User talk:Peter1c

This is Peter1c's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Peter1c.


Basic incomeEdit

Hi Peter! I just noticed that a while ago you created a page for basic income quotes -- nice work!

I've been drafting a page like that but I guess by starting out too ambitious I ended up letting that work stale as other stuff took priority. I thought I'd let you know about it, in case you want to integrate some of that info into the live page :)

Cheers, Waldir (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Brief noteEdit

I am only briefly in, before I have to attend to other very extensive matters in coming days. I wish to note that have much appreciated and welcomed many of your additions, but been appalled at some of your revisions and reductions of links, such as I have noted in some of your recent edits. Wiki-links provide means of access to other pages which are very important to any wiki, and I am almost always inclined to oppose the reduction of these from the pages as reducing the opportunities of people to link directly to other ranges of ideas and quotes. There are other matters of approval or disapproval I might attend to in coming days, but I am not likely to have time to discuss matters within the next day or so. I have to attend to a few other things now, and will likely soon be off of the internet for at least some hours. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 00:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Kalki, I am sorry to have upset you by removing links. I think that we may disagree about the criteria that decide whether a link is relevant, and it might be valuable to discuss the principles we use. The principle I use is this:

A link is relevant if the reader might reasonably be supposed to be prompted by the quotation to seek information from the linked article.

So, for example, linking to [[Being]] for an ordinary use of the word "be" would be irrelevant, and therefore reasonable to delete.

Consider this example:

* The more one [[suffers]], the more, I [[believe]], has one a [[sense]] for the [[Comedy|comic]].
** [[Kierkegaard]]

I argue that the link to [[belief]] here is no more relevant than linking to [[Being]] for every use of the word "is."

Specific cases will fall somewhere on a spectrum of relevance, which will inevitably be subjective, but, frankly, one gets the impression that the purpose of some of these links is more to publicize certain pet projects than to provide relevant resources for the reader.

I am confident that we can work out our disagreement on this matter. Remember that you persuaded me from a fan of chronological ordering to a fan of alphabetical ordering (thank you). I am open to being persuaded/refuted in this case as well. Best regards, ~ Peter1c (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Please stop removing CLEARLY relevant imagesEdit

I just restored the image File:LuMaxArt Human Family with World Religions.png to illustrate a quote on the Cat Stevens page, and might restore the image on other pages from which you have been removing it, if I have time enough to do so. You might perhaps think I created that image merely because I made a PNG version of a pre-existing JPG of it which was at the WIkimedia Commons, but whether this be the case or not, I have for some time been rather angered and tempering my anger at the asinine commentary that has gone on among a FEW people about CONTROLLING the options of others in presenting ideas, information and images on this wiki, because I have recognized that I have been far too busy with far too many things to get into extensive debates on such matter with people I perceive to be acting not only irrationally but immorally. I will probably address the issue further in a few days, but do not have time now, as I just checked in here very briefly, and must be leaving again within the next 20 minutes at the latest. ~ Kalki·· 12:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Kalki: Thank you for your message. I will stop removing the images while we wait for your input, but we have a consensus on the Village Pump to remove these sorts of images, which are (1) not from a notable source and (2) not NPOV. I understand that you are busy, but this is an issue that the community needs to resolve. Your fellow editors are also awaiting your response to the issue of Linking everyday terms. You have been a supporter of Open discussion in the past. Why not on these latest issues? ~ Peter1c (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I did have time to revert a bit more of your recent deletions of clearly relevant images, and noticed that it was NOT the png version of the image but the jpg version you had been removing, among others, and simply wish to note that mistake on my part, in my earlier comments. I just had an edit conflict here, as I began to post a further response, but I don’t have time to respond further at this time. I will try to address this and other issues within the next few days, but remain EXTREMELY busy, and MUST be leaving NOW. ~ Kalki·· 12:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Anna SuiEdit

Hi Peter,

Thanks for the feedback, think I followed the template for the actual quotations, the reference tags were for the introductory sentence only in case anyone needed to verify. Happy to remove. MargaritaPoppa (talk) 05:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi MargaritaPoppa. Thanks for your message. As long as the info is sourced on the linked wikipedia page, there's no need to reference the source on the wikiquote page.

It also looks the the {{cite}} template doesn't work very well, since it is putting a period at the beginning of your citations for no apparent reason. I've never used it, so I can't offer suggestions how to coax it to do what you want.

Best regards, Peter1c (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Peter,
Will try and look at using just the text instead of the cite template, see what you mean by the . Thanks again! MargaritaPoppa (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

"Michael Scott Gallegos" reviewEdit

If you have a few minutes to look at Michael Scott Gallegos and feel that it falls within the requirements of the Wikiquote community to be retained, I would appreciate a vote to keep the article. I understand that if you do not believe that the article is worthy of retaining, you will not be able to vote in its favor. Please note that the "Quotes about Gallegos" section was added after the nomination for deletion, so as to provide evidence of 3rd party recognition of his work. Anything resembling promotion of his site will be removed if the article is retained. Sorry for the late notice, but the vote closes: 18:00, 15 December 2016. Thank you for your consideration of this matter, and for all of the good works that you continually contribute to the Wkiquote project. ELApro (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi ELApro. Thanks for your message. Your best bet would be to create a Wikipedia article to establish notability. I think all the Wikiquote editors will abide by Wikipedia's decision. ~ Peter1c (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your wise and highly valued advice. An article on ThoughtAudio has been posted at Wikipedia. ELApro (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Taking the red pillEdit

Watching this random YouTube video somehow reminded me of you (the skepticism of the modern day "rat race" part). I found your section on Therapy hilarious (and all too true). I don't know what you're going through, and I'm no doctor. But yeah, psychiatrists are drug pushers. In my country, more than 1 in 4 women are on antidepressants. I don't mind that too much because 1) it's not my business; 2) life is hard (especially during economic downturns); 3) here (this past decade) the suicide rate has decreased/stabilized while antidepressant use has increased. So, listen to your doctor. That said, I doubt that antidepressants or anti-anxiety drugs can help people solve their philosophical questions or existential crisis (if they be "solvable" at all) – at least in the way that conversation can. CBT would be more appropriate for this purpose (as you probably know), but I suspect you'd have to find a really good psychologist (because you have a very questioning mind and are so well-read). Although I admittedly can't keep up with you, if you just want to chat about how having a corporate job and making money may actually not be evil, let me know. (Don't feel obliged to respond, especially if you don't have the time – school is more important!) Cheers ~ DanielTom (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

DanielTom, thank you for your very thoughtful message. I enjoyed the video, thank you. I had to move back to the city for ministry training, and my husband and I are definitely not as happy here as we were in the country, but the university is really challenging me and teaching me to look at religion, culture and life in many new and interesting ways.
I am always happy to debate whether working for a corporate job is evil. Unfortunately my friends who work in corporate jobs are reluctant to debate whether their livelihood is evil (imagine that) and my friends who work in ministry are all too ready to concede the point, so my rants seldom inspire debates as good as the ones you and I have.
A system which passes privilege along with genetic material is racist. Working for a system that accepts the present distribtuion of property without question (as all business jobs do) makes me a racist. Reading W. E. B. Dubois, MLK and Malcolm X has confirmed and reinforced these sentiments in me. As X says, you can't be a capitalist without being a racist. Here's how Thomas Shapiro puts it:
  • American families are in the process of passing along a $9 trillion legacy from one generation to the next. ... Hand in hand with this money, I submit, what is really being handed down from generation to generation is the profound legacy of reproducing racial inequality. The legacy is difficult to discern because the language of family heritage hides it from our political consciousness.
The institution of inheritance creates a race of rich and a race of poor. These races often correspond to skin color, but even where they don't, making decisions based on property is still racist. Commercial enterprises serve the rich race and ignore the poor race.
By working for an institution that accepts private property ideology (and therefore, if you buy my argument, racism), as an unquestioned premise, corporate employees become racists.
Of course when circumstances compel me to work, I work. But I no longer remain silent about the corruption of the system I work for. Eventually, articles like this and this and this are going to catch up with me, and I won't be able to get jobs in the corporate world so easily.
I would be all too happy if you could persuade me working for the system isn't evil. I still have to work about 10 hours a week to support my ministry studies, and it takes a big toll on my conscience. ~ Peter1c (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I would be interested in discussing religion and politics with you some time Peter1c, you strike me as one of the best read people on wikiquote where most everyone's better read than average, even if it's just news papers, magazines and scripts. I've had a hard time figuring you out despite just from your edits, I won't be doing much else until the about sections have been discussed in more detail at the village pump, so I have the free time for casual conversation and philosophical debate on a talk pagee. I don't have I myself have to be careful not to soapbox as I've done accidentally on talk pages discussing rationalwiki on Uncyclopedia. I don't know what the extent of your scientific knowledge and interest is, but I've found the wikipedia science reference desk very useful for learning new terminology, and have found today in science to be a a good break from literature, religion and pop culture. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Peter1c. Did you know that moving home is one of the most stressful events in life? On top of that, you're working and studying at the same time. That's never easy.

"A system which passes privilege along with genetic material is racist. Working for a system that accepts the present distribution of property without question (as all business jobs do) makes me a racist."

I believe that comes with being alive and doing anything. Right now, you are studying in a "system which passes privilege along with genetic material" (think of the many people who didn't get into your Divinity School through no fault of their own – e.g. those born with a lower IQ).

Don't you see that even if you "distribute" all property equally, pretty soon we'd end up with inequality again because we are all different? Of course you could demand equality of outcome (which has been tried with disastrous consequences) – I know Go players from Former Soviet Union countries who won tournaments and had to share the 1st prize with the other players. Some then moved to the United States :-).

"As X says, you can't be a capitalist without being a racist."

Why, because of inequality? The problem is that socialist countries (and African countries, if you care to look) are very unequal too. So Winston Churchill's dictum that "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." is only half true.

I think we should want people to develop and use their ("racist", inherited) talents to the fullest, even if that produces inequality – as it does in the United States, the wealthiest country on Earth. This is not to say that we can't have a social safety net – as you know, pretty much all countries have a mixed economy, i.e. a mix of capitalism and socialism.

The question I think you should be asking is not "which model of society would make me the least racist", but "which model of society leads to the greatest happiness or human flourishing" of blacks, whites and everyone else. Where are people better off? That's what matters at the end of the day.

"The institution of inheritance creates a race of rich and a race of poor."

I don't think "creates" is the right word – "perpetuates", perhaps? (But see "70% of Rich Families Lose Their Wealth by the Second Generation" and this video.)

"Commercial enterprises serve the rich race and ignore the poor race."

This is evidently false, and flies in the face of history. See the graph on the right and this database. [It was when the structure and functioning of economies changed from "subsistence economy" to "market economy" (the "market revolution", allied with the industrial revolution) that there first was a systematic growth of population and production, with the latter exceeding the former (for the first time in history), as the graph indicates. The unleashing of market forces has benefited the poor the most; of course the rich have always done well, throughout the centuries, in all types of societies.] Look at how in just a couple of decades India and China have lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. (Also, most businesses are SMEs.)

"Commercial enterprises" are an effective way for human beings to serve one another. In your job, you are probably providing services and solutions to various customers. That's the part you keep discounting, and what you miss when you use expressions like serving "the market", rather than serving "people".

In this article you are confounding a job with personal values. The manager you quote as saying "We're here to make money" is just being pragmatic. You write, "it is precisely this unprincipled, amoral desire to get rich that rules our economy." But presumably you could do the job and decline the salary. Your contribution to technology development would already be a good. Or accept the money and donate it to charity. As for your manager, Adam Smith's words ring true:

  • Every individual ... neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it ... he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. ... By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. (WN IV.ii.9)

Which I believe also answers your question "how can we benefit humanity if we work for managers and organizations who have no goal other than getting rich?" Incidentally, have you read the vision, mission, goals and objectives of the company you work for? ("Getting rich" probably isn't one of them.) More to your point: good management can salvage a company with poor financial performance, but seldom one with persistent negative earnings. If you think about it, a company exists to create, not destroy, value (for all stakeholders – ultimately, society at large – not just shareholders).

