h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Because former Labour voters like me cannot forgive President Blair for taking us to war at an inappropriate time, against the wishes of the people? And (of course! ) voting Tory is quite impossible. The only thing that will stop this is the notoriously short memory of the Great British Public.

Just my of course!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

PC - fter having talked to you more or less irregularly for a few months now, I've come to the decision that I don't agree with your nickname. Ho ho.
Well, like you said, Tory is impossible - but the Lib Dems just aren't organised enough to win. Plus, the public forgave Tzar Blair the foot and mouth crisis, and the firefighters disputes in his first re-election; why not one piddly little war that's good for us in the long term anyway? OR IS IT (dum dum DUM)? Frankly, I believe that anyone who's dumb enough to revote him in *deserves* to be bombed by irate Iraqis.

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaags

Not to mention the oooooooooooooooooooooooold laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaady that goes with 'em.

Indeed!

Flake99

Who cares who wins?

SHe who wins cares who wins, but those who care don't win, and those who win don't care who don't win.

Ah, so it's my motto, not my nickname you disagree with. Do you think I don't care? I do. And, although I'm sure I have no need to explain it, I'm going to anyway! It means that, if you care, you have automatically 'won'. You certainly haven't 'lost', anyway! Winning and losing are inappropriate in many (most?) circumstances; caring - and acting accordingly! - is the most that a decent person can do.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

No, no, it actually IS your nickname that I disagree with!
"Pattern-Chaser" implies one who looks for order everywhere- even when it's not necessarily there.

Ah, so *pattern* = *order* then? I think one who seeks to recognise patterns is (a) quite different from someone who merely seeks order, and (b) human. It's in the nature of humans to look for patterns. It's what we do.

I think patterns are vaguer than order; they're about relationships not bonds or laws, I think. I suppose it's fair to say that if order is completely absent, then there can be no patterns either.

The most important trick is *not* to recognise patterns that really *aren't* there!

Much worse is that I googled for "pattern chaser" to see what came up, and I found my h2g2 home page ... as a page in the BBC WW2 (World War 2) site. Almost as bad: there's some kind of disco lights called pattern-chasers.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

If patterns are a lesser type of order, they're still order. And I don't see what Order is if not patterns and the imposition of them.
Relationships ARE bonds and laws.
If you're not recognising patterns that aren't there, then you're "recognising" and not "chasing" patterns.
Just because it is our nature to do so, does not mean that it is justified or right or acceptable. It is our nature to be about two foot tall, fat, and incapable of defending ourselves. It is our nature to live and reproduce and then die, but should we not do something else too?
Just a thought

And if the patterns *are* there - and there *are* patterns, in the real world I live in - I *want* to find them. I like patterns, although it may be a liking I share with many/most other humans. I don't need to be exclusive!

But I still think that "patterns" are rather less, er, constrained than "laws", and give greater scope for understanding than their more rigid bedfellows!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Laws ARE patterns. The Law of Fives, the Laws of Motion, the Law of Godel's Theory...
If you're talking human laws, however, they merely induce and encourage patterns.

In the sense I'm using, I agree. All laws (not the sort you find in a court, as you imply ) are patterns, but all patterns are not laws. I admit the distinction I'm making is probably more one of my own than one sanctioned by a dictionary. I think (say) a network of social relationships could show (behavioural) patterns, but I would hesitate to describe such patterns as laws. That would be too strong.

What's so bad about patterns anyway? The only downside I can think of is if we mistakenly recognise a pattern when there is none, we confuse ourselves. To recognise a pattern where there *is* one is to enhance one's understanding.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

What's wrong with patterns? It's just my natural bias as an anarcho-communo-Discordian-free willer. Most people'd agree that patterns are good, I guess.
Although patterns (in the sociological sense) aren't laws as you describe them, that merely means that you haven't accounted for all the patterns in a situation. If you can fid and factor in all patterns, they'd act as laws.

If you happened to be someone possessed of objective perception, I think I might have to accept your argument. However, those of us not so gifted have to deal with things subjective. Given the existence of such things, you easily arrive at a situation where there are questions that can correctly be answered "yes" and "no" by different individuals, or by the same individual at different times. And the equivalent of laws in this context is heuristics, which my definition of "patterns" would include.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Well, yes, all patterns are heuristic to an individual. As are laws, I suppose. But you certainly won't find any argument from me about the s-word. I'm a neo-reality-Pragmatist, dontcha know.

Care to define that term for a baffled pantheist?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Oh, I go through a series of different belief structures each day and invent increasingly complicated names for them. Pragmatism is the belief that all theories change in a few hundred years anyway so it's pointless looking for any kind of objective truth of a theory, just use if it's useful and don't if it's not. Neo-Reality-Pragmatism is applying Pragmatism to reality - all reality is subject to change and subjective - but changing it to say that we shouldn't give up on beliefs because they are worthless, we should believe them just as much because worth is subjective.

Is it too late for me to join??

Hi all, I'm Mel
Atheist/pagan-ish/mostly liberal with the occasional "Now you're taking the p*ss" outburst.
Voted labour for the first time in the last election (have always voted Green as a tactical vote). Am now coming to the conclusion that it may be the last.

Mel

Welcome, Mel.
Voted Labour, didja? Bet you're sorry now!