This is topic The Doctrine of Fluidity in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=025461

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I am, to some extent, a bit of an iconoclast. I'm not a joiner. And "tradition" has always made me uneasy when applied to anything more relevant than, say, the color of one's wedding dress or a list of anniversary gifts.

Another thread just prompted me to try to figure out why. And here's why.

Roboticists have been studying motion for some time now, in hopes of building a perfectly mobile robot. In the old days, they concentrated on building a robot that was consistently stable in all states, across the entire "circuit" of its motion; it usually had at least four legs, and often moved like an inchworm: keeping two legs down and jutting the other two forward. In this way, the robot very slowly progressed without any risk of destabilization.

And yet, oddly enough, such robots tended to fall down at the slightest provocation, took corners badly, and couldn't navigate complex terrain -- despite all the precautions. Adding more stable legs improved things to a point, but also further reduced the terrain over which the 'bot could move.

In the last few years, roboticists have realized what kineticists already knew: that animal motion moves in a wave, a series of "controlled falls" that cycles back and forth between each leg independently. By adding gyroscopes to two and four-legged robot legs and enabling each leg to compensate for its own lean, they've been able to build robots that are not only faster but, despite being in a situation of continual imbalance, considerably more stable over unstable terrain.

I think we live in a time of unstable terrain. And I think a lot of people would LIKE to spend more time planting our feet securely before reaching forward again. But society isn't a caterpillar robot; it's one of those inherently unstable, wobbly robots. It moves forward, careeing back and forth like that sprite in the "walk the drunk" game -- but still manages to move forward. The problems pop up, like in the "walk the drunk" game, when we lean too far or, paradoxically, try to stop the leaning altogether; we not only lose our balance but lose our SENSE of balance, and forget that we CAN figure out which way we should be leaning. It's as if we HAVE legs equipped with gyroscopes, but insist on planting them every so often anyway.

Sociology, like kinetics, is a study of forward motion -- motion that consists mostly of circles, or cycles, when viewed at the correct angle. This, to me, is almost self-evident.

Which is why I think traditionalists are dangerous. Not only would a traditionalist read this and say something like, "But isn't it more practical to make sure your feet are firmly planted before you go anyway," but they might also insist that there's no need to move at all -- that society is NOT, like that walking drunk, inexorably wobbling forward. So they stick out an arm to stop the poor guy, smack him in the face, and send him tumbling snoring into the gutter, sucking his thumb. And those people who try to STEER society, to point it to a better and brighter future that we'd all love, if only we listened to them, are like people playing the "walk the drunk" game but only moving the mouse to the right -- the left doesn't even EXIST as an option -- which doesn't do much for their final score.

I think that wobble is an inherent function of society, and that denying this fact is counterproductive to its continuation, in the same way that gripping the probe too tightly when playing one of those electric buzzer maze games makes your aim all wonky. So I'm very deeply suspicious of people who think they have the answers, particularly if they think they know the questions.

[ June 25, 2004, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Huh, interesting. Can someone have strong feelings about what they think the answers are without being sure they have all the answers? I like to think I try to walk that road. Don't know if I succeed or not.
 

---

Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
 
Nice analogy, Tom.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I don't know.

Therefore, no one does.

??
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Heh, Scott, reminds me of a book I read called "What is Real?" The author claimed that reality is subjective, there is not absolute reality. And thus, that is absolute reality.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
The problem with the analogy is it assumes traditions are the equivalent of planting legs firmly on the ground.

What if tradition is the wave along which society advances?

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
 
I do know.

But everyone else doesn't.
 

---

Posted by BYuCnslr (Member # 1857) on :
 
Very well put Tom, I've had a simular view on things and always stated that tradition, though providing a stable ground is not progress, and instead is stagnation, while chaos and instability is what moves things, though oddly enough, usually moving things towards stability. However, in order to prevent more stagnation, continual chaos has to keep things moving, in essence, a societal ubermench.

Dag: I don't think tradition can me thought of that way, for example, up until recently tradition has dictated women having a lower position in society, it is the breaking of that tradition that moved the woman's movement.
Satyagraha

[ June 25, 2004, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: BYuCnslr ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Vorlons and Shadows.... Jean-Bautist Emmanuel Zorg....
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"What if tradition is the wave along which society advances?"

The problem with this thought is that society continues to advance, even as traditions change; clearly, then, the advancement is not contingent upon the preservation of tradition.

I recognize that some traditionalists may disagree with this, particularly those who believe (for example) that it's their duty to return society and/or their church to a copy of what it used to be back in the antediluvian era -- and note that I'm not specifically pointing to the Mormons in the room as I say this.

However, I feel reasonably comfortable saying that the Edenic pre-existence that they imagine never existed, and that I would not trade a single element of modern society for any lifestyle choice of Neolithic man.

I believe, quite strongly, that we live at a time which is the best time; things have never been any better than they are right now, and things will only get better if we don't try too hard and therefore screw 'em up. Some people are laissez-faire about the economy; I'm laissez-faire about the human race in general.

[ June 25, 2004, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
/sidebar

at the bottom of the page for the google links

quote:

---

EPSON: Industrial Robots
High speed assembly robots, PC based controls, and vision.

Robotics & Electronics
Check our complete line of kits for home and school use.

---

/end sidebar
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I'm curious as to why you think traditions are incompatible with change. It seems like a hopelessly limited definition.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
No, I understand what Tom is getting at. Tradition, by definition, doesn't change. It is passed down from generation to generation. The whole point is that it stays the same. If it changes, it is not tradition.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
If you're going to define a tradition as "a continually evolving, self-improving process," I would say that you disagree with me only on semantics.

Now, Dag does raise an interesting point, and actually one that I've heard from a Catholic friend of mine: what if traditions are necessary to get one's foot in the door with the majority of people, and therefore -- through THEIR evolution -- are instrumental in changing people? In this sense, traditions can act like a prybar. Consider when the Catholic church decided to require celibacy of its priests, or started doing Masses in English; these are major changes to a tradition, but since the CORE tradition did not change -- the priests remained, as did the Mass -- the change got forced through and accepted by people who might not have otherwise done so, simply because they were comforted by the other familiar trappings.

An overarching tradition, then, might well act as grease, a way to smooth small changes into things provided that you don't toss out the whole framework.

[ June 25, 2004, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
Even if it walks best by continually falling, the robot has to know where it's been and where it's going if it's going to get anywhere.

I think the wobble is between tradition and resisting tradition. Each needs to be there. Both traditionalists and non-traditionalists are working hard to make sure the wobble goes back to their side regularly. Lose the traditionalists, and the whole thing would fall over. Lose the non-traditionalists, same thing.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
"Tradition" just means "something inherited or handed down." It doesn't mean that it has to stay the exact same.

Well put, afr.

[ June 25, 2004, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Must learn balance Daniel-son!
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
But traditions greatly resist change. Look at the Jewish people. Tradition has held them together despite all the scatterings and scourgings of hateful people. Their traditions have changed little over the passage of time.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
No, I'm tradition does not mean nothing changes. It means certain aspects of life are seen as important enough to hold on to.

Jews have been observing Passover for what, 3500 years now? Catholics have been celebrating Eucharist for 2000. Since we have quick-rising yeast, which wouldn't take too much time to raise bread, should Jews get rid of unleavened bread at Passover? No. It's absurd.

Traditions are about identifying that which we wish to preserve. Even though the specifics of mass have changed, it's still substantively the same service. Even though I doubt the meals served at Passover taste much like the ones they ate the night they left Egypt (for one thing, the plants have probably evolved very different tastes), it's still the same tradition.

The near-fall robot movement paradigm works precisely because the movement is roughly the same, and because it settles back to its mean. As you said, each leg has a gyroscope which helps maintain the correct orientation. Even though a robot's legs might never be in the same position twice, each leg is still doing roughly the same thing.

Doesn't sound like a system that would work without tradition.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Think of the move "Whale Rider". The girl kept the traditions as best as she could. The only way she could do that was by breaking them. She broke one of the traditions (women cannot lead) in order to keep the rest of them alive.

The breaking of individual traditions can be a fine thing, but I think something is really lost when you try to abandon all tradition.

I don't think of traditions as being the multiple legs on your robot -- I think of them as the gyroscopes in the newer robots. They keep us oriented and stable, even while things are changing.

[ June 25, 2004, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
*applauds MPH*
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

But traditions greatly resist change. Look at the Jewish people. Tradition has held them together despite all the scatterings and scourgings of hateful people. Their traditions have changed little over the passage of time.

