11 American Nations

[glen ropella]

On 01/15/2014 12:34 PM, Arlo Barnes wrote:
> 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.

I've often agreed with this.  But I'm starting to disagree because our
growth toward global government has been (is) much slower than our
growth toward multi-national corporations.  Our corporations are not yet
identifiable with government.  But they are close.  With extensive
lobbying, organizations like ALEC, tax breaks for locating facilities,
control of large swaths of land in 3rd world countries and even out into
the oceans, etc., I'm having trouble imagining a government that has
weak corporate involvement.  And if such involvement is universal, then
it can't be a distinctive characteristic of one government from another.

> Also, there is the etymological
> metaphor<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche#Similar figures of
> speech>- 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 ([...]) in the same way that the kindling sticks
> are bound to support the handle.

I wonder if that's a bit of overreach.  if that were the extent of our
definition, we could call any group (of people or, say, insects) fascist
as long as they were uniformly and completely directed towards a common
societal goal.  But the implication of the kindling sticks is that any
one stick is indistinguishable from the other sticks.  So, it's less
about uniform, complete orientation and more about depersonalization ...
or objectification ... or specialization ... the idea that any given
human is really more of a replaceable cog in a machine.  If that were
the case, then what we're really saying is that fascist regimes are
tightly analogous to mechanism/machines, a well engineered society ...
which puts the Star Trek Federation at risk of being fascist. ;-)

--
⇒⇐ 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

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 1/15/14, 2:36 PM, glen wrote:
> But I'm starting to disagree because our growth toward global
> government has been (is) much slower than our growth toward
> multi-national corporations.
Yes, it got even worse!

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

[Arlo Barnes]

While a distinction should be drawn between the Federation of Planets (which has taken over government of Earth, in addition to being the coalition between Earth and planets like Vulcan) and Starfleet.

The first is pretty lax, and they hint at some sort of utopian society with ecological restoration, a 'good deeds' economy (since money is a foreign concept to 23rd century Earthlings, except when it is not), and personal freedom / self-determination; the second is a military (peacekeeping) organisation, a navy, and while there is less <a href="https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill#Misattributed#EighthMajorBullet">"rum, sodomy*, and the lash" than in contemporary and historical navies, people die around them somewhat regularly, they violate the Prime Directive whenever they feel enough like it, and (spoilers) permanently destroy warpspace commons with the Omega Directive.

Anyway, when I was telling another friend about the fasces thing, we talked a bit about the Romans' method of economic (and semi-cultural) assimilation, and he compared it to Starfleet's modus operandi, and then went on to compare Starfleet and the Borg (in some ways I find the Borg less irritating).

But yes, the 'cog' image is what I was going for; while a sports team or startup might work towards a common goal, they will also have their own personal goals for which the collective goal is merely a temporary subset, and most societies are yet more loosely organised, so that (as was said earlier in another thread) multiple people with good intentions can cancel each other out.

-Arlo James Barnes

*Infamously, despite the frequent romantic affairs on the ships (obviating the usual military strictness), and also despite a longstanding tradition of fan-fantasies, there has not been (to my knowledge) a same-sex pairing yet in the canon.

============================================================
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

[Arlo Barnes]

That is Dewey decimal system, unless you were making a pun that went over my head. Duodecimal is base 12. 

-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

[Gillian Densmore]

I can't think of when I'm not puny. And yes it might have....

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Arlo Barnes <[hidden email]> wrote:

That is Dewey decimal system, unless you were making a pun that went over my head. Duodecimal is base 12. 

-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

============================================================
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

[Steve Smith]

Glen -

I think we've discussed this before, but perhaps only off list.

In fact we have!

  Now's
my chance to throw down the gauntlet publicly. ;-)

I choose sabres, ceasing at first blood, It will be gentlemanly if you would leave my remaining good eye intact... I was trained in the foil, but it does not leave as dramatic of a mark for later tales.

I don't think you're using the word "fascist" properly at all, here.

[Vizzini has just cut the rope The Dread Pirate Roberts is climbing up]

Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.

Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Methinks I am Vizzini to your Inigo?

  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.

