The interrogative hardly presumes knowledge a priori.  The questions may 
make more sense than the answers?  I wonder just how many definitions we 
might find for "open minded?" It may mean one thing to one individual and 
something entirely different, even contradictory, to another.  I say this 
NOT IN CRITICISM, but rather in curiosity. I became interested in these 
discussions because I noticed how language was being exploited; words and 
meanings are even bastardized in politics and political discussion.  Not 
just idiomatically, but cleverly and often with duplicity.  Charles Pierce, 
an odd fellow, wrote an article, I believe in the "Scientific Monthly, 
January 1898.  No, I did not read the original regardless of what my kids 
say : - )  Forgive me if I am remiss on the details.  The title of the 
article was "How to Make Our Ideas Clear." Wendell Johnson, later wrote in 
his essay "You Can't Write Writing," that clarity is the prerequisite to 
validity.  It is said anecdotally that in Pavlov's laboratory, I cannot 
attest to its accuracy, that the use of a casual term to describe an 
observation was cause for a fine.  I wonder how often we are understood or 
misunderstood because of how we use language.  Have fun : - ))



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Apptech" <apptech@paradise.net.nz>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <piclist@mit.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 6:32 AM
Subject: Re: [OT]politics - I shouldn't be posting it anyway but


>>>What is open-minded?
>
>>I wrote a nice explanation.  Saw it was BS and erased it
>>for this better
>> answer.
>
>> No idea.
>
> That's a good start. But you may find you know less about it
> than you think.
> :-)
>
> That's meant to be funny. Meant ... :-)
>
> FWIW, open-mindedness nowadays extends to somewhere short of
> tolerating the severely intolerant. People with a strongly
> held position, regardless of whether it impacts others, must
> not be allowed to hold their foul ideas, let alone have the
> right to propagate them. I find this reasonably
> understandable, but interesting nonetheless.
>
> There's an interesting corollary to that. If you seek to
> alter the norm by being intolerant and seeking to persuade
> others to be intolerant as well, then it's not tolerated. So
> you succeed at increasing intolerance levels, but not of the
> sort you are targeting. However, if you seek to alter
> society by preaching" tolerance of all views, including
> those you espouse then you are tolerated, up to a point*. At
> that stage if you can master 'market forces' you are on a
> roll. * re 'up to a point' - there are the 'dark watchers'
> who don't care what you do or don't tolerate as long as you
> don't rock their boat. They may be organised crime,
> organised wealth or organised government and maybe a few
> more, or a combination thereof. Especially a combination
> thereof. If your market managing tolerance impinges on their
> patch excessively it will not be tolerated. eg All 3 mixed
> (arguably) against "FG / FD is good" in er, you know where.
> And the ICTHUS crowd in many countries.
>
>
>
> Russell
>
>
> -- 
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist