The following emails are a continuation of the written critical exchange arranged with libertarian writer George H. Smith in the summer of 2003 as a paid critique service for the purpose of obtaining some logical analysis of the philosophical basis of the Self-Sovereign Individual Project by a knowledgeable libertarian thinker. (See Link Note)
No response has been received from George to Paul's reply to "Part One" as of the date of the last update of this web page. In addition, as the emails show, George made no substantive response to Paul's rebuttal of George's comments in the reply to "Part Two".
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Part Two
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 20:29:32 -0500
From: George H. Smith
To: Paul Antonik Wakfer
Paul,
I resent your remarks. I spent over 12 hours on your
material, and many of my comments were very pertinent.
In your annotations you specifically state that you don't
provide arguments (which you claim would take thousands of
pages) but merely descriptions, or something to that
effect. There is therefore no "logic" -- i.e., no
arguments, or chain of reasoning -- to analyze.
Here is what you should do. Send me the *specific*
passages that you wish me to analyze, and I will do so.
There is no point in me guessing about what you have in
mind. This is why I wanted to talk to you at the
conference.
You now demand that I reply to your responses to my
earlier remarks -- the same remarks that you condemned as
largely irrelevant. This is pointless if they were in fact
irrelevant. Your annotations run many pages. Just send me
the *specific* instances of logic that you wish me to
analyze, and I will do it. I already commented on quite a
bit of this, but this wasn't apparently what you wanted.
George
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Part Two
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:28:19 -0700
From: Paul Antonik Wakfer
To: George H. Smith
George H. Smith wrote:
> Paul,
>
> I resent your remarks.
Since once again you did not answer inline, it is impossible
for me to know what it is exactly that you "resent".
> I spent over 12 hours on your
> material, and many of my comments were very pertinent.
They may have been pertinent for you, but few of them were
pertinent to what I was after. Still I have gained something from
them, just not sufficiently according to my evaluation.
> In your annotations you specifically state that you don't
> provide arguments (which you claim would take thousands of
> pages) but merely descriptions, or something to that
> effect. There is therefore no "logic" -- i.e., no
> arguments, or chain of reasoning -- to analyze.
This is quite incorrect. In the first sentence to that
paragraph, I stated that I would supply "explanations" of the
DOII statements which were necessarily short and succinct.
(It is true that I afterwards used the word "description" -
a mistake which I have now fixed - however where descriptions
are of the logic involved there is in fact little difference
between a description and an explanation!). The "thousands
of pages" reference was meant to apply to the fact that it
would take thousands of pages to analyze all the historical
writers views of the intricacies of the concepts which I am
considering. There was no intended implication that adequate
analysis would require thousands of pages (although I admit
that one could have read it that way). However, it is quite
clear by reading the annotations which follow that statement
about their brevity, that I am making cogent logical arguments
and reasoning. Did you not read any of this? I have now
rewritten that paragraph to make it clearer that I was
referring to such an analysis of all other writers' views
of these ideas, and that I personally do not think that 1000s
of pages are really necessary to quite well understand the
concepts and see the validity of the statements involved.
> Here is what you should do. Send me the *specific*
> passages that you wish me to analyze, and I will do so.
> There is no point in me guessing about what you have in
> mind. This is why I wanted to talk to you at the
> conference.
If you were not clear about what I wanted you to do, then
you should have replied inline to state that in response to
the email which I sent, and clearly intended to be describing
what I wanted you to do.
> You now demand that I reply to your responses to my
> earlier remarks -- the same remarks that you condemned as
> largely irrelevant. This is pointless if they were in fact
> irrelevant.
I expected that we would enter into a written *dialogue*. So
far this has not happened. [Later note: and such a dialogue
on the substantive content has never occurred.]
> Your annotations run many pages. Just send me
> the *specific* instances of logic that you wish me to
> analyze, and I will do it. I already commented on quite a
> bit of this, but this wasn't apparently what you wanted.
You did little more than look at the documents and comment on the first
few annotations which were really just meta statements. The central
decisive arguments come after that, specifically in annotations 6 - 24
--Paul Wakfer
MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Rational freedom by self-sovereignty & social contracting
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Part Two
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 21:05:44 -0500
From: George H. Smith
To: Paul Antonik Wakfer
Paul,
You did not contract with me for an open-ended commitment
on my time. The $250 covers five hours. I understood that
I didn't cover everything -- which is why I specifically
stated (at the end of Part Two) that I was willing to
write some more, after I found out (at a meeting that you
unilaterally cancelled) what you specifically wished me to
focus on that I hadn't already covered. Since you chose
not to do this, I asked you to do it via email.
Here is where things stand. I will allot three more hours
to this project. I will use it on anything you wish. If
you wish me to apply it to responding to Parts One and
Two, I will do it. If you wish to send me specific
passages for which you would like an in-depth analysis, I
will do that. Or, alternatively, I can go through your
annotations and select the passages that I think are most
important from a theoretical perspective. I cannot do all
of this in three hours, so you will need to tell me what
is most important to you.
George
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Part Two
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 08:16:38 -0700
From: Paul Antonik Wakfer
To: George H. Smith
George H. Smith wrote:
> Paul,
>
> You did not contract with me for an open-ended commitment
> on my time. The $250 covers five hours. I understood that
> I didn't cover everything -- which is why I specifically
> stated (at the end of Part Two) that I was willing to
> write some more, after I found out (at a meeting that you
> unilaterally canceled) what you specifically wished me to
> focus on that I hadn't already covered.
I did not unilaterally cancel a meeting. The meeting was always
conditional upon it being useful; the preparatory exchanges which
would have made it useful had not been accomplished. Thus, any
purpose in talking to you would be much better fulfilled by email
with a written record. Besides, you were at the conference anyway.
You had already decided to be there *before* our connection and
my decision not to enter into a discussion with you there did not
in any manner waste your time.
If you had answered with comments inline from the start, much
of this misunderstanding would have been avoided. Instead you
continue to not use this important technique for non-evasion
and misunderstanding avoidance.
> Since you chose not to do this,
The "choice" was not something which could be any other way,
based on the reality of the situation. To do otherwise would
have wasted both our times.
> I asked you to do it via email.
Which I have now done.
> Here is where things stand. I will allot three more hours
> to this project. I will use it on anything you wish. If
> you wish me to apply it to responding to Parts One and
> Two, I will do it.
If you have no wish for your own edification to respond,
then I have no wish to have you respond.
> If you wish to send me specific
> passages for which you would like an in-depth analysis, I
> will do that. Or, alternatively, I can go through your
> annotations and select the passages that I think are most
> important from a theoretical perspective. I cannot do all
> of this in three hours, so you will need to tell me what
> is most important to you.
As stated in my last email, the "meat" of the arguments in
DOII are in annotations 6-24 - the newly updated version online
since yesterday. Spend your three hours reading there and
making some comments about what you think, but about the ideas
as they stand, not as they are related to the various historical
"authorities".
Once again you have evaded any response to my last email
comments by refusing to make an inline response. This appears
to demonstrate a refusal to meet issues head on!
--Paul
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Part Two
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 11:53:16 -0500
From: George H. Smith
To: Paul Antonik Wakfer
Paul,
Before I sent Parts One and Two, I was very clear about
the situation. On 8/5/03, I wrote:
"I now want to comment on a potential problem with the
annotated DOII. When I first wrote to you about this, I
had read the much shorter Declaration, and though I
glanced at the annotations, it somehow escaped me how long
this document is. It was only later, after printing it
out, that I realized it runs to over 30 pages. I have read
it over twice and made some marginal notations in an
effort to isolate the most essential ideas -- ones that I
can comment on in around five hours. To do a detailed
inline commentary on *every* point raised in this document
could literally take me many days, possibly a week, of
nearly full-time work."
"Therefore, assuming this project goes forward, we have
one of two options: (1) I can try to cover virtually every
paragraph, which will mean that my comments will
necessarily be brief; or (2) I can bypass what I regard as
less important issues and discuss the more important ones
in greater detail. Do you have a preference?"
As for the conference, at the end of Part Two I indicated
the purpose that a meeting would serve for me. I wrote:
"I can ask you some questions in order to clarify some
things, and we can also go over some of the points I have
not yet discussed....After that, if you still feel that
some issues need further examination, I will send you a
summary of my philosophical comments shortly after
returning home. This will be much easier for me to do at
that time, after I have been able to ask you about a few
things."
If there was a misunderstanding here, it was on your part.
It had nothing to do with your demands for inline replies
by me to everything you write.
The problem remains as it was, since there is a mass of
material in your annotations. It is very difficult, and at
times nearly impossible, to comment on the annotations
without also commenting on your original Declaration. But,
if you don't wish to narrow this down more by singling out
particular passages, then I will use my own judgment and
discretion in making the selections. If you prefer not to
take the chance that I won't cover material that you view
as most essential, then you need to identify those
passages so there will be no further problems.
In Parts One and Two, I took a many hours of extra time to
comment on things that you did not specifically request,
because I thought you might find at least some of my
remarks useful. I got a string of insults from you for my
trouble. I am therefore going to clock the remaining three
hours, as I have done will all of my other clients over
the past few years. This is why it is imperative that you
let me know of your priorities, if you have any, of what I
should focus on.
I will probably begin work on this late tonight. If I
don't receive more specific instructions from you by then,
I will go ahead and make the decisions on my own. It does
no good to repeat that "the 'meat of the arguments in DOII are
in annotations 6-24." I know you want me to comment on DOII.
What I don't know is *which* arguments in DOII you are
referring to specifically.
As I said in my email quoted above, I cannot cover
everything; I must necessarily be selective -- if, that
is, you want more than *very* general remarks. The problem
still stands.
Here is the way this will work if I don't hear back from
you with specifics. I will begin with the first passage
that strikes me as theoretically significant in DOII. I
will continue doing this in sequence until the three hours
are up, at which time our business will be concluded.
The times will be specified in my comments. This has
always been my SOP. I didn't do this earlier, because I
decided to invest a *lot* more time with this than you
paid for. And your welcome, btw.
George
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Part Two
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 15:54:36 -0700
From: Paul Antonik Wakfer
To: George H. Smith
George,
I am certainly sorry that we have not been able to become more
in tune with one another.
I had great hopes that we would become friends. As it is I go
right by where I now know you live, on I-55 six-eight times
per year on my way back and forth to AZ from Toronto. So
meetings and chats would have been very easy to have. However,
it now appears that we have a very different sense of life -
of what is important in writing, thought and interpersonal
relations even though we both have similar political philosophies.
George H. Smith wrote:
> Paul,
>
> Before I sent Parts One and Two, I was very clear about
> the situation. On 8/5/03, I wrote:
>
> "I now want to comment on a potential problem with the
> annotated DOII. When I first wrote to you about this, I
> had read the much shorter Declaration, and though I
> glanced at the annotations, it somehow escaped me how long
> this document is. It was only later, after printing it
> out, that I realized it runs to over 30 pages. I have read
> it over twice and made some marginal notations in an
> effort to isolate the most essential ideas -- ones that I
> can comment on in around five hours. To do a detailed
> inline commentary on *every* point raised in this document
> could literally take me many days, possibly a week, of
> nearly full-time work."
>
> "Therefore, assuming this project goes forward, we have
> one of two options: (1) I can try to cover virtually every
> paragraph, which will mean that my comments will
> necessarily be brief; or (2) I can bypass what I regard as
> less important issues and discuss the more important ones
> in greater detail. Do you have a preference?"
And I indicated the second, because I thought that you would
pick out some of the new ideas.
BTW, you never have said what you think of the whole project
purpose and method. I certainly expected something on that.
> As for the conference, at the end of Part Two I indicated
> the purpose that a meeting would serve for me. I wrote:
>
> "I can ask you some questions in order to clarify some
> things, and we can also go over some of the points I have
> not yet discussed....After that, if you still feel that
> some issues need further examination, I will send you a
> summary of my philosophical comments shortly after
> returning home. This will be much easier for me to do at
> that time, after I have been able to ask you about a few
> things."
And I indicated in return that I did not like unrecorded
discussions until such time as the discussants were more familiar
with each other and fully conversant with the subject of their
discussion. I wanted you to ask the questions by email, but you
never did and still never have - about the material itself.
> If there was a misunderstanding here, it was on your part.
> It had nothing to do with your demands for inline replies
> by me to everything you write.
Everyone with any major internet experience and an analytical mind,
with whom I have had dealings, always used this method. Sometimes
with an initial or ending monologue as I have done here. The fact
that you do not automatically use it, shows to me that you are not as
open to new methods and ideas as I thought you would be. Perhaps it
is your age and the fact that you have been an established writer set
in your ways from long before the internet. I have found unfortunately
that several others who I thought would embrace this new method,
which is very clearly superior, did not also. Mary Lou [a mutual friend]
was one such, but in response to my urgings she did start doing it.
> The problem remains as it was, since there is a mass of
> material in your annotations. It is very difficult, and at
> times nearly impossible, to comment on the annotations
> without also commenting on your original Declaration.
This last sentence mystifies me. Of course it is impossible
to comment on the annotated DOII without also commenting on the
DOII because the annotations are precisely there to explain
the DOII statements in more detail.
> But, if you don't wish to narrow this down more by singling out
> particular passages, then I will use my own judgment and
> discretion in making the selections. If you prefer not to
> take the chance that I won't cover material that you view
> as most essential, then you need to identify those
> passages so there will be no further problems.
It is all "essential". I rarely write anything which is *not*
essential. If it was not essential then I would not waste my time
writing it down.
Since I have no thoughts that any of the ideas are less well
supported than the others (if I did I would already have supported
them further), you may as well take your pick of which annotations
6 - 24 and the parts of the DOII which they are explaining which
you decide to cover.
> In Parts One and Two, I took a many hours of extra time to
> comment on things that you did not specifically request,
> because I thought you might find at least some of my
> remarks useful. I got a string of insults from you for my
> trouble.
Since you did not comment inline, once again I have no idea
which comments you found insulting. I certainly meant my comments
to be rational implications from what you had said.
> I am therefore going to clock the remaining three
> hours, as I have done will all of my other clients over
> the past few years. This is why it is imperative that you
> let me know of your priorities, if you have any, of what I
> should focus on.
>
> I will probably begin work on this late tonight. If I
> don't receive more specific instructions from you by then,
> I will go ahead and make the decisions on my own. It does
> no good to repeat that "the 'meat of the arguments in DOII
> are in annotations 6-24." I know you want me to comment on DOII.
> What I don't know is *which* arguments in DOII you are
> referring to specifically.
How about the idea of social meta-needs instead of rights?
Don't you find that at least different if not important?
> As I said in my email quoted above, I cannot cover
> everything; I must necessarily be selective -- if, that
> is, you want more than *very* general remarks. The problem
> still stands.
>
> Here is the way this will work if I don't hear back from
> you with specifics. I will begin with the first passage
> that strikes me as theoretically significant in DOII. I
> will continue doing this in sequence until the three hours
> are up, at which time our business will be concluded.
>
> The times will be specified in my comments. This has
> always been my SOP. I didn't do this earlier, because I
> decided to invest a *lot* more time with this than you
> paid for. And your welcome, btw.
I thanked you for specific things in my replies to parts one
and two. But you were *so* negative about my use of the TDOI style
that I really could not see much more to thank you about in that
regard. Besides you had earlier said you were taking more time
because you were *enjoying* it! When I first read that I thought
that was a good sign. Little did I know that you were enjoying
defending TDOI as a "revered" document (and its author) against
my valid criticisms.
--Paul
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: I may have lost your reply
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 17:09:03 -0400
From: Paul Wakfer
To: George H. Smith
George,
Since immediately after my last email to you I left AZ to drive
back to Toronto and upon arriving here had a small problem getting
my email access up again, I may have missed the final comments
which you had stated that you would make on my work last weekend.
If you sent an email since the one below (to which I replied) then
please resend it.
--Paul
[During the process of turning the email and WORD files into HTML for these four files at the end of August 2003, I took a break to write my personal views. **Kitty]
|
|
|