---

But the Jewish people are hardly stagnant. Their lives are enriched by tradition, which keeps important things constant. To change the analogy again, these traditions provide the ground over which the robot of Jewish culture advances.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
That's an excellent extension of the analogy. But what, then, represents the influence of actual traditionalism, as opposed to the practice of ritual?
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
"the robot of Jewish culture"

I'm a robot counselor and all, but I don't know if I want to tackle that one.

[ June 25, 2004, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
*Applauds MPH's gyroscope point especially.*

To look at it still another way, which is really going to show my Catholic education, traditions have substance and form. The substance is what must be maintained. The form can adapt to the times.

Dagonee
Edit: Tom, ritual is more form; tradition is more substance. But I'm leery of saying this because I don't want to minimize the importance of form/ritual, just to acknowledge that it can and does change sometimes.

[ June 25, 2004, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I think this could get into an interesting discussion of tradition vs. values. How do they intersect, when are we responding to one rather than the other. I suspect that a lot of the things that Tom looks at as traditions without underlying positive purpose others view as chock full of significance and meaning. It all depends on your perspective.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Dag, I wonder if you and the Catholic friend to whom I was referring went to the same school. The same argument was made.

And yet I don't know if what you're saying is true. From where I stand, it appears that most of the value of any tradition is in the execution of the form, NOT the substance of the tradition itself, as the concrete benefits of the tradition generally revolve around its communal observance more than what it happens to mean. And since the form itself can change, I can't help feeling like what lends consistency to the motion is the observance itself -- more even than the thing being observed or the way in which it IS observed.
 

---

Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
 

quote:

---

Very well put Tom, I've had a simular view on things and always stated that tradition, though providing a stable ground is not progress, and instead is stagnation, while chaos and instability is what moves things, though oddly enough, usually moving things towards stability. However, in order to prevent more stagnation, continual chaos has to keep things moving, in essence, a societal ubermench.

---

code:

---

               Follow Form?
               yes     no
               +-------+-------+
               |       |       |
           yes |  1    |  2    |
Follow         |       |       |
Substance?     +-------+-------+
               |       |       |
           no  |  3    |  4    |
               |       |       |
               +-------+-------+  

---

edit:
Tom, after looking at your last post, it would appear that you are mostly in quadrant 4, but can see some value in quadrant 3.

[ June 25, 2004, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
Ritual: the slaughtering of the lamb, the eating of the Passover meal, painting the doorway

Tradition: The angel of death passed over houses of the faithful, the Israelites were granted freedom to leave.
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
My turn to play stretch the analogy.

The gyroscopes in the legs of the robot do more than keep the robot from falling to the left or the right.

They keep if from falling backwards or on its front as well.

I believe tradition is the backwards view of the Robot. It sees everywhere that its been, and everthing that it has learned. Yet as it continues to move forward, the perspective of that view changes, just as our perspective of Passover or Mass has changed from that of our 9th century forebears, or our 2nd century forbears, etc. The more central and important the tradition, perhaps the less that perspective changes, yet even in our own lives the perspectives we personally hold for the most sacred traditions change.

If we do nothing but stare at the traditions that are behind us, we do not move forward. This is not only limiting us from going forward, it does not offer us the growing perspective on the traditions we admire.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
hmm see I think I'd actually put Tom in quadrant 2 on that diagram. I wonder where he'd put himself.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
It's almost the opposite. I think the eating of the Passover lamb is more important than believing in the Passover massacre -- in the sense of tradition being valuable as a way to bring communities together.

Clearly and logically, the substance is really ALL that matters in the long run -- assuming the substance is real. But since I DON'T assume the substance is real, the value lies in the observance of the form.

[ June 25, 2004, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Perhaps some of the traditions Tom is referring to are views of sexual morality and the like. Many of this and the last generation have felt that society would be much better if we cast off the shackles of religion on these issues. The idea is that society is stagnant because of old-fashioned morals. Views about extra-marital sex, abortion, homosexuality, gender roles, etc. Isn't this one of the big areas where today's society differs from centuries past?
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
No wonder we completely disagree about the meaning/value of tradition. I'm opposite of you, Tom -- I believe that changes can be made with the rituals/rites without losing much, as long as you stay true to the meaning behind it. But if you forget the meaning behind it, then it becomes empt and shallow, and can be discarded without losing much.

[ June 25, 2004, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Oh, I believe that changes can be made to the form, too, as long as the OBSERVANCE continues. I don't think the form or the substance matter as much as the gathering.
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
Jacare, the tradition does change.

Every year your family gathers around the Christmas Tree, yet which tree, and the number of people in your family, and the presents passed around, all change.

It is tradition for you children to go to college, but do you have a traditional college they go to? And what happens when they have already gone to college? The tradition dies.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

I don't think tradition can me thought of that way, for example, up until recently tradition has dictated women having a lower position in society, it is the breaking of that tradition that moved the woman's movement.

---

I missed this before. Not all traditions should be maintained, nor are all traditions that should not be maintained necessarily bad in the time they were created in. But that's a very different thing than saying traditionalism (of which I'm still not exactly sure of the definition) is bad.

Of course, Tom has state an assumption which I do not agree, that now is the best time ever. In one sense, that's true, since this time has me. But in a larger sense, we're just trying on different ways of hurting each other than we used to in the past.

quote:

---

From where I stand, it appears that most of the value of any tradition is in the execution of the form, NOT the substance of the tradition itself, as the concrete benefits of the tradition generally revolve around its communal observance more than what it happens to mean.

---

quote:

---

And are we agreed, however, that we do not want to permanently remain on that platform?

---

quote:

---

It's almost the opposite. I think the eating of the Passover lamb is more important than believing in the Passover massacre

---

And yet I have never eaten a Paschal lamb.

[edit: edits and people posting too quickly!]

[ June 25, 2004, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
"It's almost the opposite. I think the eating of the Passover lamb is more important than believing in the Passover massacre -- in the sense of tradition being valuable as a way to bring communities together."

I disagree. While the eating of the Passover is important, I would place things like the escape from destruction/march to freedom as much more central to the Jewish identity. The ritual serves to bring remembrance of those important events.

Edit: I hope I'm not way off base here.

[ June 25, 2004, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
 

---

Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
 

quote:

---

Jacare, the tradition does change.

Every year your family gathers around the Christmas Tree, yet which tree, and the number of people in your family, and the presents passed around, all change.

It is tradition for you children to go to college, but do you have a traditional college they go to? And what happens when they have already gone to college? The tradition dies.

---

quote:

---

"It's almost the opposite. I think the eating of the Passover lamb is more important than believing in the Passover massacre -- in the sense of tradition being valuable as a way to bring communities together."

I disagree. While the eating of the Passover is important, I would place things like the escape from destruction/march to freedom as much more central to the Jewish identity. The ritual serves to bring remembrance of those important events.

Edit: I hope I'm not way off base here.

---

quote:

---

"The ritual serves to bring remembrance of those important events."

But I would argue that it is the OBSERVANCE of this event, rather than the event itself, that creates the sense of community. The specifics of the event itself, as long as it still contained memes of persecution and identity, could be completely rewritten.

---

To a slight degree, this is true. However, in my experience, each of the holidays (including all the ones with the general theme, "They tried to kill us, God saved us, let's eat!") has its own purpose and flavor. And I'm not talking recipes for brisket.

Community is an important aspect of the holidays, but far from the main point.

[ June 25, 2004, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Some more thoughts about observance vs. meaning of traditions. We have two Christmas traditions we do each year -- we read Luke 2 and 3 Nephi 1 on Christmas Eve, and on Christmas morning we go out the the Lehi hot springs.

Both of these are observed, and both tie us together in some fashion. I would say that the one with meaning behind it (reading Luke 2 and 3 Nephi 1) bonds us together in a substantly different way than the merely fun tradition of the hot springs.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
The other thing, AFR, is that people can disagree about the "substance" or purpose behind a tradition. Mormons, for example, would argue with you that the reason for specific gender roles is simply to get work done. Consequently, while they oppose the death of that tradition, they would NOT put themselves into group 3 because, from their perspective, the "substance" for that tradition is still meaningful. I would argue, in fact, that many of the people whom we WOULD have considered to be in group 3 would have been able to rationalize their membership in another group based on what they believed to be the reason behind the tradition.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

The specifics of the event itself, as long as it still contained memes of persecution and identity, could be completely rewritten. (Try, say, the holidays of Easter and Christmas.)

---

If the purpose of the tradition was merely the effect in had on the believers, then you might be right. Of course, we don't believe that to be the case.

Vonnegut wrote a tale exploring that concept, however. I'm sure Bokonon will tell you all about it.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Tom, you make a good point. Depending on what you view the substance of a tradition, it will put people in different quadrants.

With gender roles, I, as your stereotypical Mormon feel that there is more than one meaning/reason behind gender role traditions. One is division of work, and the purpose of it has died. Another one is that men and women are fundamentally different. So while I applaud the fact that part of the tradition has died, I would not support it dying completely.

[ June 25, 2004, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Mormons do have a reason for it beyond just "getting the work done". The belief is that men and women are different and are better suited to different tasks. I know this must seem shockingly sexist to many of you.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
MPH, I would say that the substance of the hot springs tradition is to gather yearly with family at some place to appreciate God's gifts directly. So the particular form is not as important to the substance, although your community may began to attach a whole lot of importance to that particular form.

And there's nothing wrong with that - form is important, just not temporally permanant.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Beverly, except for those of us who agree.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
See, if pressed, I'd bet most people would agree with that. But I also think most of them would say these are tendencies, not absolutes, and that individual exceptions don't represent a breakdown of human sexuality.

At least, I hope they would.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
rivka:

quote:

---

"Although I would add that the central theme of Passover is not escape for its own sake, but release from the yoke of slavery, and choosing the yoke of God and Torah."

---

quote:

---

The other thing, AFR, is that people can disagree about the "substance" or purpose behind a tradition. Mormons, for example, would argue with you that the reason for specific gender roles is simply to get work done. Consequently, while they oppose the death of that tradition, they would NOT put themselves into group 3 because, from their perspective, the "substance" for that tradition is still meaningful. I would argue, in fact, that many of the people whom we WOULD have considered to be in group 3 would have been able to rationalize their membership in another group based on what they believed to be the reason behind the tradition.

---

I guess all I can say is that agreeing on the "substance" of the tradition is a very important part of a strong community. It's as much of a passkey as knowing the proper observance of the rituals. People who disagree on the substance of a tradition would tend not to feel like fully accepted members of a community based on that tradition because they do not share that community's beliefs about the past and goals for the future.

I would also say that communities are complex things, and that there are communities within communities within communities. Most of the time one must be inside the community and actively contributing to it to really recognize the subtle differences between like communities.

Edit: Also that forming communities is a very human thing and happens in the LDS church as well as everywhere else. I have a meeting now so I won't be able to respond.

[ June 25, 2004, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Dag, I can't figure out if you are speaking in support or opposition to beverly there. I think I know, but am not positive.

[ June 25, 2004, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Yeah, Dag, I think most of us who acknowledge the differences will gladly admit to exceptions to tendancies. I don't think that any of the Mormon gender role views are so tight that they don't allow for those variations, but I'm sure many would disagree with that. There is a definite emphasis on motherhood for women and the priesthood is only held by men--all men at that (assuming worthiness).

I have the personal belief that in our society the ties between womanhood and motherhood are slowly being weakened to nudge women in a direction that is not compatable with motherhood. (The image of the "warrior woman" comes to mind.) I am also of the personal belief that without motherhood, womenhood just doesn't make sense outside of the sexual.

I am glad that motherhood has come back into "vogue" lately. But sometimes it seems to be put forth as a sort of "hobby" like having a pet, and that feels weird to me.

Edit: Just to clarify, I don't mean that I think all women must be mothers, but I feel that motherhood is a part of woman's nature and it is not healthy to deny it--whether they biologically bear children or not. I don't know if that makes any sense.

[ June 25, 2004, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 

quote:

---

"Haul in the chains! Let the carcase go astern!" The vast tackles have now done their duty. The peeled white body of the beheaded whale flashes like a marble sepulchre; though changed in hue, it has not perceptibly lost anything in bulk. it is still colossal. slowly it floats more and more away, the water round it torn and splashed by the insatiate sharks, and the air above vexed with rapacious flights of screaming fowls, whose beaks are like so many insulting poniards in the whale. The vast white headless phantom floats further and further from the ship, and every rod that it so floats, what seem square roods of sharks and cubic roods of fowls, augment the murderous din. For hours and hours from the almost stationary ship that hideous sight is seen. Beneath the unclouded and mild azure sky, upon the fair face of the pleasant sea, wafted by the joyous breezes, that great mass of death floats on and on, till lost in infinite perspectives.

There's a most doleful and most mocking funeral! The sea-vultures all in pious mourning, the air-sharks all punctiliously in black or speckled. In life but few of them would have helped the whale, I ween, if peradventure he had needed it; but upon the banquet of his funeral they most piously do pounce. Oh, horrible vultureism of earth! from which not the mightiest whale is free.

Nor is this the end. Desecrated as the body is, a vengeful ghost survives and hovers over it to scare. Espied by some timid man-of-war or blundering discovery-vessel from afar, when the distance obscuring the swarming fowls, nevertheless still shows the white mass floating in the sun, and the white spray heaving high against it; straightway the whale's unharming corpse, with trembling fingers is set down in the log -- shoals, rocks, and breakers hereabouts: beware! And for years afterwards, perhaps, ships shun the place; leaping over it as silly sheep leap over a vacuum, because their leader originally leaped there when a stick was held. There's your law of precedents; there's your utility of traditions; there's the story of your obstinate survival of old beliefs never bottomed on the earth, and now not even hovering in the air! There's orthodoxy!

Thus, while in life the great whale's body may have been a real terror to his foes, in his death his ghost becomes a powerless panic to a world.

-Melville

---

 

---

Posted by BebeChouette (Member # 4991) on :
 
Tom’s description of the progress of motion in robotics reminded me of a related analogy. On of my colleagues was training neural nets to sample large parameter spaces in search of the best solution to a mathematical problem. He found that when he performed the search outright the n. nets would get stuck in a local maximum and stay there. By adding a little noise to the feedback that the n. nets received he induced the n. nets to sample search space around the local maximum and eventually work their way to a better solution. Additional ramping up of the noise received by the nets sped up their progress to a point, but adding to much noise made them start jumping all around and abandoning every solution that they came to, abandoning even the known global maximum. The moral my colleague gave to his story was that a scientist, in order to produce good work, must be slightly mad but not too mad.

[ June 25, 2004, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: BebeChouette ]
 

---

Posted by Chaz_King (Member # 3184) on :
 
Do you ever wonder if perhaps the traditionalists and the "new idealist" types tend to create the wobble and therefore progress?

The idealist says "THIS IS GREAT", the traditionalist in turn says, "But the way it works now is fine, why change it?", and then as the two work against each other there is usually some kind of compromise along the way allows for progress without to big of a stumble.

We will never be able to see all of the consequences of our actions, and if we tried to figure out those consequences without taking at least some risk, nothing would ever get accomplished. So there will inevitably be stumbling points where we held on to our traditons too tightly or embraced new ideas but we missed a major consequence somewhere along the way.

So if you take that and look at it, what I am really wary of is a society that is leaned heavily towards embracing one way over another. It skews the balance, and allows for stagnation, and fear of new ideas, or it will lead to leaps of change that will eventually collapse due to the lack of quality testing.

It seems to me that both of the types of people you mentioned are a necessity in society as long as there is some sort of balance. Or you can just have tons of people who sit in the middle and ignore the extremists thus forcing the extremists to compromise at least a little to see part of the ideas come to fruition .
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Balance Daniel-son!
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
That has a ring of truth in it, Chaz. I think that some people have a natural desire for stability, while others have a natural desire for change. Neither is good in itself, neither is bad in itself.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Dag, I can't figure out if you are speaking in support or opposition to beverly there. I think I know, but am not positive.

---

quote:

---

beverly wrote: Mormons do have a reason for it beyond just "getting the work done". The belief is that men and women are different and are better suited to different tasks. I know this must seem shockingly sexist to many of you.

---

quote:

---

Dagonee responded to beverly: See, if pressed, I'd bet most people would agree with that [insert by JNSB: referring to the italicized portion above, I think] . But I also think most of them would say these are tendencies, not absolutes, and that individual exceptions don't represent a breakdown of human sexuality.

At least, I hope they would.

---

quote:

---

beverly wrote: I have the personal belief that in our society the ties between womanhood and motherhood are slowly being weakened to nudge women in a direction that is not compatable with motherhood. (The image of the "warrior woman" comes to mind.) I am also of the personal belief that without motherhood, womenhood just doesn't make sense outside of the sexual.

and she also wrote:Edit: Just to clarify, I don't mean that I think all women must be mothers, but I feel that motherhood is a part of woman's nature and it is not healthy to deny it--whether they biologically bear children or not. I don't know if that makes any sense.

---

Shoot! It's really hard to argue this because you inserted that "personal belief" part in there. I just want to comment that fatherhood has also been weakened over time and that these things tend to cycle between times of strength and weakness. Also, that there are many women who don't want to be defined greatly by their sex or limited in their options by their sex.
 

---

Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
Look at the Jewish people...Their traditions have changed little over the passage of time.

Quite contrary to tradition, militant Zionists have taken over the American Orthodox branch. Even has a new doctrine -- AntiZionism is antiSemiticism -- which is an unoriginal takeoff on a UNResolution condemning Israeli racism. At the time, not only were Israel-born Muslims discriminated against, but Semitic Jews were allowed neither the vote nor decent education, nor even decent healthcare and the normal social services available to EuropeanJews in Israel.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Yeah, by most people's standards, I'm pretty sexist. Heck, I not only believe in the biological differences between men and women (the different effects that testosterone and female hormones have on the brain) I actually believe that our eternal *spirits* have gender. Can't get much more sexist than that.

Oh, about the comment on priestesses being competent, I don't want to suggest that I don't think women would be competent in leading a group. *looks around for Dana* Being better suited to a task does not necessarily equal competency. I am thinking more along the lines of it bringing out the best in that person's nature, bringing them the most satisfaction and fulfillment and other hard to define "touchy feely" sort of things.

And BTW, I am all for equal pay and work opportunities for men and women. But I reject the idea that women have to be "just like men" to be taken seriously or be fulfilled.

[ June 25, 2004, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
aspectre, you are showing your ignorance. There does not exist a cohesive group, "the American Orthodox branch." American Orthodoxy is a loose conglomeration of many smaller groups. Some are indeed strongly Zionist, some moderately so, some fairly neutral, and some are against the existence of a secular Israeli state altogether. (And within each group, there are many many opinions as well.)

Moreover, whether being staunchly Zionist is in line with tradition and the Law is debated within Orthodox Judaism -- nice that YOU have the answer.

Also, your representations of the positions of so-called "militant Zionists" are inaccurate propaganda.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

I don't know of any irrefutable evidence that says that biologically men or women are superior in certain mental tasks.

---

I don't think anyone asserted these differences were strictly biological.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Dag... Well Vonnegut's take is a bit more layered in earnestness (or more likely irony).

Yes, Bokononism is from the first page of it's "scripture" professed to be false (but the strict definition of "foma" is "harmless half-truths", and the exhortation is "Live by the foma that makes you strong and happy and free!"). Bokononism is based on the idea that involving people of a community in a system larger than themselves creates happiness out of togetherness. It doesn't matter if the community is based on blatant falsehoods; by providing a structure, particularly with conflicting Good and Evil ("Dynamic Tension", as it's put in the novel), the people will take on the necessary roles, and will be happier for it, even if it doesn't provide tangible benefit to themselves.

After all, after Bokonon and McCabe (Bokonon's cohort/eventual enemy) the people of San Lorenzo were no better off in any visible way than before. They were still a poor, uneducated, disease-ridden lot, stuck on an island with no exploitable resources, and controlled by forces much stronger than they were. But with a backdrop of the "battle" of religion (GOOD) vs. government (EVIL), they were provided a structure within which they were able to have small joys, triumphs and happiness.

So where is the real irony in all this? Well, in the book, every prediction in those books of "foma" called the Books of Bokonon turned out to be true!

Dagonee, is that good enough for you?

-Bok
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Excellent, thought-provoking thread.

I think the analogy works much more simply if you think of one camp as a pull to the left and one as a pull to the right, without the robotics element.

In particular, you lost me with extenting the analogy to those who try to steer society basically pulling it off balance. You say you're laissez-faire about the future of the human race, but if this game is a metaphor, without guidance the guy only makes it about 3 meters. In any case, I'm not sure I really believe that about you. You advocate for directions you believe society should move inl isn't that guidance? Or do you feel that you are not advocating for any particular direction, but simply against some attempt at guidance or holding back. If so, I'm not sure I agree . . . it presupposes that the direction you favor is the direction society would naturally follow if left unbound and unguided, and not simply one choice from among many.

(I don't think I'm adding anything here, though . . . just rambling.)

-o-

FWIW, I agree with JNSB regarding gender roles, but not with the words Bev puts in our mouths. I don't find it sexist that you believe souls have genders. I simply think these areas you believe different genders are intrinsically more often suited for are societally constructed.

-o-

I apologize for what I am about to do . . .

quote:

---

Think of the move "Whale Rider". The girl kept the traditions as best as she could. The only way she could do that was by breaking them. She broke one of the traditions (women cannot lead) in order to keep the rest of them alive.

The breaking of individual traditions can be a fine thing, but I think something is really lost when you try to abandon all tradition.

---

quote:

---

Dagonee wrote: quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know of any irrefutable evidence that says that biologically men or women are superior in certain mental tasks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think anyone asserted these differences were strictly biological.

Dagonee

---

quote:

---

Dagonee, is that good enough for you?

---

quote:

---

TomDavidson wrote: I'm laissez-faire about the human race in general.

---

I dislike this statement. But maybe I'm not sure what it means. Here's what I think it means: "I don't need to be involved with anything concerning the fate of the human race - it will self-correct itself."

Here's why I think that's the wrong approach. I think there's certain things just about everyone can agree on. A few of these are the sanctity of human life (excluding abortion and euthanasia which are controversial), education for all, and medical care for all. These things will not happen without the dedication and perserverance of people who are deeply concerned about the human race in general, regardless of race, ethnicity, age and gender. I think there are plenty of good, smart people who are born into bad situations through no fault of their own. If I can help them, or steer the human race in a direction that can do that without causing unwanted side effects, should I really be "hands off" about it?

Two areas in the US that I can think of are women's rights and civil rights. Not much would have been accomplished if certain people, those involved in causing the dramatic changes in these areas, had been laissez-faire about it. We would have a much greater problem with AIDS if concerned people didn't do something about it in countries that are far away and have little or nothing to do with us. I think these changes can affect the human race.

I understand the feeling of there being so many self-correcting mechanisms (the gyroscopes Tom referred to, I believe) that you don't have to do anything. I just think that humans who care about the human race are part of the self-correcting mechanisms that keep the robot upright. We're already part of the human race. It's our obligation to guide it in a direction that will benefit the lives of humans, especially in those areas we can all agree upon but haven't yet had the political will to accomplish.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
I grok where you are coming from, bev. I can agree to disagree on gender roles and not consider you sexist because you hold a different belief on that point. On the other hand, there have been so many times when somebody says something suggesting that men and women are different or have different strengths and weaknesses . . . and that therefore, women or men are not fit to perform a given role, or should be prevented for performing that role, on the basis of what appears to be a general truism.

And I realize that I'm on thin ice here, because this is precisely what your Church does--as did my former Church. But, on an institutional level at least, that's where I believe the hazy line between different beliefs held in mutual respect and sexism lies. (Do you have to believe something because you belong to religion X, or do you belong to religion X because you believe something? I wonder what anne kate's beliefs are on women and the priesthood.)

And so, while I think I share JNSB's definition of sexist, I can see where conflict may be inevitable . . . I don't consider your belief to be sexist, but the inevitable conclusion of it . . . so, um, can I love the sinner but hate the sin, here?


 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Huh, I guess I can see where you are coming from on that. People look at my claim that men and women are fundamentally different as limiting factors and therefore claiming that they are in some way inferior to the other. Interesting.

Well, here is an example of my point of view: I think that men are naturally more aggressive than women, due to the effects of testosterone. I think that women are not so naturally aggressive and that that is not a bad thing. In fact, I think it is a good thing--but that gets into spiritual matters.

Now, men tend to enjoy the idea of "aggressive women". How often do I hear men talk about how cool it is when some chick could kick their butt? So because it is enjoyed, we see a fair amount of the "aggressive woman" image being portrayed in the media or whatnot. I think that more and more of the rising generation of girls are buying into that image and trying to mold themselves to it. I don't think that is a good thing, personally.

It is not that I don't think women would be "good at" being aggressive that way, but I think it in general detracts from what comes more naturally to females and will bring more lasting satisfaction. I don't know if that is perceived as being sexist or not.

As for my church being sexist.... I'm not sure that I really think it is. There is a definite sense of gender role, but I don't think it is to the point of being sexist. I guess other people look at it that way though. I know it bothers some, even within the church membership. It has never bothered me though.
 

---