11 American Nations
Locked
1 ...
6789101112
1 ...
6789101112
Re: Extended sense of The Commons
 
|
On 01/14/2014 10:22 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> On 1/14/14, 11:06 AM, glen wrote: >> These smaller scale donations increase the interpersonal interactions >> within >> the neighborhood, effectively mixing the well off with the homeless. > And that helps how? To humiliate the people that need help? They don't look humiliated to me. They look happy to talk to various neighbors around a table of food. It seems to help soften the narcissistically abstracted ideas of the well off. And it seems to make the less well off feel like they have a clique to which they belong. Plus, the kids love playing in the dirt with the adults. You sometimes see similar reactions at shelters. But in shelters, there's a very clear us vs. them vibe. Here, we all live within a 2 mile radius. The homeless people who sleep in the school yard right next to the garden are just as much our neighbors as the guy with the 2 story house, 4 spotless motorcycles, and an RV in the driveway. Maybe I'm wrong and all the ones who feel humiliated just don't participate. Who knows? -- ⇒⇐ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Extended sense of The Commons
|
|
On 1/14/14, 11:30 AM, glen wrote:
> The homeless people who sleep in the school yard right > next to the garden are just as much our neighbors as the guy with the 2 > story house, 4 spotless motorcycles, and an RV in the driveway. I tend to think the same about the folks that used to camp on the hill behind the house. After a while the dogs even recognized them and let them be. They caused me less trouble than some of my neighbors at the time that owned property. Fine with me. But as a counter example, there is/was an older woman living out of cart in town. In these months she would need shelter, not friends. Unless her `friends' and `neighbors' are offering her a bedroom in their house. There's no question there is are two groups of people: The people that will sleep soundly in warm houses, and those that may well die. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
group selection and the commons
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
On 01/13/2014 01:07 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Perhaps I could get you guys to read it by promising hereafter to be an > altruistic lurker. Do _not_ be more of a lurker. There are enough lurkers and not enough participants ... of course, I'm a big fan of noise, so I may not be the best touchstone. undacova - sciarex http://youtu.be/YHtplHywEyY > The basic question is, "In our explanations of human behavior, do > we always have to appeal to benefits to Ego's germline, or can we appeal to > explanations based on benefits to the group of which Ego is a part? Here, > FWIW, is the most serious contribution that I made to that literature. > <http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/nthompson/1-websitestuff/Texts/2000-2005/Shif > ting_the_natural_selection_metaphor_to_the_group_level.pdf> What irritates me about the attempts to tie group selection to altruism is not the ambiguity [*] in selection or group or flock but the ambiguity in altruism. You do a bit of disambiguation by identifying reciprocal altruism. And if I extrapolate (or put words in your mouth), I can imagine the problems with the term "altruism" falling out as the other terms are clarified. But I still have this nagging feeling that "altruism" is illusory (hearkening back to Lee's recent post). We don't do anything we could reasonably call "selfish" or "altruistic". We simply do things that make us feel good or bad. A more immediate question might be why do some actions make us feel good or bad? [*] I don't really like the way you use the word "ambiguity" in that paper... but I should leave that for another argument. -- glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Extended sense of The Commons
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
On 01/14/2014 10:43 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> But as a counter example, there is/was an older woman living out of cart > in town. In these months she would need shelter, not friends. Unless > her `friends' and `neighbors' are offering her a bedroom in their > house. There's no question there is are two groups of people: The > people that will sleep soundly in warm houses, and those that may well die. That's too true. We don't have as much problem here as you would in Santa Fe. Any harsh environment like that presents even more hurdles. Perhaps that's part of why Portland has such a high population of homeless. The relatively moderate climate is less risky. But I can rely on the old adage: It's not what you know, but who you know. There are lots of little NGOs around here that provide services to at-risk people. Yog knows we get enough bitching from the well off people at the meetings about the ne'er do wells loitering and smoking in the parks during the day. The cops tell us that most of these people have nothing to do because they're living out of the local half-way house (again within a mile of where I live) and even in a good economy, it's tough for these people to find jobs. My point is that if we can engage the homeless people at the neighborhood picnics and such (again paid for in part by donations and part by the city), they are much more likely to be _aware_ of the various resources nearby. We don't have a shelter nearby, but lots of other ways to stay warm and dry, including sheds, tents, sleeping bags, etc. And there are some churches who open their doors if asked. A large percentage of the homeless here have the choice to sleep outside or inside. Taking advantage of the social services often comes with a price (arriving on time, waiting in line, obeying the rules, etc.). For many of them, the price can seem too high and they prefer one of the outdoor camp sites, which are less structured. I can't imagine having that choice in Santa Fe. My support of any of these efforts depends fundamentally on whether they increase the number of choices available ... because that's the only way we'll increase the amount of rationality and freedom. -- ⇒⇐ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Extended sense of The Commons
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
On 1/14/14 11:30 AM, glen wrote:
> On 01/14/2014 10:22 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: >> On 1/14/14, 11:06 AM, glen wrote: >>> These smaller scale donations increase the interpersonal interactions >>> within >>> the neighborhood, effectively mixing the well off with the homeless. >> And that helps how? To humiliate the people that need help? > They don't look humiliated to me. They look happy to talk to various > neighbors around a table of food. It seems to help soften the > narcissistically abstracted ideas of the well off. And it seems to make > the less well off feel like they have a clique to which they belong. > Plus, the kids love playing in the dirt with the adults. > > You sometimes see similar reactions at shelters. But in shelters, > there's a very clear us vs. them vibe. Here, we all live within a 2 > mile radius. The homeless people who sleep in the school yard right > next to the garden are just as much our neighbors as the guy with the 2 > story house, 4 spotless motorcycles, and an RV in the driveway. Maybe > I'm wrong and all the ones who feel humiliated just don't participate. > Who knows? whatever mechanisms are available to encourage laminar flow between highly disparate layers (wealth, opportunity, values being roughly pressure, temperature, velocity vectors).. (top 1% vs homeless, first world vs starving 3rd world) rather than to seek to *separate* the flows and *engineer* very contrived connections (e.g. Social Service systems, US AID, World Bank, etc.) between the two to try to relieve the stresses. The stress of the impoverished observing the greedy go about their business,and the stress of the greedy having to hear the wails and growling hungry swollen bellies of those who are not even useful enough to them to pick their coffee beans or sew their designer labels into their opulent clothes, but rather displaced from their subsistence lifestyles by one of the first world's "oopsies" like a proxy war or engineered revolution gone bad. If the 1% dedicate themselves to (also) improving the lives of the 10% who are "almost peers", so that said 10% will have the resources to do the same for the 50% who are *their* "almost peers", recursively on down, then I think we have a chance. I do my part mostly by being generous with those whose circumstances are recognizeable similar but lesser than my own. The guy with the RV and 4 spotless motorcycles might give (or sell at a generous price) one of his old clunker-bikes to someone in the milieu who already has a drivers license and a place to park it, understanding or even agreeing on a pay-it-forward to the next level. In Reaganomics, it was "trickle down" (which made me think way too much of plumbing fixtures) economics. In RainbowBriteEnomics it is "hand-me-down" economics. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Extended sense of The Commons
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
On 1/14/14 11:22 AM, Marcus G. Dismal wrote:
> On 1/14/14, 11:06 AM, glen soapbox on a ropella wrote: >> These smaller scale donations increase the interpersonal interactions >> within >> the neighborhood, effectively mixing the well off with the homeless. > And that helps how? To humiliate the people that need help? The worst "job" on the planet I think is the one where you stand in line for your food stamps or welfare check and have to make up creative stories based on the bureaucracy's current arbitrary standards to not lose said "job". It isn't necessarily "humiliating" but i think it is "soul crushing". In the spirit of undermining my own hyperbole, I'm sure there are plenty of "jobs" on the planet worse than being on public assistance... ones which are not only humiliating and soul crushing but miserably painful and overtly dangerous as well. *We* live in a very luxurious world when mere "humiliation" is the worst of our problems. I generally don't hand out cash to homeless, but I do occasionally buy them a meal, give them a ride, and/or sit and talk with them... sometimes they are incredibly interesting people, and I don't think I'm wrong that my willingness to engage with them as human beings nourishes them as much as the hot meal. And it often nourishes me. At that point, I have been known to be very generous with cash if it feels like such an infusion will do them more good than harm. I can't possibly guess that walking by in a "hit and run" act of charity, or by simply paying my taxes without grumbling out loud. I don't expect many people to do this. Most are more comfortable