quote:

---

Originally posted by NightShadow:
Y'know... I've never actually heard Gibson's voice. Haven't even seen him in motion- just the publicity photos on the backs of his books.

---

Gibson Interview on 'This Week in Science'

It's 16 meg.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NightShadow:

Y'know... I've never actually heard Gibson's voice.

---

Here's the one I've heard. I think it was about 20 minutes long. link

If that link fails, go here and look for the interview from 13 March.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NightShadow:
Neither. If justice is truly blind, then it cannot reliably make those distinctions. The criminal, his actions notwithstanding, is still a part of the larger society. And, point in fact, justice is less about "freedom" and more of a concept unto itself. Freedom comes from within a man's heart; justice is exerted from without and is the product of intellect.

---

Sorry, but by committing crimes, the criminal makes war upon society, defects from the agreements that form society, and in so doing, removes himself from it. We are then free to deal with him as we please. The only limitations (as they are established by the law) should be those that help us preserve our self-image of humanity and civilization.

Splitcoil: I would lay even odds that, by conventional interpretation of the law, absolutely every adult US resident/citizen could be considered a criminal. Again, if Justice is blind, it makes no distinction between "greater" or "lesser" crimes. When you're speeding down the highway for no serious reason other than your desire to do so, you are breaking the law. When you cross the street without a crosswalk present, you're breaking the law. When browsing the Internet for pr0n which would be considered "illicit" by your local laws (and, let's face it, that bill fits just about ALL of the states in the US), then you are breaking the law.

When such crimes are committed, minor though they may appear to be in the eyes of people, laws are STILL being broken... and the mojority of such "criminals" consider themselves quite free and, indeed, are contributing members of society at large. I freely admit to having committed such "minor" offenses, and I am almost certain that you have too, but I think it would be a gross error of judgement to consider either of us as waging "war upon society."

We have the freedom to obey the laws of the land, each and every one of us. We have the freedom to disobey them, as well. That freedom is of a personal nature and the laws cannot deprive us from that freedom. Society en masse, when confronted with such confirmed criminal, is NOT at liberty to simply do nothing- record must be made of at least a reprimand or a fine in restitution for flouting the Law. The suspect may not necessarily go to jail or serve hard time, but he/she definitely stands to be inconvenienced in some way or another. But the severity of the crime is often dictated by the judge or the jury, based usually on the facts, mitigating circumstances or other critereon- but that judgement is merely an intellectual one which is only the by-product of Justice. That the convicted criminal is standing before the court to face his/her punishment, whatever it may be, is the true carriage of Justice. The process is Justice in action; the punishment is simply a consequence of actions committed.

The function of laws, as they are created by human beings, is to maintain the status quo and keep citizens "in line", regardless of their personal sense of freedom. The purpose for laws, as they are created by God (or whoever you refer to Him as being, if at all), is to give Mankind a sense of limitations in regards to Creation as a whole, a way for our Creator to say, "I made you in My image, but don't go thinking you are Me. HERE are your limits. Do not pass this line and you'll be fine with Me." (interestingly enough, there are plenty of "divine" criminals as well- but we, as a society, are barred from really judging such people, aren't we?)

A law is a law until it is repealed. A criminal is a criminal until the laws by which he/she was convicted are repealed.

Marvel at the mess we like to call morality- it is neither law or justice, but many attempt to place it in the same arena.

Freedom is a personal choice. But simply because you choose to commit a "small" crime, would you consider yourself any less free than anyone else?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Herr Kuchen:
http://www.twis.org/audio/TWIS_Feb03_2004.mp3

It's 16 meg.

---

Thanks for that. Now that I've heard his voice, I feel somewhat surprised- I'd expected his voice to be more baritone for some reason and less nasal. It's curious to me how a writer's literary voice, in our heads, is SO different from the voice we actually end up hearing with our ears. I ran up against the same sort of juxtaposition when I first heard Stephen King's voice back in the 80's. I was, like, "What? That's the voice of the man who has managed to creep out millions of people? Damn. I thought he'd sound more sinister or something." I imagined Gibson to seem more... poetic and lyrical in his speech, rather than rambling and conversational.

Odd, that.

Oh, and thanks too, MOM, for those links. Unfortunately, I simply will NOT suffer Real Media software on my system, so I didn't check out those links you prodivded. But I appreciate the gesture just the same.

It's well worth getting hold of No Maps For These Territories in order to see and hear William Gibson. Maybe because I'd heard some stuff before, or maybe not, I didn't find his voice and persona too much of a shock. I really enjoyed his willingness to just think about stuff, and ramble and hesitate and explore, rather than wanting to necessarily come out with polished perfection all the time. Clearly the craft of writing is partly about polishing out some of of that stuff, but the willingness to ramble feeds the final perfection.

Jack Womack's voice and persona were actually much more of a shock to me, partly because he has this deep, deep voice and southern accent, and partly because his literary voice is so distinctive and his speech is different to that. Watching Womack read 'The Gernsback Continuum' and Gibson react is worth the price of admission all by itself.

I will second the recommendation of No Maps. Great view, that. I liked watching Gibson listen to Bono read the opening to Neuromancer.

Really should link to the post that spawned the "impact phrase". I read the phrase here, then have to go rifling through the threads to find more of the same.

Evil, evil, eeeeevilll!

No matter. It's my last week of work, and I need something to fill my time.

quote:

---

I can't reach the steering wheel, so I've never
riden back there. Additionally, I have no
friends, so I've never driven anyone around.

---

marshdrifter

Man, two in one day, I must be on a roll or something. I'mm all a twitter with fuziness.

"my self-esteem went from an A-cup to a large C-cup"

DisInfo

quote:

---

Originally posted by NightShadow:
Splitcoil: I would lay even odds that, by conventional interpretation of the law,

---

Good NightShadow, I apologize for having initiated a discussion I haven't the spirit to continue with for very far. It is apparent from the language of your reply that you either:
A)are unfamiliar with the works of 17th and 18th century liberal political philosophers, or
B)reject their work so fully that you refuse to recognize a reference to their concepts.

In either case, to continue with the current debate, I would have to either
A)accurately and justly summarize 200 years of the best political philosophy ever written (which I lack the skill or motivation for), or
B)establish the nature of your objections to said work and then convert you and bring you into the fold (which I lack the skill or motivation for), or
C)yield to the logic of your arguments, thereby rejecting my entire Weltanschauung and condeming myself to a lifetime of wandering the streets with a cane and lantern looking for a new identity or, at the least, an honest man.

Obviously, I cannot risk outcome C and therefore must decline to engage you in this contest, sir.

But a couple of quick tips:
1)While you are correct that there is of course a range of criminal behavior running from petty to severe, traffic violations are not criminal violations in the United States. You usually have to get into the arena of DUI or Vehicular Assault before anything you do in a car is 'criminal'. (Unless you're in Alabama and you're violating the unenforced sodomy laws.)
2)Yahweh ain't got nothin' to do with it.
3)Justice also ain't got nothin' to do with it.
and 4)After you seek out and read such wonderful authors as Hobbes, Locke, J.S. Mill or others, you will gain a whole new world of perspectives on your comment that

quote:

---

We have the freedom to obey the laws of the land, each and every one of us. We have the freedom to disobey them, as well. That freedom is of a personal nature and the laws cannot deprive us from that freedom.

---

A world of perspectives that cannot be described in the scope of this message board with any, well... Justice.

You're a fan of Locke? Sheesh. You don't find the humongous loophole (on conquest) that he threw into his political theory - justifying his involvement in the slave trade - just a tad off-putting?

I find it a bit repugnant to elevate 200-year-old political theorists and their writings to the level of near-gospel; things have changed a LOT since the birth of the US. You cannot step into the same river twice. Heraclitus told us that and did a fairly handy job proving it.

Those men spoke to a political system of their day and age, not ours. It's like comparing the teachings of Christ to the thing that Christianity has become, two entirely different entities.

So, yeah, I DO pretty much reject the political theories of centuries-old pundits who would probably be shocked to their cores if they saw what American politics is like now.

Can one actually be a "fan" of a philosopher? Is there a club? Do you get publicity head shots of Locke, exclusive Chrismas recordings, get-togethers?

quote:

---

Originally posted by RobW:
You're a fan of Locke? Sheesh. You don't find the humongous loophole (on conquest) that he threw into his political theory - justifying his involvement in the slave trade - just a tad off-putting?

---

Certainly it's off-putting! Just like Mill's huge exceptions to liberty in the cases of brown people and Muslims. But if you put those exceptions up against the rest of their work, you'll see that the exceptions are illogical and inconsistent within the context of the writers' own works. Discard them, and continue on with the parts that make sense.

When you grill steak, do you eat the bone, too?

Edit: and by the way, Locke is certainly the weakest of those I mentioned. He was much closer to being a practitioner than the others. As such, he was compromised. His labor theory of ownership was truly strange (though it should be very attractive to the lefties).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pauline:
Can one actually be a "fan" of a philosopher? Is there a club? Do you get publicity head shots of Locke, exclusive Chrismas recordings, get-togethers?

---

Theory Cards

quote:

---

Originally posted by NightShadow:
I find it a bit repugnant to elevate 200-year-old political theorists and their writings to the level of near-gospel; things have changed a LOT since the birth of the US.

---

I'm sorry, but please remind me: Which among Hobbes, Locke or Mill wrote about the United States? Mill was the only one who lived when the Union was founded, and for the most part he studiously ignored us. While the United States' Constitution could not have stood without the Liberals, the Liberals' value is by no means dependent on the course of history and politics in the United States. No more than the value of Boyle and Newton can be determined by measuring the success of the AR-15.

quote:

---

Those men spoke to a political system of _their_ day and age, not ours. It's like comparing the teachings of Christ to the thing that Christianity has _become_, two entirely different entities.

---

My friend, my earlier comments were not a commentary on the American system of government. They were a commentary on eternal Truths which transcend government. To hold to your metaphor, I was talking about Christ, and it was YOU who assumed I was talking about the Branch Davidians.

quote:

---

So, yeah, I DO pretty much reject the political theories of centuries-old pundits who would probably be shocked to their cores if they saw what American politics is like now.

---

Well, two of the three would be shocked to find that the United States existed, since they were pushing up daisies when Crispus Attucks took one for the Gipper. And I'm sure Mill would be surprised that the U.S. survived past 1900. So yeah, they'd be shocked.

But calling the likes of Hobbes, Locke and Mill pundits is an anachronism so gross as to betray an intellectual turpitude I never would have suspected in you.

So to speak.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pauline:
Can one actually be a "fan" of a philosopher? Is there a club? Do you get publicity head shots of Locke, exclusive Chrismas recordings, get-togethers?

---

Back in college, I was a Hobbes groupie. My girlfriend and I did a three-way with him when he came through town on his '94 Trayne of Thoughts tour! He rocked!

But I found it a little creepy the way he kept telling my girlfriend "Call me Leviathan! Call me Leviathan! Do you like my Sovereign? Huh? Do you, be-yotch?!"