All that too, but the element that I key on for referring to something as Fascistic is when the *controlling element* operates from a sense of tautological entitlement to exist, to control, and often to grow in extent and control. I am in charge *because* I am right, I am right because I am in charge.  Next!   (scenes from Gilliam's Brazil?)

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?

Said the PoMo Deconstructionist.

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.

There is a uniform (volvo, grateful dead, birkenstock, etc.), there is a *small but not singular* group who act autocratically through the mechanism of a faux-democracy and as we know, there is *always* an armed police force nearby, backed up by paramilitary SWAT...  is regular "booting" of vehicles vs ticketing "physical force"?

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.

My point, apparently, is that even the most "well intentioned" can end up using the tactics that they resented in their beginnings.   Or the lessons of negative attachment where you become your enemy or that which you abhor.  The uniforms and fetishes have changed, the appeal to the "common man" has changed (from near homeless/students to now upper-middle class yuppie), the style of physical force has changed, but ...

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 what you are talking about <grin>.


============================================================
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

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 1/15/14, 10:30 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
> 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?
1) yes, like apoptosis of cancer cells..

2) it is not just abstract or subtle features.  I'll direct your
attention, to say, American Idol.

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

[Nick Thompson]

Funny.  I wouldn’t have thought you guys were realists.  Yet, you have publicly committed to the notion that there is an essence of “fascism,” beyond experience,  to which only one of you is faithful in your use of the word. 

 

Rich philosophical stuff!

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 5:35 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fascism?

 

Glen -

I think we've discussed this before, but perhaps only off list.

In fact we have!

  Now's

my chance to throw down the gauntlet publicly. ;-)

I choose sabres, ceasing at first blood, It will be gentlemanly if you would leave my remaining good eye intact... I was trained in the foil, but it does not leave as dramatic of a mark for later tales.

I don't think you're using the word "fascist" properly at all, here.

[Vizzini has just cut the rope The Dread Pirate Roberts is climbing up]

Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.

Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Methinks I am Vizzini to your Inigo?

  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.

All that too, but the element that I key on for referring to something as Fascistic is when the *controlling element* operates from a sense of tautological entitlement to exist, to control, and often to grow in extent and control. I am in charge *because* I am right, I am right because I am in charge.  Next!   (scenes from Gilliam's Brazil?)

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?

Said the PoMo Deconstructionist.

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.

There is a uniform (volvo, grateful dead, birkenstock, etc.), there is a *small but not singular* group who act autocratically through the mechanism of a faux-democracy and as we know, there is *always* an armed police force nearby, backed up by paramilitary SWAT...  is regular "booting" of vehicles vs ticketing "physical force"?

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.

My point, apparently, is that even the most "well intentioned" can end up using the tactics that they resented in their beginnings.   Or the lessons of negative attachment where you become your enemy or that which you abhor.  The uniforms and fetishes have changed, the appeal to the "common man" has changed (from near homeless/students to now upper-middle class yuppie), the style of physical force has changed, but ...

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 what you are talking about <grin>.

============================================================
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

[glen ropella]

On 01/15/2014 04:34 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> Methinks I am Vizzini to your Inigo?

Heh, if only I had the patience or persistence of Inigo.  "I am not
left-handed!"

> All that too, but the element that I key on for referring to something
> as Fascistic is when the *controlling element* operates from a sense of
> tautological entitlement to exist, to control, and often to grow in
> extent and control. I am in charge *because* I am right, I am right
> because I am in charge.  Next!   (scenes from Gilliam's Brazil?)

Excellent!  This adds an aspect I hadn't thought much about and
dovetails nicely into the thread about rationality.  A tautology is the
ultimate in irrationality, as far as I'm concerned, whereas conjunction
elimination is the epitome of rationality.  Hence, your concept of
fascism turns on what I would consider irrationality.  That may well
flesh out the rest of the aspects of fascism as identified by Orwell and
Eco.  For example, fetishizing the military appeals to an authoritarian,
machine-like lack of decision making ability ... at least at the leaves
if not the trunk.

Perhaps this could lead us to a measure of fascism?  We can define a
scale from purely automatic <-> constrained decision-making <->
randomness.  The dictator can be random (or purely determined by occult
mechanisms).  Her inner circle retains decision-making ability, but is
heavily constrained.  Etc. out to the soldiers/peons whose actions are
completely determined by their bosses.