You write, "The principle that governs the behavior of human beings in Silicon Valley can be simply stated. Acts that increase the market value of the corporation are virtuous acts. Acts that lower the share price are abominations." The stock market appraises corporate and management performance, so naturally managers are concerned with it. (Not to mention it's a key source of capital for companies in the United States – in other countries, they are more dependent on bank loans.)

It is true that nearly all philosophers and moralists of antiquity considered money an evil. But their understanding of it was very limited (they knew less about economics than about medicine – and their knowledge of medicine basically consisted of recommending bloodletting for any ailment). Even after the Renaissance, equating money with wealth was a very common (and understandable, because money can serve as an instrument of trade and as a measure of value) misconception. Only with Adam Smith's An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776, annus mirabilis) was economics as a scientific discipline founded, and sources of wealth (labor, savings and trade) identified and investigated. Of course it has been asserted by various (so-called) prophets and philosophers that wealth itself is an evil. Nietzsche declared Christianity the religion of the poor – and indeed, it's probably no coincidence that the world's major religions were all founded at times when poverty was nearly universal and inescapable. This is no longer the case, and I personally look forward to the day when poverty is finally eradicated, because to me (as a human being first, and economist second) poverty is the evil. I agree with Bertrand Russell that "In a just world, there would be no possibility of 'charity'."

"Of course when circumstances compel me to work, I work. But I no longer remain silent about the corruption of the system I work for."

That's good (x2). To quote Bertrand Russell again (this time from The Conquest of Happiness, with a slight modification): "One should as a rule [work] in so far as is necessary to avoid starvation [...] but anything that goes beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny, and is likely to interfere with happiness in all kinds of ways." Curiously, when Russell was about 30 he claimed to have "no doubt that by doing economics and the theory of politics" he could "add more to human happiness" than by doing philosophy (from a letter published in his Autobiography, the first volume of which is superb) – so, the opposite of you? Another curious thing is that many of us already have it better than what the early utopian socialists dreamed of – only 8 hours of work per day and two days off each week. And working hours will continue to decline.

What you write here, "Your prospective profession doesn't want free and critical intellects. It wants uncritical, unquestioning minds that do what they are told without asking uncomfortable questions.", reminds me of George Carlin's "The American Dream", where he talks of "Obedient workers—people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept. ..."

"Eventually, articles like this and this and this are going to catch up with me, and I won't be able to get jobs in the corporate world so easily."

You have a very impressive resume (Caltech? Stanford University? Man!), so I doubt that. And if a company doesn't hire you because of your philosophical questions and opinions, you probably wouldn't want to work for them anyway (I call this way of thinking "teenage wisdom"). By the way, I didn't know you had a PhD in electrical engineering! That's so awesome. One of my favorite shows is Watch Mr. Wizard (and Mr. Wizard's World, which has a YouTube channel). I have great respect for anyone who studies how the physical world actually works. Take care, DanielTom (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC) last edit: 13:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi DanielTom. Thank you for your very articulate and thoughtful message. I particularly appreciate your efforts to cheer me up. It was really generous of you to take the time to read my articles and thoughtfully consider my arguments.

I think one issue where we fundamentally disagree is on the issue of self-justification or self-exculpation. If I have accused myself of some sin, my first reaction will be to come to my own defense. Like a good defense lawyer, I will find reasons to question whether the guilt is really mine, whether there are mitigating circumstances, whether the sin is counterbalanced by other virtues, and, finally, whether the sin is really a sin at all. This works out very conveniently for me. Since I am now both judge and defense in my own case, a verdict of "not guilty" is very likely.

The worst sin of all, says Luther, is to deny that I am a sinner. This is why I must resist the urge to come to my own defense when I find some sin in myself. My bias, if I have any bias, should be toward the prosecution. If I am judging my own case it is impossible to be impartial. If I am to avoid rendering a "not guilty" verdict unjustly, I must cultivate a predisposition to think of myself as guilty rather than innocent.

The same reasoning, I think, applies when I accuse myself of complicity in the crimes of a society, state or system. It would be very convenient for me if I could find a way to minimize or ignore the crimes in which I am complicit, so the awareness of them doesn't disrupt my comfort, complacency and self-esteem.

I won't go into detail on the prosecution's rebuttal of your defense. I think you can do this better than I can. (It's always a useful exercise to exchange roles in a debate and take the opposing side.) But I will point out a few things.

GDP measures the value of production in terms of the market. Things internal to the market are internal to GDP. Things external to the market are external to GDP. The GDP metric leaves entirely unaddressed the question of whether the market is correct arbiter of value, whether it internalizes the correct things and externalizes the correct things. For example, GDP doesn't include the effects of climate change, the death toll of war, the effect of pollution, etc. GDP does, however, include what Freud calls "instinctual gratification" through commodity items.

Most people desire the wrong things most of the time. Great thinkers have said this since Plato. Economics suffers from the same vice as democracy, assuming that what ordinary people think is good must be accepted as good without criticism. This is what one of my teachers calls "bourgeois relativism."

The saints teach us that we are sinners. We desire all the wrong things. And a metric like GDP that assumes fulfilling desires is good without distinguishing right and wrong desires is fundamentally wrongheaded.

Of course market economies also have higher levels of metrics such as the Human Development Index, which self-consciously exclude wrong desires and emphasize objective human needs. But even supposing that the economic system does fulfill rightly ordered desires as well as wrongly ordered desires, does this exculpate it for its vices? When an individual shopkeeper turns away a hungry child with no money, he will say, to exculpate himself, that the economic system as a whole will raise the standard of living. But does this make the individual act of turning away the customer less sinful?

Regarding the claim that 70% of families lose their wealth by the second generation, the sources you provided are not peer-reviewed. Is there a peer-reviewed source to substantiate this? Today most wealth is professionally managed, so even if the claim is substantiated in the past, will it hold in the future? Many of the intergenerational losses came about as a result of stock market crashes. If the new system of neoliberal capitalism uses state power to ensure the stock market never crashes, does this alter the statistic? It seems like the new capitalism will maintain disparities of wealth for as many generations as it survives. The loss of inherited wealth will correspond to the collapse of the system, as in 1929.

As to Caltech and Stanford, I am not proud of this part of my education. I am ashamed to say I come from a family of mammon worshippers, and I was manipulated, in subtle and not so subtle ways, to take an interest in a lucrative profession. My parents gave me an electronics kit when I was ten. They never gave me a Bible or taught me how to read it. I hope someday I can forgive them for making me into the disgusting human being I am. ~ Peter1c (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

A science kit gets you closer to the mind of God than reading the Bible at the age of ten. You seem to be dealing with unresolved emotional (not just intellectual) issues. And I can't help you with those – I'm just some guy on the Internet. What can I say? Tell you to call your parents (if they are still alive)? Why do you feel "ashamed" for things that were completely outside of your control? And what good does calling yourself "disgusting" achieve? To me, that's just religious self-abuse, not enlightened behavior. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi DanielTom. Sorry about this. I didn't mean to come across as demanding online therapy, but I can see how it came across that way. I understand what you mean about not feeling ashamed for things not under our control, but to a large extent who we are is determined by things not under our control. So to me it seems more complicated. I find the idea of original sin helpful, because it allows me to understand the extent to which who I am is determined by the past. I also like Luther's idea of putting to death the old Adam and resurrecting the new man each day of our lives.

  • These two parts, to be sunk under the water and drawn out again, signify the power and operation of Baptism, which is nothing else than putting to death the old Adam, and after that the resurrection of the new man, both of which must take place in us all our lives, so that a truly Christian life is nothing else than a daily baptism, once begun and ever to be continued.

I am still processing all the new ideas I am learning now, and you are not the first to observe that my first attempts to use or express them are lacking in tact and diplomacy. So, again, I apologize for that. And, again, thank you for taking the time to write to me. ~ Peter1c (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

A GiftEdit

I wanted to share this with you, I thought you would appreciate it.

ἰσχύς μου ἡ δικαιοσύνη

-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi IOHANNVSVERVS. Thank you for the gift. Should I translate it as "my strength is righteousness" or "righteousness is my strength"? Are you learning Greek composition? ~ Peter1c (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Peter1c".