throwing a few crumpled bills or a quarter at them or giving their old coats to goodwill and writing it off of their taxes at "replacement cost", or even accepting/supporting tax/spend liberalism. Those are all valid ways to give... I just prefer the personal when I can muster the time/energy/perspective to do so. As for the homeless woman in the streets? I once "rescued" a homeless man by letting him live with me for two weeks, while he saved the cash he was making emptying trashbins and sweeping up at a fast food restaurant so he could rent a flophouse room. I went with him to the flophouse and ended up fronting him the 1 week deposit (2 weeks in advance, 1 week deposit was the deal). To celebrate his new home, we walked a block to the closest liquor store and sat on the curb sharing a pint of MD2020 out of a "drinking sack". We were friends for years after that... he never got "completely right", he had too many fundamental problems (he traced them back to heavy drug use in his late teens, I took his word for it)... he had a lot of issues with impulse control and judgement, being easily 'taken advantage of' by others. Except for two weeks under my roof, some hot water, and some incidental meals (and I bought the MD2020) I never "gave" him anything but my time and interest which was truly genuine. He was an interesting man, because of as well as in spite of his flaws. I have not done the same since. I had the good fortune of getting to know "Jose" fairly well before I made the offer.. so I knew roughly what i was getting into... there were a few surprises and several inconveniences... but it felt like a win/win to me. - Rainbow Brite PS. I really do try to keep from farting rainbows in this elevator that is FRIAM. I used to think it was my diet of mystic poets and sappy love songs on Pandora which generated such colorful gas, but I'm pretty sure now it is just my constitution... and a reaction to the Murky Dismal of the news stream when it dribbles in through the leaks in my dikes. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Extended sense of The Commons
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
On 1/14/14 11:29 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> On 1/14/14, 11:15 AM, Steve Smith wrote: >>> Abuse the situation? Fade out? Norms are being asserted here. >> Norms are being acknowledged and recognized collectively, not >> asserted, in this case. I think it is a crucial difference. > I've been at events at churches where the organizers believe that too. If I were looking for an authoritarian, top-down, self-righteous place to observe norms being asserted, A Church would seem to be a good place to start. City Hall, Planning and Zoning, etc. seem like another good one. Corporate America (more likely Transnational), Acedemia, Federally funded Institutions... hmmm... other good places... A local park designed, built and maintained by those who use it? That is a bit further on down my list for places to look for it. > Someone has power, someone doesn't. Yes, the people who inhabit the space have the power. The homeless have the power to disrupt and make miserable the more well heeled users as do the teens who don't live there but stop in after school to smoke substances and fart around. The more directly invested (through lease or mortgage obligations) folks have their homes as a base of operations if they were to launch an assault on the "nomads", and the "jackbooted thugs" hired by the city probably believe that they work for the "permanent squatters" rather than the "nomads". In a year I didn't see any significant abuses of any of these kinds of power. But then, the drug tests at LBL were designed to make sure everyone *was* using... not vice-versa. I opted out by wearing a pair of rose-colored kaleidoscopes strapped over my eyes instead, I guess I forgot to take them off. Might have been why I had to leave LANL within 2 years of returning... too much Murky Post Nanosian Dismality. - Pollyanna ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Extended sense of The Commons
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
On 01/14/2014 02:07 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> Using a physical system metaphor (fluid flow), I believe in using > whatever mechanisms are available to encourage laminar flow between > highly disparate layers (wealth, opportunity, values being roughly > pressure, temperature, velocity vectors).. (top 1% vs homeless, first > world vs starving 3rd world) rather than to seek to *separate* the flows > and *engineer* very contrived connections (e.g. Social Service systems, > US AID, World Bank, etc.) between the two to try to relieve the > stresses. It sounds like you're laying out an implicitly multi-scale government technique. If so, that would be in direct opposition to something like "trickle-down", which (I assume) relies upon some sort of assumed natural "physics" of economics. A managed -- even if only encouraging -- coupling between the various categories would fall directly into a tax-and-spend liberal view of good government. A laissez faire perspective would suggest no need to pay it forward or to systemically encourage paying it forward. The interesting part of your proposal would lie in discovering when government managed couplings were needed and when they weren't. -- ⇒⇐ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Extended sense of The Commons
