----- Original Message -----
From: "Justin Walsh" <jwalsh at bigpond.net.au>
To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 11:19 PM
Subject: Re: Back to Kant


> Yes Gary! Most certainly.
> And Joe and his family also have the right to exit an expressway without
> another Joe coming down the entry lane and wiping out his family, or some
> other Joe flying in his office window.

That's not what I said.

> It is called protocol. Without which we would have no communication at
all,
> no web, no civilisation, no humanity, not even a Squeak. Even animals and
> plants have it.

That's what I said.

>t is what Smalltalk is all about.
> The discussion is really about the best protocol for each and every
> situation in any public space.
> It is your right to pee in your own bathwater and then drink it, if that
is
> what you really "want".
> Joe the box, doing whatever he wants, when he wants, how he wants, is a
> crass distortion of the concept "freedom".

That's not what I said. If Joe wants to leave home and go travelling and
live in the country of his choice and associate with the people of his
choice I'd be very disappointed if you'd want to  police him and call him a
criminal.

> Freedom has nothing to do with wants (desires). It has everthing to do
with
> "necessity" or law: the glue that binds "cause to necessity". The concept
> that Kant was driven to defend.
> Baruch Spinoza said that "freedom is the recognition of necessity".
> If we can turn necessity (needs) into wants instead of wants into needs
then
> we will all be a lot safer.
> Following  "desire" we satisfy wants following "design" we satify needs:
> sorry! design wins.

Yep, design of objects with increased capacity of freedom would be cool, I'd
love to be able to take BookMorphs out of Squeak and put them in a web page.

No flames please, I'm not criticising Squeak there's just some extra
characteristics I'd like to play with. I'm new to computing and Squeak, Java
etc to me are probably equivalent to what punched cards and BASIC were to
some people on this list. And I don't imagine that anyone began using BASIC
and thought '"Wow, this everything I want from a language"

Regards,
Gary
Let's not argue.

> regards
> Justin
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gary McGovern" <garywork at lineone.net>
> To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 1:14 AM
> Subject: Re: Back to Kant
>
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Alan Kay" <Alan.Kay at squeakland.org>
> > To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> > Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 1:10 PM
> > Subject: Re: Back to Kant
> >
> >
> > > Ken --
> > >
> > > At 11:37 AM -0700 10/11/01, Ken Kahn wrote:
> > > >Philosophy intersects programming languages at least in two places:
> > > >
> > > >1. A language designer is designing a world with an ontology and
> > > >episptomology. I think this is what Alan mean by Smalltalk being too
> > > >Platonic. Think about the different world views inherent in a class
> based
> > > >OOPL than in a prototype based one.
> >
> > > This was exactly the sense of my remark.
> >
> > That isn't how I understood that remark at all, I understood it to mean
> that
> > objects were too dependent on the hierarchy and the system. And ideally
> that
> > objects should have 'rights to freedom' and not just be imprisoned
within
> > the system they were created in.
> >
> > Shouldn't Joe the box have rights to travel to the system of his choice,
> the
> > and to talk to objects of his choice ?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Gary
> >
> >
> >
> >
>