From: kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrm 762-6417)
Newsgroups: pdx.general,pdx.telecom,pnw.general,alt.bbs.ads
Subject: Plea for Evil (was Re: Call Banished CPU for *REAL* Freedom of Speech!)
Summary: We are *all* slaves of the Mighty Meme!
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:58:27 GMT
Organization: Cores 'R Us

In article <1992Apr13.222433.21316@techbook.com> gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane) writes:
>burt@techbook.com (Burt Keeble) writes:
>
>>In article <29E90622.4D69@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>>>According to burt@techbook.com (Burt Keeble):
>>>>According to chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg):
>>>>>There isn't any "censorship" involved here.
>>>>
>>>>You're right, Chip.  It's *discrimination*.
>>>
>>>Absolutely agreed, Burt.
>>>
>>>And when we no longer have the right to discriminate good from bad --
>>>to support the former and, just as important, _not_ to support the
>>>latter -- then it's time for me to find another country to live in.
>>>-- 
>>>Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
>>>      "Informix 4GL is not a 4G, and it's barely an L."  -- John Tombs
>
>>You're right again Chip.  And having read a few of B-cpu's text files,
>>I'm reversing my position regarding BITS' discrimination.  I guess I
>>don't support free speech when it champions anarchy, racism, malicious
>>mischief, and several other social ills.  I wanted to be open minded,
>>but in this case, that would be the same as injecting myself with
>>rabies.  8-(.
>
>>-burt (a week older, but a century wiser).
>
>It's always a treat -- unfortunately a rare one -- to see someone do a
>little research and change his mind.  Good work.
>

Burt -- are you changing your position to a pro-censorship one after
perusing the contents of b-cpu?

I suspect that we need examples of real, live evil in the world, if for
no other reason than that people need to see both evil and good to get some
idea of how to live.  In other words, how do people learn to do good without
learning what good is, what evil is, when are they different, when are they
the same, etc., etc.?  One thing pretty certain now is that verbal/written
teachings A: don't work very well; and B: the authors/editors of such texts
don't know very much about the topic themselves, except that writing such
texts is a superb cover for one's own activities.  Lots of people don't seem
to have learned what's good or what's evil, or much about how to cope with the
situation at all.  I say let's keep the evil (if evil there be), and subject
it to intense scrutiny.  We need to learn more about ourselves.

For one thing, we could try to find out why we humans tend to adopt belief
systems that contain "back doors" that contradict basic tenets of the said
belief system...Much of the pro-censorship argument seems to be of this kind
where the pro-censorship person avows a belief in free speech, but then
imposes a limit of some kind where past the limit, the *opposite* position is
held.

Most people are born with something called "empathic distress response" (EDR).
It seems to be "wired in" to most people, and seems to keep most of us from
wantonly hurting other people to get what we want.  I think that it acts
as a negative feedback element in our relations in others -- we interact,
we observe the interaction, we get the EDR which tells us to back off.
This is not to discount cultural and other influences.  It has been speculated
that the "best" torturers might be, not the brutally insensitive (per
stereotype) but the people with the most finely tuned EDR's (horrible
thought!).  See Gene Wolfe's "Shadow of the Torturer".

It may be that the most dramatic atrocities are result of the combination of
things like adrenalin, endorphins, EDR, etc. synergistically
potentiated to produce an exalted state like the ones berserkers, etc get in.
It seems plausible that people could become junkies for this state -- i. e.
seek to reach it again, etc.  A similar effect might be present in mobs and
other human groupings  (I'm *not* arguing for diminished individual
responsibility here, i. e. I don't think it's a valid defense to claim that
one was in this state when being held accountable for one's acts).

It is conjectured that Ted Bundy *lacked* this facility, as do most
"sociopaths".  It appears that if present, it can be disabled or overridden
by external physical conditions, such as starvation, desperation, or internal
ones, like greed, psychopathy, etc.  I think it's a pity we killed Ted.  I
think this society could well have learned much more from keeping him alive
(even physically comfortable if need be).  He should have at least had the
choice of death or making himself available for such research as may appear to
be most fruitful along such lines, such research not to result in future parole.
If he chose, he would then get fitted up with a screw-top skull and an IV, and
we would effectively change his name to /dev/Ted/* ...

The science fiction author Jack Vance explores similar themes in his writings.
See "Emphyrio" and "The Palace of Love" for views from widely different
directions.  Both are paperback and can be found in used book stores.

Holocaust Revisionism is a ghastly, apalling idea; one must look on in
horror that people can deny the reality of the ovens, SonderKommandos, gas
chambers, etc.  I say we need this for a *wide* variety of reasons (really,
as many reasons as there are people in the human race, although I'll only
give 2): for the frisson of grue that sweeps down our spines as we contemplate
the magnitude of what has been done, and the fact that trying to deny the
reality is of *intrinsic interest*, i. e., worthy of study in its own right.

We need no secrets, especially ones that are kept from those we presume
to be too "innocent", too "pure" and uncorrupted to know such beliefs
without damage to their innocence.  There are no such things as innately
dangerous ideas, per se.  Acting as if there *were*, however, *is* innately
dangerous.

As near as I can tell, attempts to *protect the innocent* practically always
conspire to produce **exactly the opposite effect**.  Let's not forget that
those ones, who we call "innocent", are busily *observing*, and *learning*
from *all* that we do, including our attempts to protect them from ourselves.
There is probably no more sophisticated *learning machine* that a child.
Those who believe that such logic is too sophisticated for "innocents" to
conceive/perceive are doomed to repeat history and to reproduce the
conditions they exclaim against in (faked?) horror, namely themselves
and their self-perceived wretched existence.

Not to put too fine a point on the matter, children raised in an atmosphere
of "innocence", where they are "protected" from "evil" influences, often
grow up to become adults obsessed with said evils, thus reproducing their
parents.  Owing to the great diversity of human beings, this may manifest
itself as with Ted Bundy, or in more mundane forms such as the desire to
regulate society in ways that assuage guilt and poor self-image.  One might
say that maturity or humanity is attained only when one *unlearns* all of the
bad metaprogramming one gets from society and parents...and survival is
*concealing that* from the rest of the world...and I will admit my lack of
perfection in the latter...

--an ex cathedra pronouncement from the throne of...
  kurt@grogatch.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
Newsgroups: pdx.general,pdx.telecom,pnw.general,alt.bbs.ads