A report of Lag Ba’Omer experiences to follow soon. Meanwhile, a joke I heard on Shabbos:
There was a tzaddik who said that if any of his followers ever finds himself in a difficult place, he should call out the tzaddik’s name, and he will come to save his follower. So, sure enough, one of the tzaddik’s chassidim ends up in Gehennom and calls out the tzaddik’s name. The tzaddik shows up and pulls him out of Gehennom.
So, a Lubavitcher chossid who once heard this somehow ends up in Gehennom himself. He decides to call on the Lubavitcher Rebbe to pull him out. He calls out: “Rebbe, Rebbe!” The Rebbe shows up, sees the chossid and says, giving him a dollar: “Oh, you’re there? Good. I need someone there. Brocho and hatzlocho on your shlichus.”
And now on something completely different:
27 comments:
A. If only we knew who they were satirising.
B. Stephen Fry has some excellent podcats and essays on the English language.
A. If only.
B. Do link, please.
C. How much of our car conversation should remain private? E.g., your wife’s comment about certain female figure coming to wash the dishes at your place of residence — can I quote her on that?
B. Try stephenfry.com and iTunes- search for Podgrams.
C. Sure thing.
B. Thanks.
What is this iTunes that you speak of?
C. Goodey gumdrops.
B. Presumably there are other sources of podcasts, but I wouldn't know.
C. I eagerly await the results.
I am currently utilizing the said product of a totalitarian regime to listen to Mr. Fry’s views on intellectual property (kivyachol).
Why kivayachol?
Well, I don’t believe an idea can be owned by a human being.
You don't believe in intellectual property?
Nope. I haven’t yet finished listening to his podcast, as I was distracted.
You mean, you don't believe that his views are his?
No, I don’t mean that. I mean that I don’t believe in intellectual property. I.e., that a person can have rights to an idea, to the point of excluding others’ access to the idea or profit from it.
The exact ontology of ideas is not clear to modern philosophy. Having said that, if it is nominalist (i.e., information exists only in our brains and never outside of them; it is merely copied from brain to brain through whatever media), then I even more certainly cannot own an idea, since I can’t own somebody’s brain. If it is platonic realist (i.e., ideas exist in some reality outside of our brains — perhaps in some sort of “ideal” world proposed by Plato, or even as a part of our world), then it is a non-scarce resource, and monopolizing it is unjustified (I can have rights to some resource only if others’ using it precludes me from using it at the same time: a given apple is a scarce resource; force of gravitation is not).
that a person can have rights to an idea, to the point of excluding others’ access to the idea or profit from it
That is what I don’t believe in. (Sorry for being unclear.)
Yes, you were a bit unclear. So you disagree with Stephen?
I haven’t gotten to the main part of his talk yet. My knights just butchered a bunch of Lithuanians, but I think Novgorod may stab me in the back. It’s very hot here, I am wondering whether to turn on A/C. Thunderstorms my derriere.
A. Still unclear- what do you believe?
B. You're playing some sort of computer game?
A. I can hardly hope to express myself more clearly: I believe the idea of intellectual property is bogus. Like the idea of phlogiston.
B. Medieval Total War II: Kingdoms expansion, Teutonic Campaign.
Well, I finished listening to his speech. He says that hard copyright and cracking down on the music and film “pirates” is idiotic and the dumbest thing the industry can do.
I agree with him in this. But he doesn’t really go as far as I (and others) do and say that copyright in itself is idiotic. Anyway, the talk is entertaining (just listening to someone in good command of English is always fun), but the argumentation is not the strongest. Although now I can say “Stephen Fry thinks that to say that downloading torrents is a criminal activity is bloody stupid” with an air of authority. Which actually made me think about another post I could write.
A. Well, I'm glad you've made your communist ideas clear.
B. Ahh.
Yes, I don't necessarily pay attention to what he's saying, but the way he's saying it...
A. By “Communist” you mean “libertarian” and “freedom-loving”?
B. That’s the definition of art, isn’t it?
A. Not at all.
B. "Ahh."?
A. Then why do you say such incorrect things?
B. Not at all.
A. Not at all.
B. So what then?
A. Communism is opposite from what I am saying.
B. The idea of enjoying something for its form and not the content.
I listened to his podcast on language. I like the main idea, but I disagree with some aspects of it too. I shall write a post about it, iy"H (the list of posts I now plan to write is growing; if only I had enough time and willpower).
A. Hardly.
B. Oh, why didn't you say so?
Which is more lacking, time or willpower?
A. We shall have to disagree on this subject then.
B. I have.
C. Perhaps willpower.
D. Thoughts on the last two posts?
A. I suppose so.
B. Well, only just now.
C. Really? I would think it would be time.
D. Coming, coming.
Post a Comment