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
On 1/14/14, 3:07 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> If the 1% dedicate themselves to (also) improving the lives of the 10% > who are "almost peers", so that said 10% will have the resources to do > the same for the 50% who are *their* "almost peers", recursively on > down, then I think we have a chance. Perhaps knowing a bit more about Glen's personality than other people here might, I can imagine Glen having a matter-of-fact conversation with a homeless not-all-who-wonder-are-lost sort of person. I have also had interesting, enriching conversations with people who I think may be teetering toward mental illness for understandable environment reasons (but otherwise seem fine), or at least are way out of the norm in the topics they talk about or the expectations they have from other people. I find that engaging from time to time. Raw. Low order. Isolated. I want to suppose these people are independent agents that I don't understand and have no obligation to. The suspicion of the park project comes from a suspicion that you don't know what "improving" (above) really means even though you advocate some sort of mass action. There's no one direction to go in. All of these people making the world a better place could easily cancel each other out. That value system (if there is _one_ and it isn't just a vague recommendation) is yours and if you don't disentangle your "enlightened self interest" from what the needs in that community are in an detached empirical way, you may be deluding yourself. I prefer the sort of coercive liberal agendas like I advocate, because I think I make it clear when I have an axe to grind. I'm not sure about the meta self-knowledge of these local community organizers. I am suspicious they may be bullies in disguise, but just so impotent that all they can pull off are small local renovation projects. It is a proxy for the impact they wish they had. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Extended sense of The Commons
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
On 1/14/14 4:33 PM, glen wrote:
> On 01/14/2014 02:07 PM, Steve Smith wrote: >> Using a physical system metaphor (fluid flow), I believe in using >> whatever mechanisms are available to encourage laminar flow between >> highly disparate layers (wealth, opportunity, values being roughly >> pressure, temperature, velocity vectors).. (top 1% vs homeless, first >> world vs starving 3rd world) rather than to seek to *separate* the flows >> and *engineer* very contrived connections (e.g. Social Service systems, >> US AID, World Bank, etc.) between the two to try to relieve the >> stresses. > It sounds like you're laying out an implicitly multi-scale government > technique. > If so, that would be in direct opposition to something like > "trickle-down", which (I assume) relies upon some sort of assumed > natural "physics" of economics. A managed -- even if only encouraging > -- coupling between the various categories would fall directly into a > tax-and-spend liberal view of good government. A laissez faire > perspective would suggest no need to pay it forward or to systemically > encourage paying it forward. Think of a recursive hierarchy of potlatches... > The interesting part of your proposal would lie in discovering when > government managed couplings were needed and when they weren't. If people, collectively, in large numbers, could adopt the principle, the only help from the government required would be to "get out of the way"... maybe starting with "gift tax" repeal? It really doesn't have any chance of success except maybe within the context of a "day after next" Utopian(/Dystopian) Unicorn Fart of a SciFi wanna be story. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Extended sense of The Commons
|
|
On 1/14/14 6:39 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
No, I'm proposing a *social* change, not a governmental or political one.[..] Think of a recursive hierarchy of potlatches..." Indeed you can usually tell when the concepts of democracy and citizenship are weakening. There is an increase in the role of charity and in the worship of volunteerism. These represent the élite citizen's imitation of noblesse oblige; that is, of pretending to be aristocrats or oligarchs, as opposed to being citizens." John Ralston Saul ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Extended sense of The Commons
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Marcus -
> Perhaps knowing a bit more about Glen's personality than other people > here might, I can imagine Glen having a matter-of-fact conversation > with a homeless not-all-who-wonder-are-lost sort of person. I suspect that is why he talks with me from time to time (not all who wonder/wander). > I have also had interesting, enriching conversations with people who I > think may be teetering toward mental illness for understandable > environment reasons (but otherwise seem fine), or at least are way out > of the norm in the topics they talk about or the expectations they > have from other people. I find that engaging from time to time. > Raw. Low order. Isolated. Absolutely. That is part of my point... It is hard for me (who am somewhat motivated, and practiced in the art) to actually *help* or more to the point *engage* with someone that far from my personal circumstance and experience. But I have watched the *more* capable among that strata help the *less* capable from time to time. I suspect that the better social workers are folks who either raised themselves up from near-desperate circumstances or at least had it kiss them or theirs at some point in life. Sure there are likely some amazingly intuitive, empathic, trust-funders who do this work and do it well... > > I want to suppose these people are independent agents that I don't > understand and have no obligation to. In the realm of enlightened self interest, there are no "obligations" except to oneself. If you want these people to not impinge on your reality overmuch, you can move into a gated community, hire a driver (with concealed carry permits) and shuttle from your air conditioned garage to a complementary one at your workplace and under Whole Foods (you do have a pass to that parking lot, right?). Or you can establish a relationship with them directly (the scenario described above). Or you can participate in a continuously stratified society which seeks to reduce the ??? of the tensor describing the sheer stresses throughout the system. > The suspicion of the park project comes from a suspicion that you > don't know what "improving" (above) really means even though you > advocate some sort of mass action. There's no one direction to go in. Someone else would probably have torn out a park and put in a parking lot... and as far as I'm concerned... if that was an emergent, collective decision by those living there, that would be fine too. > All of these people making the world a better place could easily > cancel each other out. That value system (if there is _one_ and it > isn't just a vague recommendation) is yours and if you don't > disentangle your "enlightened self interest" from what the needs in > that community are in an detached empirical way, you may be deluding > yourself. I have lived a life of detached empiricism with short bouts and/or thin veins through certain aspects of my life of much more intuitive or even mystical modes of apprehending what I was doing of the word. I'm less proud of the things I had "empirical detachment" around. But that is just me... others may be nostalgic (or intentional) about not having been more rigorous in their decisions about life, love, and the mysteries of a vocation. > I prefer the sort of coercive liberal agendas like I advocate, because > I think I make it clear when I have an axe to grind. I'm not sure > about the meta self-knowledge of these local community organizers. I > am suspicious they may be bullies in disguise, but just so impotent > that all they can pull off are small local renovation projects. It is > a proxy for the impact they wish they had. I'm not unaware of the bullying of do-gooders. The original organizers who brought this park into being may have been wicked-radical bullies... by the time I arrived on the scene it had all settled out nicely. But by the grace of one of the non-caucasian goddesses, the bullying do gooders around civil and women's rights during my formative years, would have turned me into a whining wingnut focused on "reverse discrimination". That is partly what kept me wanting to like the Republicans well into my 30's... *they* had all sorts of coercive ideological agendas with what seemed like transparency into their axes of grindage, which had it's charms... in contrast to the less transparent version, full of it's own oats self-righteousness, backed up by (mostly) the recent wins against the Nixon/Kissinger debacles. The "PC" , "knee jerking" of the 70's, 80's turned me off and burned me out, but I never lost and fortunately regained a sense of hopefulness about the human spirit. We *can* (and often do) defer to "professionals" to decide for us the greater good, and then implement it for us... and I believe that such can work out well for modest periods of time under various circumstances... I just have to ask why My anecdote was a singular (counter) example which gave *me* hope against the myriad "neighborhood associations" and god knows what all, we create when first we practice to run other people's lives. Berkeley, the center of uber-liberalism, has become, in it's collective character and in it's specific approach to governing, quite fascist... despite applying it to a very liberal agenda. I can tell that I've miscommunicated significantly in this (and this thread only?) thread... I do appreciate the engagement however, as I think it brought out some interesting and important discussion... - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Extended sense of The Commons
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> I prefer the sort of coercive liberal agendas like I advocate, because I > think I make it clear when I have an axe to grind. I'm not sure about > the meta self-knowledge of these local community organizers. I am > suspicious they may be bullies in disguise, but just so impotent that > all they can pull off are small local renovation projects. It is a > proxy for the impact they wish they had. This comment reminds me of Lampedusa's Leopard, who was characterized somewhere in the novel as "The prince did not wish to help with that noble cause as he was fully aware of his handicap of not being able to dominate/bully people efficiently." [Quote is from memory.] ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Extended sense of The Commons
|
|
On 1/15/14, 3:59 AM, Bela Patkai wrote:
