Twilight Bark

I was determined to stay out of wisdom-peddling business but the intensity of wrongheadedness in a new topic overcomes my determination. Armenians in Christian lands are already without much of a "shield" by way of religious difference. Doing away with one uniqueness in their tradition is counterproductive. Why not turn the so-called "sore-thumb" into an advantage, another tool in cultural preservation and celebration? Celebrate Christmas twice. Celebrate it first with the rest of the world, and then celebrate it again on the night of January 5. Give gifts to your children twice. Make their Armenianness into something other kids on the block would envy. That's what we did anyway. Isn't it time we shifted away from "do not" (e.g. "don't eat grapes before Asdvadzadzin") to "do" (give extra gifts on Armenian Christmas)?

Thank you, thank you. But now you have the new multi-processor leader Siamanto. And I would like to remind you guys that I won't be contributing so many CPUs in the long term. Maybe 1-2 always on, and a few on-again-off-again ones (which may trip on deadlines). So recruit more people. Take care. TB

Dear Mr. Baliozian, Yerchanig daretarts. May you have happy and productive years. This is as good a time as any to say a few concluding remarks before I wrap up my presence on this board. Yes, I have been among your critics, and I probably said harsh things when criticising the flaws in your thinking. Let me repeat, if not for you, then for the intelligent little crowd here, that the majority of what you write has merit, and should have been obvious to thinking Armenians, however few they may be. But you also have serious deficiencies in your thinking. For instance, you give the example of warlike Byzantine emperors of Armenian background to counteract the idea that the Armenian culture is peace-loving. You don't seem to ask yourself why it was that a warlike leader had to enter the Byzantine hierarchy in order to fulfill his aggressive instincts. Perhaps Armenian culture was too docile for them? Many other points that you make, hardly justified by a rational and cool-headed analysis, basically advocate how pointless it is to be or to remain Armenian, the occasional lip service via a short lamentation to the contrary notwithstanding. Being among the most erudite Armenian scholars, you have the responsibility to think and write more carefully. However, I want you to know that I sympathize with you fully, when I see you insulted for no reason other than a wish to disagree with what you write. Having been called a "wise-ass", a "liar", and being promised to have another disgruntled brute insert a candle into me, just for having the audacity to question a set of beliefs or convictions, it would be hard not to. So, Mr. Baliozian, while I count myself among your critics, I would like to assure you that I am even harder on myself. And I certainly hope that criticizing you or what you write does not necessarily mean that the critique is a self-absorbed hoodlum that thinks of himself as a genius. Lucky is the writer whose only critics are such. Take care, and good luck in navigating the maze of thoughts. TB

Well, it's not that I am convinved. It's in the "what the heck, it's harmless enough, let's see where it goes" department. It seems rather unlikely that you can gather the 120 or so CPUs to have a chance to get into the top 100 high-visibility groups. Anyway, I would like to support any Armenian activity that goes beyond the mundane and is concerned with "higher" and non-utilitarian concepts, be it a reasoned assessment of the universe or contributing to science just for the heck of it. We have barely survived either because or in spite of our endorsement of the mundane and the practical to the almost-complete exclusion of intellectual risk-taking. However, if we are to thrive in the future, we need to integrate a good dose of intellectual adventure and simple altruism into our culture and identity. So the apparent paradox is that a certain amount of non-utilitarian strain of of thought has tremendous utilitarian value collectively. See the thread http://hyeforum.com/index.php?showtopic=4623 As for what I proposed, there seems to be a deafening silence, implying a resounding vote of NO. That's alright. Perhaps somebody somehere else will initiate it some other time. I am sure stranger things have happened. Bye for now. I'll keep the folding thing running on a few PCs for now, and 1-2 in the long term. Good luck.

I wish there was a telethon for building the information highways, instead of the asphalt ones. So much opportunity is being missed, and years are passing. Oh well, we should contribute anyway.

Hey Sip, you still haven't explained what you meant by "counter-productive" above, and you didn't comment on the possibilities I came up with. Could you explain your hesitation? And I don't mean I necessarily disagree with it, but I would like to know what you had in mind.

Indeed, when there are competing issues as in this one, it is hard to crystallize a simple position. Have you chosen it as a case-study, and do you need to take a clear-cut position? The family is clearly not interested in toughing it out in Armenia, or preserving their heritage; they seem motivated solely by improving their living conditions. As such, a concerned Armenian, as an Armenian, need not do anything more than shrug his/her shoulders, perhaps wish them well, and move on; because they are unlikely to stay Armenian unless the "what's in it for me?" question is answered profitably and in the materialistic sense. However, to a neutral observer, while some of their moral values appear questionable to say the least, they get high marks for being enterprising, both in the way they got out of Armenia, and the way they managed to gain the sympathy of the normally xenophobic (or at least uninterested) small-town folk and mobilized them. Speaking from an Armenian perspective, I would choose the road of benign neglect. That is, I wouldn't invest any capital (emotional or otherwise) in them, although I would not wish them to suffer. I don't know whether this qualifies as a "position".

If true, this is quite troubling. But you can't say this, profess ignorance, and profess humility at the same time. If you think that I believe in definite falsehood then you are sure that God doesn't exist, that mysticism is lunacy, etc... This is logic to me. What i said is not equivalent to stating that you believe in definite falsehood. But that proves my point. Your understanding of what constitutes "logical" is different from mine. How much more accomodating can I be? Oh but that's what they were, and that how they are below. But that's alright as long as you find the restraint to end this discussion in a friendly way. Soon. A few words on arrogance. There are times when it is justified but rude, there are times when it is justified and deserved by the receiving end, and there are times when it is simply useful as a communication "device" (and of course there are times when it is unjustified, useless, and rude all at the same time). If you want to match a perceived arrogance, that's up to you. I never claimed that you were hallucinating, insane, deranged, or other things that you are implying. If I sound arrogant, that is because I have confidence in the logic of what I say. And if I have been arrogant unjustifiably, ascribe it to my being imperfect. But then, I never claimed to touch the divine. Which brings me to the subject of arrogance on your part, but I'll drop it here. Life is calling. I am done, whether you are or not. And I still hope that we are on friendly terms in other subjects that are perhaps not so dear to you.

Argh. Sasun. I am not "trying to win an argument". I thought we were having a discussion, and not a "who can piss farther" race. We can continue this discussion until the cows come home, and we both would still think that the other is not being logical. Why bother? Just drop it, and remain friendly. Mysticism probably can accomodate such a thing, I trust. <_<

Dear Sasun, Thanks for taking the time to write a lengthy reply. Unfortunately, you have not addressed any of my statements or questions in a way that fits my definition of "logical". Clearly, we have differing understandings of what constitutes a "logical" argument. I respect the fact that you have your beliefs, and you certainly are entitled to them. I am not trying to change them, except for one. I wouldn't want you to believe that you have logical answers to the issues I raised. And that's alright, lack of answers implies objective uncertainty, not definite falsehood. I respectfully wish to be done with this subject, if you don't mind. Best, TB

Then your idea of God is not amenable to discussion. You define its nature, and then decide if you believe in its existence. That's fine, you either believe it "blindly", or you don't. On the other hand, more philosophically, the only observable result of "God" is its creation. And that's my point of departure, and my only "constraint" on characterizing such a being. Other embellishments, such as "perfection", "loving", "caring", etc. are not implied by what we know. Furthermore, we also don't know whether the cause of existence is a self-aware being or a simple, fundamental principle.

Are you saying that the creatures I simulate in a computer are indistinguishable from me? Surely you don't mean that. There is nothing observable suggesting that the relationship between us critters and the proposed creator, omnipotent God is any different. To the "created" critters the creator is omnipotent, but they have no idea about its nature, they certainly are not indistinguishable from him, and they have no idea if the creator is "perfect", a nice guy, a nerd, a jerk, or simply bored or even dead and gone. The only thing we can know about the creator is by picking through his design. And that is a very limited, imperfect tool to the point of uselessness. Anyway, again, the relationship between a "simulator" and "the simulated" does not in any way require "perfection" on the simulator's part, just the right "capability", even in the eyes of "the simulated". Substitute the verb "create" with "simulate", and you have a "perfect" analogy.

I have my own assessment of Mr. B as well, but that has nothing to do with whether the mystics communicate with God. Ditto about the mystic thread in Greek philosophy. When the ancient Greeks came up with a durable idea, it had nothing to do with mysticism per se, regardless of its possible inspiration. What has endured the test of time is based on solid reasoning.

You are trying to drag the issue to the emptiness and meaninglessness of materialism. Good try, but no cigar. That's not the issue at all. Mysticism is not the only alternative to dumb materialism. And I bet all those ordinary folk voted for Bush. Maybe you should change whom you hang out with. And what is it that those writers "experienced" anyway?

Your attempt at sarcasm (we're still on this?) notwithstanding, the fatal flaw in the analogy you are trying to make is that thinkers have shaped today's world in very tangible ways. The hard-working slobs that are producing the "stuff" are living and working in a conceptual and physical landscape whose blueprints owe their existence not to people wielding guns, or going "ummm", but serious thinkers, philosophers and scientists. But all that is beside the point. Even if each and every writer, thinker, scientist, and engineer that ever lived on the planet were a b.s. artist, that would not change anything about the original claim that what is experienced by mystics is a psychological state and has nothing to do with fundamental truths. I cast it as an uncertainty, and Mr. B cast it as a more acidic (or "sarcastic" as you perceived it) and unequivocal pseudo-insult. A "comeback" to Mr. B, regardless of its truth value or the emotional satisfaction it provides you, has no bearing on the original issue: there is no "external", convincing evidence showing that what the mystics are experiencing is indeed getting in touch with a benevolent, caring God, rather than a "psychological state".

Oh sure it can; the feelings I mean. Surely the writers don't make their living off those who think they and their works are worthless. No hypocrisy there. And even if the writers did despise their own readers (who in turn despised them), and were hypocrites, that fact obviously wouldn't have precluded itself (the mutual dislike). It would simply make it a curious phenomenon.

I am sure the feelings are mutual.

Oh there are all kinds of writers and philospohers. I am sure the output of some are so bad that even that description would be considered flattering. Regardless of how many bad writers and thinkers there are, the immense results of the consequential ones are there for everyone to see. But if the "output" of the mystics are "internal", and if their outwardly provable "output" (i.e. "predictions") don't do anything more than gain new converts with whom they resonated, the issue of whether the mytics' "experiences" have anything to do with some cosmic truth or not remains. And that was the issue, really. Not whether there are low-quality writers and thinkers.

Perhaps you are hypersensitive about sarcasm for some reason. I think he was dead-serious, by the way. And whatever the case, what you wrote doesn't qualify as sarcasm. "Would you like it if I say the same sort of thing about you?" is no way to have a logical argument, when what you claim ("sarcastically") is so patently false. And the argument is not about whether the writers or the mystics effected any change in human history. The results of writers' and philosophers' works are immense and measurable. While mystics might have changed the lives of their followers, and might have caused tangible changes among their fellow humans, that still does not address the issue of whether their "experiences" have anything to do with some cosmic truth. Logic, indeed.

I asked "Why?", and not "What do you believe in?". You have not explained anything.

Oh come on Armen. That is childish "tit for tat" B.S. and you know it.

Sasun, You have not addressed anything I said in any way other than the age-old cliche "God works in mysterious ways". Fine, if that's good enough for you. If mysticism's proof is the prediction of the futue, then I suggest they predict the stock market's behavior half an hour in the future, extract billions of dollars from the selfish critters running the system on a daily basis and use the money to do endless amounts of good all over the planet. Absent that, I must assume that either they don't give a hoot just as the god they presume to touch, or they fall short of their claim. More likely, they deal with a fairly uniform and predictable kind of person to begin with, and if they even have a 10% success rate with predicting their "future" (the 90% walking off discouraged or disgusted), that is a mighty big number of new customers. Having said all that, I still profess ignorance, and hope that others find the humility to do the same. Oh, as an aside, I don't mind at all if my little kids start from Christianity in their intellectual journey to make sense of the world. It's ultimately up to them to find their way and find their answers. When they ask me questions of "cosmic" kind, I have always found ways to "explain" things without shattering the beliefs in their innocent minds. As a last resort I say "well, the wise men of the religion say ...".

It is not about the fine print, or whether a promise was made. It is about how a caring god could stand to see so much unbearable pain inflicted on the innocent. The shocking disappointment is not about two equally nasty groups of people whacking each others' heads off and God staying out of it. It is very hard to argue that a self-conscious God, if it exists, cares at all about us little critters, as anything other than insignificant little things to be observed with detached interest. Who cares if "He" promised anything or not. A legalistic God is an uncaring God. And I would not be fond of talking to "Him", really. The important question from the human perspective is not so much whether a God exists as it is about whether "He" is caring or not. There is little indication that "He" cares about us individually. As for your "experiences", the only scientific claim you can make is that a certain set of rituals and psychological conditioning reproducibly produces a state of mind in human subjects that are commonly interpreted as a divine experience. You can repeat the sensation produced with a given method, but that doesn't prove anything related to God.

Maybe. Humor me with some examples of how this counter-productivity would come about. I see the old fox propaganda master has managed to deliver and plant his message. Speaking of wise sages, the wisdom of the moment then is "You can't fail if you don't try". OK. Let me try and come up with a couple of scenarios: A smartie-pants section of Armenians would start selling their free computing resources to non-Armenians. A shady section of Armenians would hack into the code and create trojan horses that stole credit card and identity information from their fellow Armenians of the idealistic kind.

Don't think the thought hadn't occurred to me. Seems so doable (but apparently not). But, considering that the whole thing (I think) is for the advancement of robotic warfare (where presumably only one side will be human), I can't say I would be motivated for such an enterprise. Would you? And of course there is the fact that posting futile posts on HyeForum takes up the few disposable minutes I have on a given day, I'll let some militaristically-motivated nerd run away with it. Now what about the Massively Armenian Computing idea I tossed in a while ago? Any takers?