed governed by what George Reisman calls "jungle law." Here are some more professional idiots ...

Altruism may arise from individual selection. J Theor Biol. 2005 Jul 21;235(2):233-40.
Sanchez A,
Cuesta JA.
Grupo Interdisciplinar de Sistemas Complejos (GISC), Departamento de Matematicas, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, 28911 Leganes, Madrid, Spain. anxo@math.uc3m.es

The fact that humans cooperate with non-kin in large groups, or with people they will never meet again, is a long-standing evolutionary puzzle. Altruism, the capacity to perform costly acts that confer benefits on others, is at the core of cooperative behavior.

Note how the researchers simple ASSUME that a self-sacrificing altruism is "at the core of cooperative behavior." These questionably-useful idiots are operating under the false assumption of an inherent disharmony of interests among rational humans.

Like I said -- they say it better than I could (just look at them).

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 9/14, 9:17pm)

Post 181

Thursday, September 14, 2006 - 11:01pm

Kurt,

I think that Canticle may be lost on those not raised in or intimate with Catholic upbringing. Were you Catholic or otherwise "High Church" in your upbringing?

Mists of Avalon impressed me as quite well researched and although from a woman's point of view, in no way anti-male. I think that calling it feminist in the way that Rand would have disapproved would be unjustified. And I found S. R. Donaldson impossible to get into, after many tries. I haven't read Earthsea recently enough to review it cogently, but remember thinking it was much better than Narnia, which was simply too juvenile for me as an adult. Since I never did take altruism seriously, in life, religion or fiction, I tended to discount, forgive and ignore it, if the story was able to hold my attention. I seem to remember The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe being the worst of the seven Narnia books.

And how DARE you criticize the Doctor? Although certain writers of the show did sometimes write pure plots, the point of the Doctor's non-violence was his ability to outwit his foes and thus avoid unnecessary destruction. Often his erstwhile "enemies" became grateful friends. He was joyful anarchic (in the social, not political sense - he cared not for convention) and optimistic. He loved humans, and always praised their unique potential. I feel that there are large differences in taste among objectivists broadly construed. I don't think that one can make sweeping moral judgments of television series that continue over many, many years. And I think the opportunity to discuss our differences civilly is more important than the self satisfaction we might get from condemning each other. So I am glad you could enjoy Donaldson, and wish I had been able to do so too. I haven't read Kay or Cook. Weren't Kurtz's books set in an alternate universe where the Catholic church existed? I know I read her long ago, but may be confusing her with someone else. Anyone I post on here is usually some one whom I have read at least twice.

Ethan,

The Silmarilion is unique, and although the language is often archaic in style, this is done for quite valid reasons, if one understands Tolkien's project to "reconstruct" an entire "mythology," a literature the West might have had if the Anglo-Saxon literature had not been lost due to the rise of Norman as the literary standard in England at just the time that oral tradition was being transcribed into written texts. Tolkien varies his style from the vulgar (common) to the rustic to the heroic to the prophetic in order to give texture and depth to his creation. His Silmarilion is in effect the Creation and the Iliad for England, not Israel or Greece. Tolkien's linguistic skill is underappreciated and greatly misunderstood. And his son Christopher has done an invaluable service to English literature by releasing as much of his father's works as possible, in all its recensions, and as quickly as possible. Tolkien’s unpolished pearls are not being hoarded by swine.

Ted

Post 182

Friday, September 15, 2006 - 7:10am

Ted - My judgement on Mists is probably wrong - or rather than wrong, I made a judgement without knowing enough. I just tried to read it and hated it, so that was that.

The Doctor I agree with you on, I just noticed those plot holes that in my mind were a serious problem. I like the new series so far, too.

I was not a Catholic, and I was younger, so it was most likely a bit over my head. I do recall it being fairly good even so. I liked James Blish, who wrote some cool stuff with Catholicism. In one, there is a planet of aliens who don't believe in any deity, and this priest theorizes they are a creation of Satan. This gets him in trouble with current church doctrine, which says that Satan cannot create. He thinks this is evidence he can. He does an exorcism. The planet explodes, but there is a scientific explanation based on the mining of a very volitile energy source on the planet, so...

Kurtz series on the Deryni had a strong religious element, yes. It was well done, though, and there were a group of people with power - who initially were a ruling elite. Some were good people, some abused it, and later a sort of revolution declared them to be evil and one of the orders was killed off (it was very much based on the example of the Knight's Templar). It was good stuff. One thing she did later was make a prequel series about some young princes, but we knew from her geniology some would die - I found this hard to take. It was very hard to read a story where the main character ends up dead and you know that up front, especially such a young person. Her first and best series were the "Camber of Culdi" series in the Deryni universe. She is an excellent character writer. Her characters feel very, very real. She is somewhat mystical herself I think. So, its not Objectivist stuff, but it is very good writing.

Oh, another series I loved was science fiction but had elements of fantasy (i.e magic was instead mental powers). That was the Many Colored Land series by Julian May. Very good.

Post 183

Thursday, September 14, 2006 - 10:43pm

OK ED,

You want to play candy-stripes—the lazy man's way. This is twice you did it. So I'll play (for a while anyway).

Candy-Stripe 1:

Can you name me a group of people who are "truly rational" according to your standard? Don't say Objectivists, because you include good will as part of the package and I see way too much ill will among Objectivists.
The point is that all moral virtue is connected, and the virtue of rationality is the lynchpin holding it all together. Check out Rand's words here ...

This one here's a doozy. I ask for empirical evidence and you make a proclamation and quote another proclamation by Rand. Here is how our discussion on this has gone so far (not exact words, but my understanding of the arguments):

Me: Good will needs to be chosen, time and time again, just like any other virtue.

Ed: Rationality will always arrive at good will. It cannot do otherwise. Virtues are all interconnected and all start with rationality. Being rational is enough.

Me (pointing): Hmmmm. Look at those people (X). They are rational but do not have good will.

Ed: Ah, but they are not "truly rational."

Me (pointing elsewhere): Well look at those people over there (Y) . They are rational but they are sourpusses too.

Ed: Ah, but they are not "truly rational," either.

Me: How can they learn to be truly rational"?

Ed: Study and integrate Objectivism, of course.

Me: Well look at the Objectivists over the years. Look at them now. Where did the good will go during all those schisms and all that bickering? I see tons of ill will flowing around.

Ed: Shit happens.

Me: So who are the "truly rational"? Where do I find them?

Ed: That's not the point. Virtue is... (fill in the blank). Rand said... (fill in the blank). btw—Do you believe in rational values?

Me: Dayaamm!

(Insert toothy grinning smiley.)

Concepts are supposed to have referents in reality, Ed. I still don't know what a "truly rational" person (in your sense) looks like. Moving right along. You wrote the following.

Candy-Stripe 2:

Temperament's tough. It's kind of like an inherent disposition to interact in a certain way with one's environment (eg. introverts get energized from down time; extraverts get energized from parties and other social gatherings). Habits are easier to deal with. Habits are, on paper (at least), easy to change. It just takes a strong will and some right answers. I wasn't playing around, Michael -- though I admit to avoiding talk of temperament (until now).

You see how easy it is to discuss something when you define a term only according to your own manner? That's called not listening. The correct statement would have been something like, "Oh, so that's what you meant by 'temperament.' I usually use this term to denote..." This is precisely what I am talking about when I say getting at the concepts regardless of the words. Let's say that takes a special kind of temperament to do that—and you can choose to be that way if you want to. You gotta' want to. (Just being rational ain't enough.)

(Insert another toothy smiley.)

(I ain't really ragging you, Ed, my friend, but if it looks that way, this is because you are highly intelligent, have oodles of good will, are very, very good people, and I hate to see a bad habit like cognitive stubbornness just so you can win an argument forming. You are much better than that. The real purpose of philosophy is wisdom, not competitive sports.)

Candy-Stripe 3:

Being rational does not always involve normative decisions (except maybe on the level of choosing to use reason over something like daydreaming as a mode of focusing and cognition). Sometimes mental activity is purely cognitive - identifying "what is it? or "where am I?". Normative only comes in with "what should I do?"
Well, normative even comes in with "what should I think about" -- integrate THAT, buster.

Didn't I just say that? Did you read the phrase above or what? Here it is again in case you missed it: "except maybe on the level of choosing to use reason over something like daydreaming as a mode of focusing and cognition."

But let's use your standard—keeping the gross category but eliminating both degree and any further division of kind. Doing that, why bother thinking at all? You could even say that the act of taking a breath is normative. Then we move completely outside the realm of applying concepts to reality. David Kelley discusses this error at length (but not with my example). I highly recommend his works, especially The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand (which is probably the world's worst title for a magnificent explanation of what a philosophy is in fundamentals, like he provided for Objectivism).

Anyway, I am learning that the initial act of cognitive focus in infants is an affect, not a choice (please see that link I posted in my last post). The affect of focus is not volitional in the very young—just like crying is not. So it is not even a value. It is a reaction. It only becomes a value after the volitional faculty develops while merging with the affect. This is what leads to purely cognitive abstractions. But if you need Rand quotes, Here is a great one from "The Psycho-Epistemology of Art." She was no dummy. She knew that purely cognitive mental activity exists.

(Intermediary Stripe A - Rand):

Consider the enormous conceptual integration involved in any statement, from the conversation of a child to the discourse of a scientist. Consider the long conceptual chain that starts from simple, ostensive definitions and rises to higher and still higher concepts, forming a hierarchical structure of knowledge so complex that no electronic computer could approach it. It is by means of such chains that man has to acquire and retain his knowledge of reality.

Yet this is the simpler part of his psycho-epistemological task. There is another part which is still more complex.

The other part consists of applying his knowledge—i.e., evaluating the facts of reality, choosing his goals and guiding his actions accordingly. To do that, man needs another chain of concepts, derived from and dependent on the first, yet separate and, in a sense, more complex: a chain of normative abstractions.

While cognitive abstractions identify the facts of reality, normative abstractions evaluate the facts, thus prescribing a choice of values and a course of action. Cognitive abstractions deal with that which is; normative abstractions deal with that which ought to be (in the realms open to man's choice).

Yes, Virginia. You see? Purely cognitive abstractions do exist in Objectivism. They are separate from normative abstractions. They have to be in order to be later integrated with them. This is straight from the horse's mouth in Rand's published work.

Here is another quote from "Art and Sense of Life":

(Intermediary Stripe B - Rand):

There are many special or "cross-filed' chains of abstractions (of interconnected concepts) in man's mind. Cognitive abstractions are the fundamental chain, on which all the others depend. Such chains are mental integrations, serving a special purpose and formed accordingly by a special criterion.

Cognitive abstractions are formed by the criterion of: what is essential? (epistemologically essential to distinguish one class of existents from all others). Normative abstractions are formed by the criterion of: what is good?

But there's more. Here is one from "Art and Moral Treason":

(Intermediary Stripe C - Rand):

The process of a child's development consists of acquiring knowledge, which requires the development of his capacity to grasp and deal with an ever-widening range of abstractions. This involves the growth of two interrelated but different chains of abstractions, two hierarchical structures of concepts, which should be integrated, but seldom are: the cognitive and the normative. The first deals with knowledge of the facts of reality—the second, with the evaluation of these facts.

I know this is terrible, terrible news to those who think all concepts (which are abstractions) are normative in Objectivism. But that idea was Peikoff's baby, especially in "Fact and Value." Definitely not Rand. You decide who is the greater philosopher and who actually decides what Objectivist epistemology is on something like this.

Then you wrote (about emotions):

Candy-Stripe 4:

I'll be as brazen as I want to be with my theories (but thanks for the warning, anyway). When I have more time, perhaps I will look past Rational Emotive and Cognitive Behavioral theory -- but for now, it's my story ... and I'm stickin' to it.

Well, ignorance is strength. But you can still be brazen after being informed. That is entirely within the realm of human possibility. I think it is far better to be brazen because you know something. I hold extremely low value for those who proudly and brazenly proclaim their ignorance for all mankind to hear.

Candy-Stripe 5:

What's wrong with a miser accumulating money if he gets his jollies doing it?
The same thing that is wrong with narcotics addicts -- as THEY are getting their jollies "doing it."

It is true that a drug addict and a miser both have compulsive behavior. But that is where the similarity ends. Narcotics impede cognitive activity and degrade the organism. (Don't forget, you are talking to a expert.) Being a miser does neither. It's his itch. Let him scratch it. Scratching an itch can be very rational within limits.

Before I go on, let's stop these damn candy-stripes and do some real discussing. I can do this crap all day. I know you have it in you.

Finally, you asked me:

Candy-Stripe 6:

Michael, do you believe that there may be such things as objective (discoverable) human values?

Yup.

Michael

Post 184

Friday, September 15, 2006 - 11:01am

Michael,

You ask for civil discussion while peppering me with exhaustive jib-jabs (what's a fella' to think about that, hmmm?). Here's my own view on our own discourse ...

MSK: Good will needs to be chosen, time and time again, just like any other virtue.

Ed: Rationality will always [ultimately] arrive at good will. It cannot do otherwise. Virtues are all interconnected and all start with rationality. Being rational is enough [to learn about and inculcate in oneself the other virtues -- it's how we discover what's really good for us].

MSK (pointing): Hmmmm. Look at those people (X). They are rational but do not have good will.

Ed: Ah, but they are not "truly rational" [Being "truly rational" involves, in Rand's words: "one's total commitment to a state of full, conscious awareness, to the maintenance of a full mental focus in all issues, in all choices, in all of one's waking hours." -- and people who have not inculcated good will into their character do not exemplify this state of being called: rational. Rather, they exhibit a disconnected and contradictory "intelligence" or "cunning" that merely masquerades as "rationality" (in the Randian sense of the term)].

MSK (pointing elsewhere): Well look at those people over there (Y) . They are rational but they are sourpusses too.

Ed: Ah, but they are not "truly rational," either [see above].

MSK: How can they learn to be truly rational"?

Ed: Study and integrate Objectivism, of course [but, most of all, work on your own character -- inculcate into your behavior the types of habits that lead to the attainment of the types of values that, together, generate a state of lasting and noncontradictory joy].

MSK: Well look at the Objectivists over the years. Look at them now. Where did the good will go during all those schisms and all that bickering? I see tons of ill will flowing around.

Ed: Shit happens [-- and life is that dynamic process where humans learn and grow. The point is not to have never made a mistake -- that is unrealistic. The point is to learn from mistakes -- and to become a better human being through time. Morality is a process, not a state.]

MSK: So who are the "truly rational"? Where do I find them?

Ed: That's not the point. Virtue is [habitual action which leads to the fulfillment of one's life on earth. What's at the crux of this issue is to build right habit into one's own character, and only after that -- does it become useful to question whether others have achieved a similar level of personal growth. In short, I, myself, exemplify the truly rational -- and the knowledge of this is available to me via introspection. I do not have to rely on inference from the behavior of others to prove to myself that truly rational folks exist. And this is because I know that I do exist -- and THAT is enough.]

Ed

Post 185

Friday, September 15, 2006 - 11:43am

Ted, I left out most of that Playboy story. That kid gets plenty of experience testing boundaries. That particular situation was a bunch of pre-teenage boys sharing all the wrong information. I won't go into detail, but that poor kid was completely confused by the discussion over the Playboy. My friend's intention was to provide education where it was sorely needed.

Post 186

Friday, September 15, 2006 - 12:29pm

Oh, and Michael, I almost forgot about THIS (caps for italics) ...

"A rational process is a MORAL process."

Do you see how Rand identifies rationality as a normative issue here?

Ed

Post 187

Friday, September 15, 2006 - 1:31pm

Ed,

I pepper you with jib-jabs? You came after me with jib-jabs if I recall. I certainly do not mean my posts as personal criticism. Hell, if you want to win an argument, if that is all you want out of a discussion, I'll give it to you now. Merely "trounce" me with the next post and I will keep quiet. You will win! (Three cheers.)

In the meanwhile, you have a good head and I am merely trying to show you some premises you are not checking correctly.

For instance I keep asking a simple question and you keep ignoring it:

Where is the group of people who are "truly rational" in your terms so we can study them and try to be like them - meaning people whose virtue of rationality "ultimately" leads to good will?

Well? Do they exist or not? If so, where?

Your other statement ("a rational process is a MORAL process") is a bit of a package deal concept stated like you do without any context. The choice to practice rationality is moral (the value being reason). The rational process itself is not moral - morality derives from epistemology and metaphysics (and human nature). For Objectivism, that means that morality derives from reason (i.e., the use of "rational processes"), not the reverse. A rational process is both cognitive and evaluative (normative), but that does not make it inherently moral.

How do you reconcile your view with Rand's own words about normative and cognitive abstractions as she gives in three different essays?

Michael

Post 188

Friday, September 15, 2006 - 4:40pm

Deanna,

You asked me yesterday:

Is it possible for a parent to be rational while at the same time exhibit bad-will toward his own child? NOT exhibiting a loving nature to one's own child is probably the most irrational action a person can take, in my humble opinion.

It is possible to be very rational in some areas and completely blind in others. I like precision, so I would prefer to say that a person is rational at his job but irrational with his family, etc., rather than say he is simply irrational in general.

Then there is the "definition game" were rationality gets really subjective. (This - and oversimplification - are my objections to terms like "truly rational" that I have been discussing with Ed.)

There is something very funny by Robert Ringer wrote that I read years ago (the "definition game"). He said that people usually define words according to their own conveniences. (The following are my examples because I don't remember his anymore.) Thus they can "rationally" cheat on their spouses, "rationally" beat their kids, etc. But it is present in smaller things like bending rules and white lies. I don't know many people who say to themselves or others, "I am doing this because I am irrational and I know it is wrong." Most of the ones I have encountered over a highly varied life think they are right and rational. I have found this to be a good overall observation for taking into account with most people, too.

btw - I fully agree with your statement in regards raising children. A loving nature (as one component among several) is the most rational way to raise children. It is irrational to be otherwise.

Michael

Post 189

Friday, September 15, 2006 - 8:26pm

MSK:

"Where is the group of people who are "truly rational" in your terms so we can study them and try to be like them - meaning people whose virtue of rationality "ultimately" leads to good will?

Well? Do they exist or not? If so, where?"

Hello! You've been debating with one of them.

Post 190

Friday, September 15, 2006 - 9:05pm

Michael, just a couple more candy-stripes ...

For instance I keep asking a simple question and you keep ignoring it:

Where is the group of people who are "truly rational" in your terms so we can study them and try to be like them - meaning people whose virtue of rationality "ultimately" leads to good will?

Well? Do they exist or not? If so, where?

What Teresa said.

A rational process is both cognitive and evaluative (normative), but that does not make it inherently moral.

How do you reconcile your view with Rand's own words about normative and cognitive abstractions as she gives in three different essays?

By not engaging in the Fallacy of Composition, when I speak of the concepts "abstraction" and "rationality." Michael, you seem to be doing this very thing; when you hoot & holler about there being such things as cognitive abstractions that are 'part' of the 'whole' process of rationality -- and how this mere 'part' somehow precludes the 'whole' process from being moral. You're generalizing from part to whole, and it's not correct to do that.

Ed

Post 191

Friday, September 15, 2006 - 9:52pm

Gentlemen,

Please keep in mind that unless one writes very nuanced and qualified remarks it is very easy for one's interlocutors to misunderstand one's meanings. A very large amount of communication is non-lexical, with vocal emphasis, gesture, facial expression, and body language helping to disambiguate one's meanings. Not only is it all too easy to misconstrue the meaning of another's written words when one does not have the benefit of face to face communication to disambiguate one's intentions, it is even harder to communicate without misunderstanding when one resorts to "candystriping." I do not believe I have ever once candystrippen on this list. The method is only valid in a sincere request for clarification. I have stopped responding to the most promiscuous poster (beside myself?) on this list specifically for his contextless use of this method. In any case, this exchange would be better done in private, or on a separate thread. Please forgive my unsolicited arbitration here. I was happy to see so many posts when I got home today, until I read them.

Love,

Ted

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 9/15, 9:53pm)

Post 192

Friday, September 15, 2006 - 10:52pm

Ted, please forgive.

I have the inherent tendency to hijack threads such as these. It stems from my love of ideas and willingness to defend or contest them whenever and wherever. You are right, though. This spat between Michael and myself deserves its own thread.

Thanks for keeping me honest.

Ed

Post 193

Saturday, September 16, 2006 - 12:03am

The wink means ever so much more than the word.

It's not a question of honesty or a wish to take sides, but to point out that as rational animals we cannot reduce ourselves to our essential attribute as if it were our only attribute. We are rational animals, but animals nonetheless. Thus, when we talk face to face, much more is going on than the exchange of words. Even over the phone, this is true. But on-line debate (or exchanges of any kind) can so easily be misconstrued that one must always give the benefit of doubt, where possible, and one must be as clear as possible, which requires full sentences, full paragraphs, the use of emphasis and scare quotes, etc. The origin of emoticons is an elegant proof of this truth. The wink means ever so much more than the word. The possibility for misunderstandings to escalate is quite real in such a compressed and stripped down medium.

Ted

Post 194

Friday, September 15, 2006 - 10:29pm

You guys want to see good will and rationality? Look at Ted in his last post. No put-downs. No competition. No name-calling. No sarcasm. No hidden agendas. No twisted meanings. No need to control.

Just plain rational ideas, good vibes and a practical suggestion or two.

I think Ted chooses to be that way, day by day - not just because once, long ago, he decided to be rational and the rest automatically kicked in. I think he has a good mind and a good heart and he constantly chooses to keep them and nurture them. I think he is a good person.

I admire that enormously.

Michael

Post 195

Saturday, September 16, 2006 - 12:27am

Ed,

I have a small correction to make:

This spat between Michael and myself...

Alert: The following statement is not meant as a put-down. It is sincere.

I had no idea we were having a spat. You were having a spat, not me. But since you said that, I now realize that your language got more and more sarcastic as you went along. And knowing I HATE candy-stripes, you came out at the start with two long ones in in a row - even taunting me about it - with lots of rather insulting things, now that I look the posts over. And it got gradually worse.

I simply did not perceive this. And I answered you in good faith. (OK, I got creative a bit with the dialogue. You know me well enough to know that this was not contemptuous mocking, but playful instead. And it was an accurate rendition of the discussion up to then. I also figured since you insisted on candy-stripes, why not do a bunch all at once and get it over with?)

I asked good questions that you have refused to answer so far and all I did about that was mention that you did not answer them. I didn't say you were evading and the full litany of standard put-downs. On the contrary, I complimented your intelligence and tried to get intelligent answers. The best you gave me was that you did not need to answer it - that knowing you existed was enough.

I did all this from good will. Let's just say that good will is a virtue I choose in addition to rationality. If you - Ed - are "truly rational" in this strange manner I cannot fathom, where referents from reality are not needed for concepts and you can judge what you do not know (i.e., claim that the act itself of cognitive integration is moral instead of the choice to engage the rational faculty), and then preach that this inevitably leads to good will, why not let it happen with yourself? Or better, when will it happen since it is inevitable? Certainly not when you talk about a poster "hooting and hollering" and things like that.

Teresa claimed you were practicing good will all along. Were you?

I'm serious.

Michael

Post 196

Saturday, September 16, 2006 - 8:17am

So, anyway...

I fell asleep during this movie (we rented the DVD). My husband really wanted to see it, and enjoyed it very much, but it konked me out.

Post 197

Saturday, September 16, 2006 - 10:09am

Michael, you are attempting to take the moral high-ground here -- while making me out to be some kind of bad guy. You continually make the claim that the potentially nasty things that YOU'VE said are all in fun -- and yet you, continually, project bad motives onto my behavior here. Yes, I called you "buster" -- I admit that. Yes, I got a lil' wily -- I admit that. But I'm not Darth Vader here -- and you're not exactly Luke Skywalker.

Here is a short list of some things you've said to me in this thread, all potentially nasty -- or, in the least, jib-jabs that are potentially distractive to the goal of understanding the core issues ...

======================
"You used to be good at reading. What happened?"

"(Try the following reasoning with my writing: "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and acts like a duck, it's a duck." That manner of thinking works a lot better.)"

"I was specifically talking about fantasy as entertainment and children's stories. Like the lady first asked about. Remember her?"

"Do I get my turn on the stolen concept merry-go-round?"

"If you want to be taken seriously on this, separate Santa from religion. That would be a good start."
======================

Michael, can you see the inherent condescension in your words above? Anyway, I brought our "discussion" onto a new thread upon Ted's suggestion. Sorry all, for my part of this thread-hijack.

Ed

Post 198

Saturday, September 16, 2006 - 11:15am

Wow.

I've been here for a few months now, and only just figured out how to "candystripe"...until this thread, I didn't realize it was a hostile act that one "resorts to" in a discussion or disagreement...I just thought helped clarify what point (or person) you are referring to in your response. Now that I know it is the most egregious of insulting behaviors, I guess I'll have to unlearn my newfound skill.

Michael, you said,

(Since I can no longer use the effective gray bars that clearly mean this is not me talking, I have to write the extra words, "Michael, you said,"...You understand.)

You guys want to see good will and rationality? Look at Ted in his last post. No put-downs. No competition. No name-calling. No sarcasm. No hidden agendas. No twisted meanings. No need to control. ---MSK

I agree completely!
Of course, it is amazing how easy it is to lose the competitiveness, the put-downs, the sarcasm, etc. when you have no dog in the fight. Ted Keer can be quite, um...passionate... himself when he is arguing his point of view with another poster. Just ask Chris Baker. :-)
I have YET to see anyone on this forum or any other who is "above it"...not myself (just ask Bill Dwyer), not Ed, and not you. I also know that it takes an exceptionally strong-willed person to consciously NOT hijack a thread (or keep a hijack going) when the argument has turned to something they feel strongly about...especially when the original topic is pretty much all talked out.
***(To ALL: Does anyone else have anything substantial to add about the Chronicles of Narnia---specifically? I mean about that movie, not about fantasy v. reality, or what kids should watch...or anything else tangential to the Chronicles of Narnia (because that is how this thread got in trouble in the first place.) Anyone? Take it away, then!

I agree that Ted's last couple of posts were rational and full of good will...he is disturbed by what he apparently views as a hostile exchange between yourself and Ed, and he thinks this thread should be put back on track.
But Michael, to watch you bestow a halo on Ted while adjusting the one on your own head, all the while decrying Ed's horns, is a little disingenuous on your part. Everyone here is capable of sporting horns or halos...and some of us, especially Ted Keer, are a lot more fun with horns, if I do say so myself.

This is the end of my contribution to this hijack. I meant it when I said for the Narnia people to take it away; Ed has already started a new thread about the topic he and MSK were discussing.
To quote one of my favorite people on this board,

"That's it, and that's all."

Erica

Post 199

Saturday, September 16, 2006 - 11:20am