> This comment reminds me of Lampedusa's Leopard, who was characterized > somewhere in the novel as "The prince did not wish to help with that > noble cause as he was fully aware of his handicap of not being able to > dominate/bully people efficiently." [Quote is from memory.] Yeah. That can be unpleasant as some are innocent or not characterized. With the others, travel is pre-authorized! > Using a physical system metaphor (fluid flow), I believe in using > whatever mechanisms are available to encourage laminar flow between > highly disparate layers (wealth, opportunity, values being roughly > pressure, temperature, velocity vectors).. Why not (solid) materials that can shear, show ductile strength, or fail? Esp. if you want to model the possibility of `soul crushing' events. Something needs to be crushed, no? It seems important to know these limits. While we're at it, why not nucleosynthesis as a metaphor... Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
On 01/14/2014 07:45 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> Berkeley, the center of uber-liberalism, has become, in it's collective > character and in it's specific approach to governing, quite fascist... > despite applying it to a very liberal agenda. I think we've discussed this before, but perhaps only off list. Now's my chance to throw down the gauntlet publicly. ;-) I don't think you're using the word "fascist" properly at all, here. I admit that _an_ essence of fascism is control. And perhaps that's all you mean... a kind of limited degrees of freedom due to an ensnaring web of byzantine rules. Toss in a good amount of shaming, political correctness, hate speech constraints, etc. and I can see how the environment you describe could be called tightly controlled. But I don't think that's what most people mean by the word "fascist". Although I can also admit that most of the people who _currently_ shout "fascism" at the drop of a hat may well mean that. So, perhaps the word is newly defined (evolved) and you're using the new definition? Traditionally (from the dictionary and other sources) I think fascism requires: o a fetish for the military, including paramilitary, and war/battle/fighting, o some sort of dictator/autocrat, and o reliance on physical force, not merely verbal or psychological coercion. I don't know Berkeley at all. I do vaguely remember some news coverage during the Occupy noise about a mayor of Berkeley tending towards more use of police (dressed in very military looking gear). So, it would be easy for you to convince me that Berkeley has _become_ more fascist over the years. But it wouldn't be in correlation with uber-liberalism. It would (I think) correlate more with traditionally fascist aspects. > I can tell that I've miscommunicated significantly in this (and this > thread only?) thread... Bah! Cheers to miscommunication! One of my favorite aphorisms is "The problem with communication is the illusion that it exists." I have no idea who first said or and I've forgotten who I heard it from. But it always rings true to me. -- ⇒⇐ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Extended sense of The Commons
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Bela/Marcus-
>> This comment reminds me of Lampedusa's Leopard, who was characterized >> somewhere in the novel as "The prince did not wish to help with that >> noble cause as he was fully aware of his handicap of not being able >> to dominate/bully people efficiently." [Quote is from memory.] Good reference... You transport me to Donnafugatta. those Italians have a knack in this domain don't they? > Yeah. That can be unpleasant as some are innocent or not > characterized. With the others, travel is pre-authorized! We are become "homo hiveus"... and "homo hiveus" cannot bear "homo sapiens" to continue to exist. What are the forms of quorum sensing we have begun to exhibit? >> Using a physical system metaphor (fluid flow), I believe in using >> whatever mechanisms are available to encourage laminar flow between >> highly disparate layers (wealth, opportunity, values being roughly >> pressure, temperature, velocity vectors).. > Why not (solid) materials that can shear, show ductile strength, or > fail? Esp. if you want to model the possibility of `soul crushing' > events. If it is apt, then yes. And sadly I believe that some of the more "catastrophic" events in the human experience (revolution, purge, genocide, ...) might actually be usefully described as shear and crush within the social matrix. I think "soul crushing" is a a different level in the implied model, however. > Something needs to be crushed, no? It seems important to know these > limits. While we're at it, why not nucleosynthesis as a metaphor... If it is apt then yes. But i will uncharacteristically decline to go there just right now. I am still stuck in the allegorical world of Rainbow Brite and Murky Dismal... Perhaps I should move on to read "le Petite Prince" for a more complex morality play? Though the use of highly figurative language is often it's own reward, especially when introducing rhyme, meter and alliteration arbitrarily into a discussion. Or following one's correspondent's arc of irony and then extending it in an arbitrary direction for the sheer (shear) pleasure of doing so. This may be a diagnoseable condition... I'll ask my Dr. - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
In 1944 George Orwell wrote "What
is Fascism" . Has anything really changed - tho' the bit about
Catholics seems a tad harsh?
