Re: Problems with anonymous escrow 2--response

Responding to msg by jamesd@netcom.com (James A. Donald) on 
Sun, 4 Sep 11:24 AM

>I am complaining about dangerous carelessness in your 
>use  and definition of words.  Your use of the word 
>reputation  is as fraught with frightful consequences 
>as Marx's use  of the word "value".
> 
>Reputation based systems work for freedom, and coercion 
> based systems work for centralized government, for 
>obvious  reasons that all of us agree upon.
> 
>*Define* reputations to be something other than  
>reputations, and you are kicking the crucial foundation 
>out  from under freedom.

>support a  reputation, but by abandoning the correct 
>usage of the  word "reputation" you have obscured that 
>fact from  yourself.

>Use the word *credentials*, not the word *reputations*. 
>If we were to start using the word *reputations* in the 
> way that you have been using it, we will make errors 
>with  vastly more serious consequences that the errors 
>that you  have made.

James,

Your answers to Hal and Tim have been enlightening.

And your attempt to move away from nominalism to improve 
precision of language and to ward off inadverdent undermining 
of fundamentals, is admirable, that is, if I understand your 
objections to Hal's proposals correctly.

Perhaps to avoid counter-objections that matters of definition 
all to often lead back into nominalistic debates, you will be 
able to suggest practical examples of what you mean by 
"dangerous", "frightful", "serious consequences", "kicking the 
crucial foundation out from under freedom", and the like.  
Sometimes these melodramatic terms obscure rather than point 
toward concrete situations that will convey your intentions 
more effectively.

Your strong feelings on these matters are clear, but I for one 
do not know what you would do in place of what Hal, and others, 
are proposing, to build and sustain reputations in the 
electronic realm.  Not, to be sure, to undermine what is valid 
in brickspace, but how such firm foundations might be extended, 
even emulated occasionally, in the cyber realm.

I don't yet see these efforts as threatening as you claim.  
When you get a chance, your specific examples would help.

Thanks.

John

...
> James,
> 
> Your answers to Hal and Tim have been enlightening.
> 
> And your attempt to move away from nominalism to improve 
> precision of language and to ward off inadverdent undermining 
> of fundamentals, is admirable, that is, if I understand your 
> objections to Hal's proposals correctly.
> 
> Perhaps to avoid counter-objections that matters of definition 
> all to often lead back into nominalistic debates, you will be 
...
> Thanks.
> 
> John

<whistle>...

Good Sir, what frightfully polite eloquence have you bathed this
august gathering of gentle spirits?  Who among us dare tread upon the
literary plateau where you have chosen with great cunning to cast down
the gauntlet of gentlemanly and stately redaction and precision?

Errr..., what'd he say?

sdw
-- 
Stephen D. Williams  Local Internet Gateway Co.; SDW Systems 513 496-5223APager
LIG dev./sales       Internet: sdw@lig.net
OO R&D Source Dist.  By Horse: 2464 Rosina Dr., Miamisburg, OH 45342-6430
Comm. Consulting     ICBM: 39 34N 85 15W I love it when a plan comes together
Newbie Notice:                          (Surfer's know the score...)
     I speak for LIGCo., CCI, myself, and no one else, regardless of
     where it is convenient to post from or thru.

>> > James,
>> > 
>> > Your answers to Hal and Tim have been enlightening.
>> > 
>> > And your attempt to move away from nominalism to improve 
>> > precision of language and to ward off inadverdent undermining 
>> > of fundamentals, is admirable, that is, if I understand your 
>> > objections to Hal's proposals correctly.
>> > 
>> > John
>> 
>> Good Sir, what frightfully polite eloquence have you bathed this
>> august gathering of gentle spirits?  [...]
>> 
>> Errr..., what'd he say?
>> 
>> sdw

Stephen,

I think you understood exactly what he said.  I'll explain why he said
it the way he did.  John thinks that James may have some good ideas,
but he's too excited, and he's not explaining them clearly.  John
asked James to calm down, and suggested some particular points that
James wasn't explaining in his excitement over the error he sees other
people falling into.  John is talking this way so James will
understand that John is trying to be on his side.  If he said
something like "you idiot," or "you raving clod", there would be
little chance of James calming down enough to understand John's point.

The way John spoke shows that he is familiar with many of the problems
people fall into when they hold a heated conversation on the net.
Many people mistake heat and excitement for disagreement and personal
attack.  John is doing a good job of pointing out to James that people
are interested in what he has to say, and that communication will be
clearer of if he takes a deep breath and figures out what people are
really asking him for.

Thanks John,
Chris

BTW, I think John and James are right: reputation is not quantifiable,
it's interpreted by each observer differently.  Credentials on the
other hand, can be transfered, and it makes sense to codify them so
other people can understand what recommendations they represent.

stop stop , please, I knew what he was doing.... :-)

I just had to comment on the unorthodox (unfortunately) tact.
While I don't like to be forced to be overly formal, I find it
strange that some people get upset during a strenuous argument.
I 'grew up' corporately at a GE research lab (LBG) where you argued
things strenuously and then walked away friends.

Personal attacks are an obvious sign of defeat, since you are
admitting you have nothing of substance to profer.

Unfortunately, my wife doesn't treat arguments/debate the same
way...

sdw
-- 
Stephen D. Williams  Local Internet Gateway Co.; SDW Systems 513 496-5223APager
LIG dev./sales       Internet: sdw@lig.net
OO R&D Source Dist.  By Horse: 2464 Rosina Dr., Miamisburg, OH 45342-6430
Comm. Consulting     ICBM: 39 34N 85 15W I love it when a plan comes together
Newbie Notice:                          (Surfer's know the score...)
     I speak for LIGCo., CCI, myself, and no one else, regardless of
     where it is convenient to post from or thru.

John Young writes
> all to often lead back into nominalistic debates, you will be 
> able to suggest practical examples of what you mean by 
> "dangerous", "frightful", "serious consequences", "kicking the 
> crucial foundation out from under freedom", and the like.  
> Sometimes these melodramatic terms obscure rather than point 
> toward concrete situations that will convey your intentions 
> more effectively.

If we assume that reputations are themselves some kind 
of credentials, rather than assuming that credentials 
provide information on which people infer reputations, 
then we will wind up proposing credentials that will 
work like motor car licenses -- credentials that will 
not by themselves achieve the desired effect, and will 
therefore need to be supported by coercion.

The objective is to go to a system where good conduct is
enforced by the non material and unquantifiable value of
reputations, rather than a system where good
conduct is enforced by coercion.  Adopting a nominalist
meaning for the word "reputation" would frustrate this objective,
since nominalist "reputations" cannot enforce good conduct.

I am not arguing for increased rigor in the use of the word
"reputation".  Indeed I am protesting and opposing inappropriate
and misleading rigor.

Credentials are not reputations.  Any attempt to make reputations
more precise, objective, and knowable, will turn them into 
credentials, which are incapable of achieving the desired 
effect.

The "frightful consequence" is simply that.   A world in which
cyberspace business functions only by the fiat of government,
which is of course not at all what Hal wishes to achieve.

-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our
property, because of the kind of animals that we              James A. Donald
are.  True law derives from this right, not from
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.                jamesd@netcom.com