Just an idiot like everyone else.
- "Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." -- Proverbs 16:18
- Newton's Third Law: "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction."
- I am not the PrimeMover; ergo, I am a pawn.
- Kansas: If I claim to be a wise man, well, it surely means that I don't know.
Every wonder why arrogance and ignorance sound similar?
No, but I can tell you. It's because they both have a centrally located long "o" sound, and share the "ance" suffix. In other words, coincidence. Ignorance is based on knowing (gno) while arrogance is based on asking (reg). Different roots, sorry.
Literally sound similar as in rhyme. Yes, it is a coincidence. Thanks for your clarification. It has been my observation that arrogance is a symptom of ignorance. In a sense, arrogance is
derived from ignorance.
In a sense my bare bummy (?) is fully clothed. Is that the same sense in which arrogance is derived from ignorance? I think so. Gee I'm glad you have a good sense of humor though.
- Lucy: Don't you know sarcasm when you hear it? (Charlie had just been sarcastic in response to Lucy's sarcasm)
Exactly! A bare fanny of ignorance that put on a cloak of arrogance. Titanic, as a case in point. Many examples of ignorant arrogance here. Can anyone figure out the moral? Romance, my butt! An honorable man gave his life for an ignorant slut who just happened to score the jewel.
For those who like loops, please see Proverbs 16:18 above. Pride
and a haughty spirit
- ignorant arrogance.
Is there anyone
who doesn't read, analyze, organize, abstract, design, write, build, implement, test and debug? Perhaps... but the point is that I can safely make the claim that I can do such and such with x level of skill versus I am an _____... So limiting... and for what purpose? Self-Promotion? Not-My-Job?
IMHO, the status quo, the CEO and HR can all go fly a kite. Job classifications and departmentalization remind me of feudalism or something even more barbaric. See if this isn't a better approach: "What are we trying to do here?" "Who can do what?" "Who wants to do what?" "Who can see something that needs to be done and does it without having to be told?" "Let's get busy and just do it!" Cooperation will always get you there faster than competition. You might say that this reeks of socialism or communism... But so what? Grow up! How else are we going to establish the United Federation of Planets? Not to say that we can't work within a hierarchy, but rub out some of the silly lines drawn in the sand, please.
Technically, Kirk's response would be incorrect... Spock's 'revival' served the needs of many a trekky who need yet another StarTrek fix.
- Spock: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
- Kirk: Sometimes, the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.
- JustAnIdiot: Not very often, Kirk. Let Spock handle the logic.
- Scotty: Don't ask me. I'm not JustAnIdiot.
- Bones: Spock?! Do something!
Ah, confluence of arguments about arrogance and ignorance and the rhetorical use of feudalism as an self-evidently dysfunctional system. Can't stop myself... Try a Deja search for 'friedman feudalism population'. The gist of the argument there is that the population of Europe tripled under feudalism, growing faster than it ever had before. That seems like strong suggestive evidence that despite what "everyone knows", feudalism was actually less dysfunctional than e.g. central administration by the Roman Empire, and that therefore, using feudalism as an example of something Obviously Beneath Contempt (compared to Sensible systems like empires!) is arrogantly ignorant. (Of course, things like new agricultural tech making new land suitable for cultivation make this a less than airtight argument. But it's still a pretty surprising factoid given the usual impression of the "Dark Ages". There's also a possibly interesting connection to some of the classic disputes about software planning, where imposing strong hierarchical authority doesn't necessarily bring you the benefits that "everyone knows" it should.)
Amen! Feudalism was based strongly on a contract: in exchange for this land, I will serve you for X days of military service, and send you Y% of the crops grown on it, and provide you with Z men for the army. Very modern, very empowering - there were even cases where overlords were fought by those under them who had other feudal relationships with other overlords.
I was not talking Hammurabi here (yes, I realize he was a ruler of Babylon). I was referring to the constant warfare due to departmentalization (autonomous competitive states). As far as a hierarchy is concerned, ... look to the nearest oak tree and examine its structure. It does not even remotely resemble the Computer Science 'tree'.
For the record, Europe's population growth had nothing to do with feudalism per se
, and contractual obligation were limited to a very small and wealthy group. It is hardly surprising that they should have been empowered once central control broke down, and historically one finds feudal or feudal-ish systems arising whenever that happens. The system may have worked better than Rome's, though that would take some proving, but it had a massively reduced scope as dictated by the circumstances; once it was possible to do more, the system tended towards autocratic monarchy. And finally, one should distinguish between the early middle ages, those called dark
, and the late, when most of the stuff was happening.
Off topic? You bet. But please don't leave the initial pro-feudal stuff uncountered.
That's a homerun right there, sir.
Sure, feudalism didn't help everyone; but Rome kept slaves. The historical trend towards an autocratic monarchy was not universal, given the Magna Carta, and the Scandinavian tradition of monarch by election. [There was not much actual difference between late slavery and early serfdom. Otherwise, I agree on these points; I simply don't think a fair analysis can call feudalism modern, empowering, or really beneficial save perhaps over military anarchy.]
Ok, some confusion here... I don't propose a New Roman Empire nor a monarchy. A revolution, perhaps, though it would surely be peaceful. I aim for a new form of government. One that is programmable. [Forget where I saw it in Wiki that web pages are links between people] No, I wouldn't replace a judge with a machine (though I might require thorough testing of the judge's understanding of the Bible, a small prerequiste considering its age - we have many people to thank for bringing such incredibly old knowledge into the future for us).
[Copied from NoProcess
; maybe a refactoring is in order:] (It is a good point. Good points tend to proliferate themselves into multiple domains).
There are some companies where there are no org charts or titles given to anyone, supposedly because this keeps the organization flexible and avoids political games. In reality, such a company has a hidden, byzantine organization that requires all of its members to be skilled politicians to get anything done, and the organization changes depending upon who happens to be in the office at the time. The typical result is that it provides the company's owner absolute authority over everything, as no authority has been officially delegated to anyone else. -- KrisJohnson
Refactor? I think we have hashed out the JustAnIdiot concept well as the page stands.
Hey! What happened to me winning the vacation home in Florida?
Oh, uh, did we say that? We meant you win the home version of our Wiki game, which you can play in Florida, if you happen to live there.
... (24 hours later)
Ok, so we aren't just idiots. I apologize to those who took offense at my attempt at satire.
Maybe a leap, but what if we take as a given that my key points are valid? Our current society is most certainly BassAckwards?
in a major way. Unfortunately, many people have given up on change and growth. We can make improvements only by trying
. Surely, it is worth the cost to make tomorrow a better place. In that spirit, I wrote a simple song that may seem juvenile to some, yet it still inspires me: Make The Change (See GeraldLindsly
). Peace. --gl
Where to from here?