On 1/15/14 10:17 AM, glen wrote:
On 01/14/2014 07:45 PM, Steve Smith wrote:Berkeley, the center of uber-liberalism, has become, in it's collective character and in it's specific approach to governing, quite fascist... despite applying it to a very liberal agenda.I think we've discussed this before, but perhaps only off list. Now's my chance to throw down the gauntlet publicly. ;-) I don't think you're using the word "fascist" properly at all, here. I admit that _an_ essence of fascism is control. And perhaps that's all you mean... a kind of limited degrees of freedom due to an ensnaring web of byzantine rules. Toss in a good amount of shaming, political correctness, hate speech constraints, etc. and I can see how the environment you describe could be called tightly controlled. But I don't think that's what most people mean by the word "fascist". Although I can also admit that most of the people who _currently_ shout "fascism" at the drop of a hat may well mean that. So, perhaps the word is newly defined (evolved) and you're using the new definition? Traditionally (from the dictionary and other sources) I think fascism requires: o a fetish for the military, including paramilitary, and war/battle/fighting, o some sort of dictator/autocrat, and o reliance on physical force, not merely verbal or psychological coercion. I don't know Berkeley at all. I do vaguely remember some news coverage during the Occupy noise about a mayor of Berkeley tending towards more use of police (dressed in very military looking gear). So, it would be easy for you to convince me that Berkeley has _become_ more fascist over the years. But it wouldn't be in correlation with uber-liberalism. It would (I think) correlate more with traditionally fascist aspects.I can tell that I've miscommunicated significantly in this (and this thread only?) thread...Bah! Cheers to miscommunication! One of my favorite aphorisms is "The problem with communication is the illusion that it exists." I have no idea who first said or and I've forgotten who I heard it from. But it always rings true to me. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
On 01/15/2014 11:39 AM, Robert J. Cordingley wrote:
> In 1944 George Orwell wrote "What is Fascism" > <http://orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc> . Has > anything really changed - tho' the bit about Catholics seems a tad harsh? I don't know if anything's changed. But I like Eco's concept of ur-fascism. It seems to do a much better job than Orwell's minimal effort. http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf 1) Cult of tradition 2) Rejection of modernism 3) Action for action's sake 4) Intolerant of dissent 5) Xenophobia (homogeneity) 6) Appeal to a frustrated middle class 7) Besiegement - obsession with a "plot" or conspiracy 8) Hate the (apparent) rich 9) Permanent warfare 10) populist elitism - pride in being one of the masses 11) Hero worship 12) Misogyny 13) "Selective populism" - official "Voice of the People" 14) Newspeak (Some of those are my titles, reworded so they make sense to me.) I kinda like making "bully" a synonym of fascist. But it worries me a bit. With the diaspora of meanings for "bully", including the recent sense in the commons thread, it's becoming as useless and abused as "fascist". Plus, "bully" could only achieve some of the characteristics Eco calls out (like 7) if we engage in serious psychoanalytic gymnastics. Mostly, though, I don't think a single person can be a fascist. Fascism seems to require some sort of collection of individuals. Maybe we could use the term "systemic bullying" as opposed to "bully"? -- ⇒⇐ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
It seems one has to infer what fascism is from societies that have been called by someone at some point 'fascist', along with an evaluation of whether it was an accurate characterisation at the time (which is somewhat paradoxical).
A friend of mine claims a necessary but not sufficient condition is that there is a strong corporate involvement in government, like all the contractors (IBM among them) in WWII. Also, there is the etymological <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche#Similar figures of speech">metaphor - a fascis / fasces, as used as a symbol by the Roman legions, was/were an ax used to chop kindling, with said kindling bound by leather strips around the handle of the ax for easy transport. My 9th grade history teacher claimed that in fascism, people are uniformly and completely directed towards a common societal goal (world domination, economic prosperity/equality, racial purity in the case of the Nazis, although that may just be true stereotypically) in the same way that the kindling sticks are bound to support the handle.
Irrelevantly, fasces are also bundles of connective tissue. -Arlo James Barnes ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
Hmm I thought to be a Libertarian you needed to know the Duodecimal system, able to stamp books with a rubber date stamp, and promise to return books on time. And if you work for the unseen university be good with penuts. (Rimshot) On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:30 AM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |