Re: OWNERSHIP: Support for or against binary economics

["mark reiners" <markreiners@hotmail.com>]

MARK REINERS REPLIES...


>From: "Keith Wilde" <kwilde@magi.com>
>Reply-To: ownership@cog.kent.edu
>To: <ownership@cog.kent.edu>
>CC: "Alan Zundel" <Alanzundel@aol.com>
>Subject: Re: OWNERSHIP: Support for or against binary economics
>Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 11:47:09 -0400
>
>This is a note of apology to Alan Zundel and to readers for having this
>posting listed under my name rather than Alan's.  He sent it to me after
>having removed hinmself from the list, and asked me to forward it.  I did
>so, after having removed his personal request to me, which would have
>explained its provenance without further comment.  I simply forgot that it
>would appear automatically under my name.  I have asked Dan Bell to have
>some correction made, but am not sure how that can be done now that the
>archive no longer identifies contributors in the headings (most 
>unfortunate,
>in my opinion).
>
>As a personal reaction to Alan's comments on our process, I very much
>appreciate his persistence and continuing faith in the power of reason, and
>for his magnanimous interpretation of what to me is the mystery of
>resistance to reason by committed "binary purists".

M.R. The irony that YOU guys would have the audacity to claim the high 
ground of reason and level an accusation of "resistence to reason by 
committed "binary purists" is simply TOO rich for words.  It compels me to 
reluctantly stoop to responding to such a clearly political appeal of no 
logical substance, to say nothing of merit, by pointing out that nothing 
could more firmly substantiate my impression that such typical convolution 
is representative of people who are DETERMINED to resist Binary logic at ALL 
costs, no MATTER how impeccably reasoned.  It is for precisely this reason 
that I will henceforth simply operate on the assumption that any engagement 
with either of you is a foregone waste of effort and will therefore choose 
NOT to do so.  In doing this, I have every confidence that you will even 
manage some way to rationalize this as more reflecting ill on "Binary 
purists" than on yourselves.  For me, it serves beautifully to clarify what 
I HAD been at least SOMEWHAT ambivalent about; whether to regard your 
resistence as simply a frustrating case of territorial stubbornness or sadly 
indicative of some intractable comprehensional impediment.

  For my own part, while
>I believe that reason must be acknowledged as the critical instrument of
>human achievments in technology, I am much less sanguine about its 
>influence
>on personal and social behavior, including the analysis of policy ideas.  I
>have been fascinated, as our dialogue has progressed, by its value as a
>laboratory for my personal neurotic fixation on a phenomenon I am preparing
>to describe as "golden bible science" under Part IV of "Ownership on the
>Couch".
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Keith Wilde <kwilde@magi.com>
>To: Ownership@cog.kent.edu <Ownership@cog.kent.edu>
>Date: Friday, August 04, 2000 4:26 PM
>Subject: OWNERSHIP: Support for or against binary economics
>
>
> >>X-From_: IPGmail@aol.com Fri Aug 04 15:36:13 2000
> >>From: IPGmail@aol.com
> >>Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 15:36:04 EDT
> >>Subject: keith-please forward
> >>To: kwilde@magi.com
> >>X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 114
> >>
> >I've been catching up on the discussion via the archive, and having
> >thoughts similar to David E. that I must be either stupid or masochistic 
>to
> >continue this discussion.  But then I decide, no, it is my faith in the
> >power of reason that makes me want to continue.  More on this below.
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>Alan Zundel
> >>Institute for the Public Good
> >>http://www.publicgood.org
> >>
> >>
> >
>Keith Wilde
>Ottawa, Canada
>kwilde@magi.com
>613 990-8125
>613 747-6847
> >
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com