From: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org (ecto-digest) To: ecto-digest@smoe.org Subject: ecto-digest V6 #350 Reply-To: ecto@smoe.org Sender: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk ecto-digest Tuesday, November 21 2000 Volume 06 : Number 350 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: OT: selfishness [Joseph Zitt ] Re: Most terrible covers [Neal Copperman ] Re: Happy Rhodes and Nettwerk [Andrew Fries ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 23:54:08 -0500 From: Joseph Zitt Subject: Re: OT: selfishness On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 11:45:27PM -0500, Paul Blair wrote: > Are you being facetious? In my experience, "selfish" is the expected > reaction to the view that not one cent of tax money should go toward > helping the needy. It's the reaction Bill Gates gets for not > supplying Windows on other than the best terms he can get. Or record > companies, because they only support bands on conditions favorable to > themselves. Or Humana, because it runs hospitals for profit. Etc. I, for one, have not heard the term used against either Gates or the record companies. But then, I've only been paying very close attention to these issues. > > > "I see it--I want it--I'll take it" does not constitute concern for > >> one's own interests. > > > >Yes, it does. It may not be a rational, thought out concern, but it can > >be seen as nothing other than a strict focus on what one wants for > >oneself. > > But that does not make the want to one's interest. One may want > crack cocaine for oneself; that does not make using crack > self-interested. In these cases it's not that there's too much > concern for the self, but not enough of it. I think here, again, we're dealing with conflicting definitions of "self". In common usage, again, "I see it--I want it--I'll take it" is the very essence of selfishness, regardless of how those who for some reason want to aggrandize the term have chosen to rework it. In most situations, people will think of the short-term over the delayed long-term, especially if the short-term goal is extreme sensual gratification. This is whether it is for the self or for some other purpose. That's just humans for you. > >Unfortunately, in the Randian redefinition of selfishness, concern for > >the self is always assumed to be supremely rational, so this aspect of > >the common usage is lost. > > This sounds to me like a stand in favor of letting oneself be > deceived by appearances. Er, what? > A person who avows a goal while > deliberately ignoring the suitability of the means, does not really > have that end in view. A researcher does not reveal concern for the > truth by falsifying data to support a pet theory. A man who claims to > love his girlfriend and chooses to show it by beating her is not in > fact engaged in an expression of love. A man who insists on driving > drunk does not really have his own interests in mind. In whose interest is it for you to be judging whether someone else has his own interests in mind? Again: they do have their own interests in mind, though some interests may outweigh others in either the short or long term. Unless one is positioned directly within another's head, it is difficult to be certain of the entire scope of the other's motivations. > An action has a certain purpose if one takes it with the honest > intent of achieving that goal--not simply if one wishes it would > achieve the goal, while simultaneously evading the knowledge that it > won't. The fact that common usage labels "selfish" those having > little genuine care for their interests is evidence that the usage is > thoughtless, ill-defined and arbitrary. The evolution of most language is thoughtless, ill-defined and arbitrary. That's humans for you. But declaring a new meaning for a word already in common usage, then complaining that others don't mean the same thing by it is, at best, sisyphean (or perhaps sysiphean). I could as easily decide that the word "pager" means "bookmark". But that won't cause people to start reaching for their shelves when they hear a beep. I think the problem here is the focus on the word "selfish", which appears to mean something very different from its common usage, again, in the specialized jargon from which your argument appears to stem. Perhaps in some undetermined future common usage may drift this way, perhaps not. But it seems to be acting as some sort of semantic hot-button here. - -- |> ~The only thing that is not art is inattention~ --- Marcel Duchamp <| | jzitt@metatronpress.com http://www.metatronpress.com/jzitt | | Latest CD: Jerusaklyn http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt | | Comma: Voices of New Music Silence: the John Cage Discussion List | ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 22:15:40 -0800 From: Neal Copperman Subject: Re: Most terrible covers At 10:59 PM -0500 11/20/00, Chuck Davis wrote: > I have to twist the subject to "Most Terrible Covers" here. Heh, great idea. Most covers I have heard are either mediocre or good. I can't think of all that many bad ones. I found that cover of the old Eurythmics song by Marilyn Manson, I think, to be so terrible that it was actually kind of intriguing. And I think the Elektra Rubaiyat collection has the largest number of terrible covers of anything that I own. Granted, it's got some good ones, but one a double disc, I think there are only about 6 exceptional covers, and a lot of really bad ones. neal np: The Cindy Lee Berryhill Workout Tape (which includes Cindy Lee doing the Ramones' I Wanna Be Sedated) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 12:50:19 +1100 From: Andrew Fries Subject: Re: Happy Rhodes and Nettwerk On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, Damon wrote: >unfortunately, i think neil (who is unfortunately no longer on the >list) mentioned a while back that he'd talked about it to some people >there and it didn't seem a likely thing to happen... too bad. :/ Yes, but that doesn't have to be the last word on this matter - attitudes, management, or finance situations can change with time... heck, it might simply depend on who in the company you happen to talk to! I still think Nettwerk would be a natural home for Happy, even if Nettwerk can't see that :) - ------------------------------------------------------ "The Optimist proclaims we live in the best of all possible worlds. The Pessimist fears this is true" - James Branch Cabell - ------ http://www.zip.com.au/~afries/spot.php3 ------- ------------------------------ End of ecto-digest V6 #350 **************************