Re: Controversial Commercial ISP for Remailer?

[Dave Hayes <dave@kachina.jetcafe.org>]

Ray Arachalian writes:
> On Tue, 6 May 1997, Dave Hayes wrote:
> > Igor Chudov writes:
> > > I am interested in your view, Dave.
> > There are only two reasons that I can see your interest serving. 
> > You either wish to support my views or oppose them. Neither case
> > serves your potential enlightement, therefore I shall choose to 
> > not answer.
> A very Zen answer (and quite a slippery one at that.) 

Thank you.

> What if Igor was simply curious as to your views?

Curiosity does not generally have zero attachment to other goals.  If
it did in this case, the information is not useful.

> If not what difference does it make whether he supports or opposes
> your view? 

Moo.

> Why do you care whether or not a person is enlightened by your
> response?

I don't. 

> If you truly are following Zen, then it is not for you to decide
> what will or won't enlighten others since this would mean taking
> responsability for another person's karma.

I neither follow nor lead Zen, but it is interesting to note your
conjugation of "truth" and it's implications. 

> IMHO, your response isn't one of potentially enlightening others, but rather
> fear of sharing your opinion.  

Since it is clear you cannot understand the former, the latter is all
that is open to you to understand. Perhaps that is good enough,
for your purposes. 

> This is two fold.  If you fear he will oppose it, you are seeking
> the approval of others. If you fear he will agree to it, you fear
> that those who oppose his views will oppose yours.

There are many more folds that you have overlooked. 

I may desire him to oppose it, thus seeking negative approval.  

I may desire him to agree to it, thus seeking positive approval.  

I may desire him to neither agree nor oppose it, thus seeking his
enlightenment by my words, which is really seeking positive approval.

I may fear he will neither agree nor oppose it, thus seeking his
lack of enlightenment by my words, which is really seeking negative
approval. 

> You could take the hidden third option and claim privacy, however it
> is too late to do so since you have already shared some commentary -
> and thus this path is closed to you.

No path is closed to me, except by my choice. 

> Your responses so far were to the ethical and moral standards of spamming the
> spammers.  I wasn't interested in such.  I am comfortable with my own morals
> and take responsability for my actions.  However, the point of this paragraph
> is that you have tried to share with us your morals, and thus thrust them
> upon us, later, here, you say you lack the will to share your views with us,
> and thus back out of passing judgement on our hypothetical actions.
> And at this point I am no longer interested in your oppinion on this 
> matter for it is jaded by fear, so please, don't even bother to reply. :)

Notice the way you respond to my sharing: You pass judgement on my
views, thus preventing your own enlightenment. Then you say you lack
the will to be interested in my response, thus becoming guilty of what
you claim I am guilty of.

This was truly a mirrored interchange. I thank you for the opportunity
to witness my self in you. ;-)
------
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org 
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet

A passerby caught Nasrudin prying open the window of his own bedroom from 
the outside in the depths of night. "What are you doing? Locked out?"
"Hush!" came the reply. "They say I walk in my sleep. I am trying to surprise
myself and find out."