Brent, I wish there was a half-decent quoting mechanism, though I realise there are higher priorities. You're a highly idealistic guy, and you're working hard to put your ideals into practice, which I very much respect. I'd just say, be careful what you say where, because when some people see you as thinking the Canonizer's going to save the world, they'll jump to the conclusion that you're crazy, without bothering to try to understand. I know you're not crazy. You do get carried away sometimes, but I now have a much better understanding of your vision. I can't share it to the same extent -- I might have said "extreme" there -- but I'm definitely less inclined to criticise now. I might even withdraw my support from "the consiliator"! For a little while I was thinking about arguing for an option to switch off quantification, but I'm less inclined to do that now. I still think that, for some purposes, where the ideas are all that really matter, that option would be good, but of course all such suggestions have to be prioritised. I'd say, as far as public pronouncements are concerned, focus on the more obvious and down-to-earth benefits of a pov wiki. They're relatively easy to understand and to accept. Once the system is properly up-and-running, you can start experimenting with more ambitious applications. I wish I had the time to be involved at a practical level, but I don't. Between my philosophy, earning a living, and getting some R&R, I'm all tied up. I believe I will withdraw my support for consilience, and step back a bit, but I'll stay on the developers list for now and will, of course, remain engaged with the Hard Problem.

Robin, > Is it really the job of the Canonizer to go beyond the canonization process and work to get everyone everything they want? I can see that as a perfectly legitimate ideal for an individual to hold, but surely the job of the Canonizer is canonization? I make this point because being apparently over-ambitious is one of the many things that could put people off, especially business people, who are mostly very wary of any idealism other than market fundamentalism, because they think it might distort the market. I definitely see your concern here. I think I'm just not expressing things properly, so need to know how to say things better so it doesn't portray things inaccurately. A personal value of mine is to think that mankind will some day, technologically, find a cure for aging and stuff and make themselves immortal. But just because I believe that, doesn't mean I go around wasting my time on futile things we're obviously still a long way from being able to accomplish. There are clearly a lot of people still dying of AIDS and hunger, and we've got to work on things like that as a higher priority first. But still, just the idea that these kinds of amazing things are a possibility, even if only in the distant and currently not relevant future, has an effect on the way one lives there life (and the way an organization operates.) I think charitable organizations should always be grass roots based, not forced from above by governments. The biggest problem with that is grass roots based organizations have a hard time being managed and organized. I see the Canonizer as a possible solution to this. It will allow people that want to do similar kinds of charity work to work together much more cooperatively and effectively. So if you have a quantitatively measured huge group of people willing to donate, together, known sums of capital, the canonizer will effectively be directing how that capital will be used. So will not, getting people with aids what they want, a cure like this, and things like that be classified in the purpose of the Canonizer? Of course, right now, that is very irrelevant and even meaningless, as far as our daily plans and immediate tactics go. But it is those kinds of long term goals that helps drive me and gives much more meaning to trying to get this RAID disk, and so on, to work. Also, another very long term goal of mine, is to get something like the Canonizer, perhaps on $100 per laptop like systems, into very poor countries, and countries like Iraq, North Korea, and so on. Everyone knows what the individual war mongering kings, presidents, ayatollahs, military leaders and prophets want, but is anyone asking the entrepreneurial 20 somethings of those countries what they want? Everyone in the US, knows what president bush and our talking head pundits wants, but nobody has the slightest clue what the Iraqi people want. Isn't there something hugely immoral about things like that? I bet IF the people of the US had a way to really concisely and quantitatively know what the people of Iraqi wanted, there would be nothing that could stand in the way of the US people helping these Iraqi people get precisely that. Right now, there is a terrible self destructive situation in Iraq. Any Iraq stepping up to cooperate with the US, even if they don't like the US, is seen as a traitor. What we need, is some way to get help to such people willing to step up, that isn't "biased" as all such "military" help is today. My dream is to have people donate charitable capital controlled by the Canonizer, and then have capital 100% controlled and directed by the Iraqi people, or whoever based on a selected canonizer, with no influence whatsoever from the people providing the capital. I think the charity work being done by the likes of Bill Gates is great, but he is obviously deciding how all the money is spent. And to me, that is the immoral part. There should be some way to get money to the people at the bottom, that is completely under their control. Do they want a cure for aids? Or do they just want a sewer system and set of schools in their town that works much more immediately, then they can work on AIDS? And even, immediately, the idea of getting everyone what they want effects everything we do here. The whole structure of the Canonizer system is designed so that everyone can get what they want, no matter how diverse their POV, into the system. Trying to find creative ways to get it all for everyone should be our fundamental driving ideology, I think. So help me know how to say these kinds of things in ways that still indicates that, for the time being, they don't have much to do with what we are working on now or our immediate short term goals. Isn't all this kind of market "distortion" what really drives (or should really drive) all economics and commercial ventures? Thanks, Brent Allsop

Brent, you wrote: > Yea, Consilience and Conciliator are great words. > For me, an important part of this is not just the jumping together, but also the infinitely increasing in diversity, without warring, excommunicating, isolation, and all that. I think agreeing to disagree counts as reconciliation too. > For example, if I want to call all the leaders of today's religions and other primitive hierarchically managed institutions, immoral faithless fear mongering bastards that don't trust anyone but themselves to know what everyone wants or what is best, and so on, that kind of terminology and extreme opinion should be tolerated as even polite; as long as you still respect that others have a different point of view, that you don't want to excommunicate or war or destroy them, for as long as that is what they choose or value. I'm sure some of them are thinking I'm a devil worshiping atheistic hedonistic bastard that is going to hell. And I respect, and look forward to seeing such extreme POV concisely, politely, quantitatively, expressed in a non sugar coated way. I hate it not know just how many people are only thinking such because the few that are thinking it are afraid to express such. The fact that you can be so cool doesn't mean that others won't be provoked by such language, and even believe you're being deliberately provocative in saying such things, no matter what you say to the contrary. But maybe that's getting a little off-topic. My main point is, as I said, agreeing to disagree counts as reconciliation. > But of course, primitively, Canon has been top down dictation of the only books accepted, or the only people good enough to be saints, all else be cast out, damned, excommunicated, forgiven or burned. But my thinking is we can make a big deal about how the new kind of canon is just the opposite and bottom up; it is all about inclusion of all, especially the most different and minority of us all. That's great, but doesn't the quantification aspect work against it? Where we're talking about matters of opinion, as opposed to matters of fact, what else do we have to go on but sheer numbers? The temptation to consider the camp with the most supporters the winner will be enormous, and the minority positions will be discounted, as usual. The list of camps, sorted by support, will look exactly like a league table. > The new kind of canonization, to me, is all about not telling people what to read, want, or believe, and threatening them with eternal damnation otherwise, but asking everyone what they want, the more diversity the better, canonizing all this, and then having as our (or the Canonizer's) goal doing all in our power to get it all for everyone having eternal faith that some day it might all be possible. Is it really the job of the Canonizer to go beyond the canonization process and work to get everyone everything they want? I can see that as a perfectly legitimate ideal for an individual to hold, but surely the job of the Canonizer is canonization? I make this point because being apparently over-ambitious is one of the many things that could put people off, especially business people, who are mostly very wary of any idealism other than market fundamentalism, because they think it might distort the market. > At the end of the Canonizer camp, there is a somewhat concise paragraph of how the various forms of canon can be used. Perhaps it would be helpful if you'd, for the conciliate camp, pick the one precise term, usages, and domain names you most value and concisely stating all this? I don't think I'll have time to do that today but I'll try to get around to it. > Another problem I have with consilience, is it is used everywhere for lots of things groups, and processes, already. As indicated by the popularity of the different related domain names taken. I really don't think it's used THAT widely. But I'm now thinking that perhaps it would be more appropriate for a pov wiki where there was no quantification, and that canonizer is a better fit with quantification.

Robin, Yea, Consilience and Conciliator are great words. For me, an important part of this is not just the jumping together, but also the infinitely increasing in diversity, without warring, excommunicating, isolation, and all that. For example, if I want to call all the leaders of today's religions and other primitive hierarchically managed institutions, immoral faithless fear mongering bastards that don't trust anyone but themselves to know what everyone wants or what is best, and so on, that kind of terminology and extreme opinion should be tolerated as even polite; as long as you still respect that others have a different point of view, that you don't want to excommunicate or war or destroy them, for as long as that is what they choose or value. I'm sure some of them are thinking I'm a devil worshiping atheistic hedonistic bastard that is going to hell. And I respect, and look forward to seeing such extreme POV concisely, politely, quantitatively, expressed in a non sugar coated way. I hate it not know just how many people are only thinking such because the few that are thinking it are afraid to express such. But of course, primitively, Canon has been top down dictation of the only books accepted, or the only people good enough to be saints, all else be cast out, damned, excommunicated, forgiven or burned. But my thinking is we can make a big deal about how the new kind of canon is just the opposite and bottom up; it is all about inclusion of all, especially the most different and minority of us all. They are saints too, and I think our goal, is to find the least and most lonely of these, declare them also saints, find out what they want, and do all in our power to get what they want along with the rest of us. They don't need to be forgiven, they should be worshiped. The new kind of canonization, to me, is all about not telling people what to read, want, or believe, and threatening them with eternal damnation otherwise, but asking everyone what they want, the more diversity the better, canonizing all this, and then having as our (or the Canonizer's) goal doing all in our power to get it all for everyone having eternal faith that some day it might all be possible. And even if it isn't, still never giving up faith and hope and eternally pushing as close to such ideals as possible. At the end of the Canonizer camp, there is a somewhat concise paragraph of how the various forms of canon can be used. Perhaps it would be helpful if you'd, for the conciliate camp, pick the one precise term, usages, and domain names you most value and concisely stating all this? Another problem I have with consilience, is it is used everywhere for lots of things groups, and processes, already. As indicated by the popularity of the different related domain names taken. It is surprising, but canon is almost nowhere to bee seen, except in a very few very unrelated ways. I hate it when I go to a domain name, and use the wrong .com, or .org, and get a completely wrong site, or when someone uses a term and they think about a different group, process, or whatever.