> On 01/15/2014 09:17 AM, glen wrote:
>> 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?
> Said the PoMo Deconstructionist.

Hey, just because _I_ get to use words as if they have no meaning does
not mean _you_ get to do the same.  You need to earn your abuse license.

> There is a uniform (volvo, grateful dead, birkenstock, etc.),

No, I call bvllsh!t on that one.  There are similarities between the way
the lefties dress.  But it's not a uniform.  Metaphor may be rampant and
generally good.  But that just means we need to watch for metaphor abuse
even more closely. ;-)

> there is a
> *small but not singular* group who act autocratically through the
> mechanism of a faux-democracy and as we know,

I doubt this one, as well.  I counter with the idea that the lefties
always appreciate participation.  That autocratic group might be a
stable clique, but it is not robust to penetration.  To see this,
compare planting a mole in, say, the mafia versus planting a mole in
your local lefty community organizers.  If I were wrong on this, I would
be banned from _every_ group I participate in... being the typical
Devil's Advocate for the righties in almost all these groups.  But only
1 has actually banned me.  And that happened a long time before I
fine-tuned my challenges.

> there is *always* an armed
> police force nearby, backed up by paramilitary SWAT...  is regular
> "booting" of vehicles vs ticketing "physical force"?

I vacillate on this one.  On the one hand, you're right.  The cops tend
to defend whoever seems to be in charge, even if it's some abstract
concept of the status quo.  They definitely intentionally limit the
degrees of freedom of the populace.  But we can appeal to the "rule of
law" argument and suggest that they can be (or usually are in this
country) strategic in their application of force.  I'm no fan of the
militarization of the cops... and most cops I meet, interpersonally, are
not "my type of people".  To boot, our information-glutted society
amplifies any abusive act perpetrated by any cop.  So, it's easy to
agree with you on this one.  But I think it makes sense to try to be a
little more objective and compare the freedom preserving/inducing police
actions versus the freedom destroying/reducing actions.

> My point, apparently, is that even the most "well intentioned" can end
> up using the tactics that they resented in their beginnings. Or the
> lessons of negative attachment where you become your enemy or that which
> you abhor.  The uniforms and fetishes have changed, the appeal to the
> "common man" has changed (from near homeless/students to now
> upper-middle class yuppie), the style of physical force has changed, but
> ...

This is a different point, I think, than asserting that a lefty-run
society can/does evolve toward fascism.  This point is more about
consciousness and attention, perhaps even conscientiousness and empathy.
 But it's not solely about negative attachment.  It's also about
intention and unintended consequences, idealization, utopia,
over-simplification.

I will claim that this cognitive bias has much less to do with fascism
than with abstraction.  Some of us are willing to abstract away the
detail until we're all happy and comfy with our own closed rhetoric
(called "sniffing your own farts" in the business world).  We have
innumerable methods for avoiding that sort of thing, e.g. "eating your
own dog food", jury trials, dialectic, etc.

More importantly, I will also claim that lefties, being cognitively more
open to new experiences, are much less likely to fall into that trap.
So, even if we have some few examples of left-wing fascism, my
hypothesis is that left-wing fascism will be less frequent than
right-wing fascism.  And even when it does happen, it will be a weaker
form of fascism, easier to break.  (Note, however, that this might lead
us down a rat hole surrounding the meaning of "left wing fascism".  What
is truly "left" and what is truly "right"?)

--
⇒⇐ 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

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 1/17/14, 10:58 AM, glen wrote:
> That may well
> flesh out the rest of the aspects of fascism as identified by Orwell and
> Eco.  For example, fetishizing the military appeals to an authoritarian,
> machine-like lack of decision making ability ... at least at the leaves
> if not the trunk.
Another take is that the various suggested properties of fascism you
listed arise from this lack of ability.  A sense that a (national)
direction must be set and protected from the self-indulgent people that
lack the vision and conviction -- as opposed to the vision being stupid
and pointless and destructive.  Fascism is an organized kind of
pandering to frustration.  In this view, citizens in countries with a
weak middle class economy would be particularly prone to this kind of
pandering.  In contrast, where there are expectations of appropriate
behavior by adults, self-control over frustration is self-regulating.  
Where these norms don't exist, then the appeal to the Leader, the Cause,
the Enemy, etc.

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

[glen ropella]

On 01/17/2014 10:15 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:

> Another take is that the various suggested properties of fascism you
> listed arise from this lack of ability.  A sense that a (national)
> direction must be set and protected from the self-indulgent people that
> lack the vision and conviction -- as opposed to the vision being stupid
> and pointless and destructive.  Fascism is an organized kind of
> pandering to frustration.  In this view, citizens in countries with a
> weak middle class economy would be particularly prone to this kind of
> pandering.  In contrast, where there are expectations of appropriate
> behavior by adults, self-control over frustration is self-regulating.
> Where these norms don't exist, then the appeal to the Leader, the Cause,
> the Enemy, etc.

Another excellent point!  Perhaps as long as systemic properties are
_implicit_ (perhaps only sustained through a healthy middle class), the
system can't really collapse into the rigid fascist structure.  But when
the systemic property is reified, recognized, made explicit, then we're
more at risk.  The middle class may just be the right mix of heat and
crystal to preserve agility.

--
⇒⇐ 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

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 1/17/14, 11:23 AM, glen wrote:

"But when the systemic property is reified, recognized, made explicit,
then we're more at risk. The middle class may just be the right mix of
heat and crystal to preserve agility."

Hypothesis is that it doesn't matter what the goal is.   It could be the
Organic Unpaved Urban Park Imperative, or Blue Eyes and Blond Hair, or
whatever.   While goals will be too complex or esoteric to become the
critical mass for nationalistic ferver, is it `ok' to have the demes
carrying on with ostensibly fascist psychology (reinforcing themselves
to condemn the `problem' and invent the final solution), or should it be
quashed at a local level too?

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

[glen ropella]

On 01/17/2014 10:34 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> Hypothesis is that it doesn't matter what the goal is.   It could be the
> Organic Unpaved Urban Park Imperative, or Blue Eyes and Blond Hair, or
> whatever.   While goals will be too complex or esoteric to become the
> critical mass for nationalistic ferver, is it `ok' to have the demes
> carrying on with ostensibly fascist psychology (reinforcing themselves
> to condemn the `problem' and invent the final solution), or should it be
> quashed at a local level too?

I think it depends on the 1) goal, 2) the scope of the locality, 3) the
flux across the deme boundaries.  First, it would be just as "fascist"
to assert that fascism should always be quashed as it is to assert that
fascism is always good.  Again, what matters is the extent to which the
ideals are embedded in a practical context ... the "openness".

(1) I can imagine some goals (e.g. preventing all and every instance of
rape) should be a bit "fascist" in order to facilitate freedom of
another type.

(2) Fascist control of, say, a tiny plot of land for a community garden
doesn't really matter.  It's easy enough to avoid participating in that
garden.  (E.g. we have 3 community gardens within a 2 mile radius,
easily walkable, even carrying buckets and shovels.)  But fascist
control of _all_ community gardens is problematic.

(3) If you find yourself inside a fascist system, but are free to leave
that system for a neighboring system, then perhaps that's OK.  This is
how I think about things like abortion bans.  Banning abortion in any
entire _state_ is just plain wrong.  It's simply too difficult to leave
the state unless you live on the border.  But banning abortion in a
county ... particularly if there is a nearby county where the service is
available?  Maybe.  The problem, of course, lies in how inter-deme flow
is managed.

--
⇒⇐ 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

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 1/17/14, 11:46 AM, glen wrote:

> First, it would be just as "fascist"
> to assert that fascism should always be quashed as it is to assert that
> fascism is always good.  Again, what matters is the extent to which the
> ideals are embedded in a practical context ... the "openness".
>
> (1) I can imagine some goals (e.g. preventing all and every instance of
> rape) should be a bit "fascist" in order to facilitate freedom of
> another type.
> [..]
>
> (3) [..] Banning abortion in any
> entire _state_ is just plain wrong.  It's simply too difficult to leave
> the state unless you live on the border.  But banning abortion in a
> county ... particularly if there is a nearby county where the service is
> available?  Maybe.  The problem, of course, lies in how inter-deme flow
> is managed.
>

To get this mustn't one be prepared to pursue "openness" by force?
To point to essential (but arbitrary) principles?  One that's been done,
why not apply the same principles at the local level?  It seems
paradoxical to me.

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

[glen ropella]

On 01/17/2014 10:57 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:

> On 1/17/14, 11:46 AM, glen wrote:
>> First, it would be just as "fascist"
>> to assert that fascism should always be quashed as it is to assert that
>> fascism is always good.  Again, what matters is the extent to which the
>> ideals are embedded in a practical context ... the "openness".
>>
>> (1) I can imagine some goals (e.g. preventing all and every instance of
>> rape) should be a bit "fascist" in order to facilitate freedom of
>> another type.
>> [..]
>>
>> (3) [..] Banning abortion in any
>> entire _state_ is just plain wrong.  It's simply too difficult to leave
>> the state unless you live on the border.  But banning abortion in a
>> county ... particularly if there is a nearby county where the service is
>> available?  Maybe.  The problem, of course, lies in how inter-deme flow
>> is managed.
>>
> To get this mustn't one be prepared to pursue "openness" by force?
> To point to essential (but arbitrary) principles?  One that's been done,
> why not apply the same principles at the local level?  It seems
> paradoxical to me.

It may be paradoxical.  But the established way of resolving paradoxes
is to enlarge the universe.  I suspect even "openness" should be
situational, applied or not, based on the context.  To idealize around
that ideal is just as bad as idealizing around any other ideal.  I.e.
the "openness" ideal is good in moderation, but can't be successfully
used everywhere.  That's why I provided 3 considerations: 1) the
particular goal, 2) the scope of the goal, and 3) "openness".

But even so, one could be prepared to force "openness" as long as the
measure of "openness" and the application of the force, are themselves
"open".  (I hear whispers of Raymond- and Stallman-esque homunculi
arguing...)

--
⇒⇐ 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

[Steve Smith]

On 1/17/14 11:34 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:

> On 1/17/14, 11:23 AM, glen wrote:
>
> "But when the systemic property is reified, recognized, made explicit,
> then we're more at risk. The middle class may just be the right mix of
> heat and crystal to preserve agility."
>
> Hypothesis is that it doesn't matter what the goal is.   It could be
> the Organic Unpaved Urban Park Imperative, or Blue Eyes and Blond
> Hair, or whatever.   While goals will be too complex or esoteric to
> become the critical mass for nationalistic ferver, is it `ok' to have
> the demes carrying on with ostensibly fascist psychology (reinforcing
> themselves to condemn the `problem' and invent the final solution), or
> should it be quashed at a local level too?

"should"?  Sounds like fascism to me. <grin> going recursive up the
tailpipe methinks.


============================================================
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

[Steve Smith]

> Another excellent point!  Perhaps as long as systemic properties are
> _implicit_ (perhaps only sustained through a healthy middle class), the
> system can't really collapse into the rigid fascist structure.  But when
> the systemic property is reified, recognized, made explicit, then we're
> more at risk.  The middle class may just be the right mix of heat and
> crystal to preserve agility.
Viva la Middle Class!

Physical Metaphor...  a well made damascened sword, annealed
differentially to yield a thin, keenly sharpenable edge of high carbon
steel but a robust, flexible inner core of low carbon steel or high
carbon iron, depending on your perspective.  Or perhaps a metaphor from
nucleosynthesis?  Nah..  too obscure.


============================================================
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

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 1/17/14, 12:39 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> "should"? Sounds like fascism to me. <grin> going recursive up the
> tailpipe methinks.
Indeed, there is only nihilism or else nothing.   :-)

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

[Steve Smith]

> On 1/17/14, 12:39 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
>> "should"? Sounds like fascism to me. <grin> going recursive up the
>> tailpipe methinks.
> Indeed, there is only nihilism or else nothing.   :-)
<griggle>

============================================================
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

[Jochen Fromm-5]

Interesting link about fascism from George Orwell. I think totalitarianism is the more general term, Hannah Arendt wrote a book about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism

-J.

Sent from Android

-------- Original message --------
From "Robert J. Cordingley" <[hidden email]>
Date: 15/01/2014 20:39 (GMT+01:00)
To The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject Re: [FRIAM] Fascism?


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