Undoing the undo (Ctrl+Z of Ctrl+Z)
Undoing the undo does not necessarily lead to the original idea that was initialy undone, it may even augment the original undoing by creating a new position, like a move in a spiral.
One of the principles of continuous evolution [as an image of a progressively increasing arithmetic progression] is the self-cancellation: you have to pull the "rug" out from under your feet to understand or at least to become aware of what lies underneath, and then (if you want to) re-pile it or make a new one. But, just know that whatever you do either way, you will find yourself in a new state. Of course you will also have to take on the cost of the whole thing since many times it is no at all negligible. You have to have an "open mind" and try to get rid of your prejudices.
So in this light, let's review some basic principles (which some say we "must" accept axiomatically) in order to take a look at the "other side" (or "other sides" - to be consistent with the first sentence of this article).
x001. "Μηδείς αγεωμέτρητος εισίτω"
In the lintel of Plato's Academy in Ancient Athens there was an inscription: "Μηδείς αγεωμέτρητος εισίτω" (en: "No one who is not a geometrician may enter"), i.e. one was not allowed to attend the Academy if did not know Geometry, i.e. Mathematics.
When a young man expressed a desire to attend classes at the Academy, Xenocrates, who was the director of the Academy after Plato and Seusippus, asked him if he knew Geometry. To his negative answer he said: "Πορεύου· λαβάς γαρ ουκ έχεις φιλοσοφία", i.e.: "Go on; you don't have the philosophy required to learn" (Diogenes, L. IV, 10.)
The above can be said to define a "Priesthood of Knowledge" in which not everyone can participate. Certain conditions must be fulfilled and the basic one of them is that one must know Mathematics.
x002. The Priesthood
If the word "Priesthood" reminded you of something more recent, then you are not wrong in guessing my next view:
Steven Levy, writes in his book "Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution": In the spring of 1959 the university offered the first course in computer programming. At that time it took a lot of time to program a computer. One had to give punch-card commands to this machine because there was no display-screen. However, you also had to get past the IBM engineers, who called themselves "the priesthood" and oversaw the computer. When early hackers like Peter Samson, Bob Saunders and Alan Kotok wanted to use one of these million-dollar machines, they were ousted from the machine by the priesthood."
x003. The Hackers
Now let's go to the computer hackers themselves - I'm referring to the original hackers (http://vadeker.net/articles/hacker-howto.html) and not to the wannabe mediocre idiots. The basic "ingredient" for becoming a Hacker (which permeates all of Steve Raymond's quoted text) is to be quite smart (for ex: have a high IQ) and of course to definitely know programming. I wonder if somehow the idea described in x001 has been repeated here: If someone of average IQ went to Linus Torvalds (let's say some random hacker name now...) and told him that he wants to join the Linux Kernel Developers team but doesn't know programming at all and in addition doesn't think it needed; most likely our friend Linus would tell him to go to hell, and beyond!
Hackers are elitist and often reductive, mostly irons and some foulmouthed... Of course this has been misunderstood and some people who want to pretend to be a Hacker are also reductive irons and foulmouthed, but that's all they can do (it's the easiest thing to do, after all).
It's not easy at all for Hackers to consider you one of them and for you to be accepted into their fold. You have to have at least the necessary qualifications: Very good programming knowledge, published work, high IQ and some other characteristics mentioned in Steve's text.
Does any of this ring a bell? A priesthood perhaps...?
In fact maybe some people might even risk being labeled as "racist" when the qualifications for admission to this Priesthood have to do with one's physical characteristics.
And we come to the question: How important is the "Priesthood" to keep the cohesion, quality and high level of a group with common goals?
How "successful" would Linus' or Stallman's vision be if it were flanked by mediocre low-intelligence programmers?
Is (I say IS) the Priesthood necessary - as long as it is not someone else's but ours?
x004. Hackers & boredom
Personally if I were in the shoes of Linus, Stallman and similar personalities I would be bored to tears! Going so often (not to say "all the time" - maybe I would be strict) to presentations, conferences and spending SO much time defining software licenses (GPL, v1,1.1,2 etc), looking how legally protected they are, if they have "loopholes" that someone could violate this Anarchism (in the good sense) would be incredibly boring. Not to mention, it would keep me away from my original goal and purpose, which is what I would like to do: writing code and articles.
But, lest I be misunderstood here: I'm not saying it is bad or unnecessary, I 'm saying it is boring!
x005. Programming, Universe and Anarchy
Code and all the technical culture that lies beneath computing is seemingly deterministic. It obeys strict rules that stem from a purely binary basis. However, based on Chinese philosophy, the Universe itself is the composite of mutually exclusive dualisms. But the universe is dominated by entropy... or is it not? What if the entropy is just the human inability to find the pattern?
Is it the system itself that changes every time? Is the principle here the lack of principle, or better yet: Does the principle is the self-cancellation? The non-principle: The non-existence of a fixed principle of a system that self-contradicts as repeats itself.
The art of programming follows the universal pattern, that of Anarchy (etymologically). Programmers and indeed addicted programmers (some of whom are Hackers) are Anarchists by nature.
x006. The Prometheus effect
Several people have gifted humanity with knowledge by giving away their freedom and (sometimes) their lives to a strict system at hand. From Prometheus to Aaron Swartz and to Julian Paul Assange, they have given knowledge to the people, that based on the respective status-quo should not possess.
But what exactly does it mean to give everyone such knowledge?
On the one hand it means that with a fire, even the last naked person in the most remote, northern (or southern) part of the planet could be warmed up and stay alive, but on the other hand it could also mean that with a fire some people could burn all the books on the planet and all the forests with animals together... with all that that might entail...
Well, binary again ~ (g00d and b4d!)
x007. The Dichotomy and the Principle
In the end, who is right? Who is doing the right thing? Stallman with his boring Licenses, Aaron who publish all the scientific hidden publications, the unknown Hacker who keeps secret the 0day he found in the TCP/IP protocol?
Is there any pattern to "defines" what to do in each case? Is there any hidden principle here?
The answer now comes as a simple inference...
Happy Hacking!
Undoing the undo does not necessarily lead to the original idea that was initialy undone, it may even augment the original undoing by creating a new position, like a move in a spiral.
One of the principles of continuous evolution [as an image of a progressively increasing arithmetic progression] is the self-cancellation: you have to pull the "rug" out from under your feet to understand or at least to become aware of what lies underneath, and then (if you want to) re-pile it or make a new one. But, just know that whatever you do either way, you will find yourself in a new state. Of course you will also have to take on the cost of the whole thing since many times it is no at all negligible. You have to have an "open mind" and try to get rid of your prejudices.
So in this light, let's review some basic principles (which some say we "must" accept axiomatically) in order to take a look at the "other side" (or "other sides" - to be consistent with the first sentence of this article).
x001. "Μηδείς αγεωμέτρητος εισίτω"
In the lintel of Plato's Academy in Ancient Athens there was an inscription: "Μηδείς αγεωμέτρητος εισίτω" (en: "No one who is not a geometrician may enter"), i.e. one was not allowed to attend the Academy if did not know Geometry, i.e. Mathematics.
When a young man expressed a desire to attend classes at the Academy, Xenocrates, who was the director of the Academy after Plato and Seusippus, asked him if he knew Geometry. To his negative answer he said: "Πορεύου· λαβάς γαρ ουκ έχεις φιλοσοφία", i.e.: "Go on; you don't have the philosophy required to learn" (Diogenes, L. IV, 10.)
The above can be said to define a "Priesthood of Knowledge" in which not everyone can participate. Certain conditions must be fulfilled and the basic one of them is that one must know Mathematics.
x002. The Priesthood
If the word "Priesthood" reminded you of something more recent, then you are not wrong in guessing my next view:
Steven Levy, writes in his book "Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution": In the spring of 1959 the university offered the first course in computer programming. At that time it took a lot of time to program a computer. One had to give punch-card commands to this machine because there was no display-screen. However, you also had to get past the IBM engineers, who called themselves "the priesthood" and oversaw the computer. When early hackers like Peter Samson, Bob Saunders and Alan Kotok wanted to use one of these million-dollar machines, they were ousted from the machine by the priesthood."
x003. The Hackers
Now let's go to the computer hackers themselves - I'm referring to the original hackers (http://vadeker.net/articles/hacker-howto.html) and not to the wannabe mediocre idiots. The basic "ingredient" for becoming a Hacker (which permeates all of Steve Raymond's quoted text) is to be quite smart (for ex: have a high IQ) and of course to definitely know programming. I wonder if somehow the idea described in x001 has been repeated here: If someone of average IQ went to Linus Torvalds (let's say some random hacker name now...) and told him that he wants to join the Linux Kernel Developers team but doesn't know programming at all and in addition doesn't think it needed; most likely our friend Linus would tell him to go to hell, and beyond!
Hackers are elitist and often reductive, mostly irons and some foulmouthed... Of course this has been misunderstood and some people who want to pretend to be a Hacker are also reductive irons and foulmouthed, but that's all they can do (it's the easiest thing to do, after all).
It's not easy at all for Hackers to consider you one of them and for you to be accepted into their fold. You have to have at least the necessary qualifications: Very good programming knowledge, published work, high IQ and some other characteristics mentioned in Steve's text.
Does any of this ring a bell? A priesthood perhaps...?
In fact maybe some people might even risk being labeled as "racist" when the qualifications for admission to this Priesthood have to do with one's physical characteristics.
And we come to the question: How important is the "Priesthood" to keep the cohesion, quality and high level of a group with common goals?
How "successful" would Linus' or Stallman's vision be if it were flanked by mediocre low-intelligence programmers?
Is (I say IS) the Priesthood necessary - as long as it is not someone else's but ours?
x004. Hackers & boredom
Personally if I were in the shoes of Linus, Stallman and similar personalities I would be bored to tears! Going so often (not to say "all the time" - maybe I would be strict) to presentations, conferences and spending SO much time defining software licenses (GPL, v1,1.1,2 etc), looking how legally protected they are, if they have "loopholes" that someone could violate this Anarchism (in the good sense) would be incredibly boring. Not to mention, it would keep me away from my original goal and purpose, which is what I would like to do: writing code and articles.
But, lest I be misunderstood here: I'm not saying it is bad or unnecessary, I 'm saying it is boring!
x005. Programming, Universe and Anarchy
Code and all the technical culture that lies beneath computing is seemingly deterministic. It obeys strict rules that stem from a purely binary basis. However, based on Chinese philosophy, the Universe itself is the composite of mutually exclusive dualisms. But the universe is dominated by entropy... or is it not? What if the entropy is just the human inability to find the pattern?
Is it the system itself that changes every time? Is the principle here the lack of principle, or better yet: Does the principle is the self-cancellation? The non-principle: The non-existence of a fixed principle of a system that self-contradicts as repeats itself.
The art of programming follows the universal pattern, that of Anarchy (etymologically). Programmers and indeed addicted programmers (some of whom are Hackers) are Anarchists by nature.
x006. The Prometheus effect
Several people have gifted humanity with knowledge by giving away their freedom and (sometimes) their lives to a strict system at hand. From Prometheus to Aaron Swartz and to Julian Paul Assange, they have given knowledge to the people, that based on the respective status-quo should not possess.
But what exactly does it mean to give everyone such knowledge?
On the one hand it means that with a fire, even the last naked person in the most remote, northern (or southern) part of the planet could be warmed up and stay alive, but on the other hand it could also mean that with a fire some people could burn all the books on the planet and all the forests with animals together... with all that that might entail...
Well, binary again ~ (g00d and b4d!)
x007. The Dichotomy and the Principle
In the end, who is right? Who is doing the right thing? Stallman with his boring Licenses, Aaron who publish all the scientific hidden publications, the unknown Hacker who keeps secret the 0day he found in the TCP/IP protocol?
Is there any pattern to "defines" what to do in each case? Is there any hidden principle here?
The answer now comes as a simple inference...
Happy Hacking!
Последнее редактирование: