11 American Nations
Locked
1 ...
89101112
1 ...
89101112
 
|
I tend to think there's a left-wing totalitarianism and a right-wing
totalitarianism, but since they are both police states they tend to
be indistinguishable. Fascism is a right wing route to
totalitarianism.
Robert C On 1/19/14 3:37 PM, Jochen Fromm 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 |
|
|
On 01/19/2014 10:05 PM, Robert J. Cordingley wrote:
> I tend to think there's a left-wing totalitarianism and a right-wing > totalitarianism, but since they are both police states they tend to be > indistinguishable. Fascism is a right wing route to totalitarianism. Can there be an anarchist totalitarianism? http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/politics-vs-literature.htm > This illustrates very well the totalitarian tendency which is explicit in the anarchist or pacifist vision of Society. In a Society in which there is no law, and in theory no compulsion, the only arbiter of behaviour is public opinion. But public opinion, because of the tremendous urge to conformity in gregarious animals, is less tolerant than any system of law. When human beings are governed by "thou shalt not", the individual can practise a certain amount of eccentricity: when they are supposedly governed by "love" or "reason", he is under continuous pressure to make him behave and think in exactly the same way as everyone else. Perhaps this is what Marcus was referring to w.r.t. any implicit shaming associated with _not_ participating in community efforts? And it may well tie in nicely with Steve's concept of left wing fascism. -- ⇒⇐ 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 |
|
|
Glen -
I think this frames what I think both my intentions in trying to describe what was going on Berkeley was about and maybe also Marcus' reaction to it. Well found. - Steve > On 01/19/2014 10:05 PM, Robert J. Cordingley wrote: >> I tend to think there's a left-wing totalitarianism and a right-wing >> totalitarianism, but since they are both police states they tend to be >> indistinguishable. Fascism is a right wing route to totalitarianism. > Can there be an anarchist totalitarianism? > > http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/politics-vs-literature.htm > >> This illustrates very well the totalitarian tendency which is explicit in the anarchist or pacifist vision of Society. In a Society in which there is no law, and in theory no compulsion, the only arbiter of behaviour is public opinion. But public opinion, because of the tremendous urge to conformity in gregarious animals, is less tolerant than any system of law. When human beings are governed by "thou shalt not", the individual can practise a certain amount of eccentricity: when they are supposedly governed by "love" or "reason", he is under continuous pressure to make him behave and think in exactly the same way as everyone else. > Perhaps this is what Marcus was referring to w.r.t. any implicit shaming > associated with _not_ participating in community efforts? And it may > well tie in nicely with Steve's concept of left wing fascism. > ============================================================ 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 Robert J. Cordingley
Left wing fascism tends to be communism
or some extreme form of socialism, while right wing fascism tends
to be racism or nationalism. In the constant battle between the
haves and have-nots, the right wing wants to keep everything as it
is because those who have wealth or power earned and deserve it,
and the left wing wants to redistribute wealth to all equally
among the community. At least this is the political landscape as
it used to be, right?
Fascism is a fuzzy concept because it is not clearly defined. It is better defined in terms of what it is not, or in terms of who is to blame. It always easier to convince people to be against something than to be in favor of something. Examples are to be against a certain race, or color (racism), or to be against exploitation by the rich (communism), or to be against the Jews (antisemitism, nazism). Mussolini said he was against capitalism and communism, but of course he didn't say what is the alternative. Hitler went one step further and said the Jews are to blame for everything. The modern world is complex and consists of many different interconnected systems, economic, political, financial, cultural, religious, etc. Totalitarianism means two or more of these systems merge, because one systems wants to control the others, too. In total we have less systems. Nazism in Nazi Germany was the worst form totalitarianism, since all systems merged. Communism in the Soviet Union was bad, too (state controlled planned economy means political and economic systems merge). http://blog.cas-group.net/2013/07/fascism-and-cancer/ It looks like these state-controlled forms of totalitarianism are over, but there is still a lot of inequality in the world, and we are ruled by the rich. More than half of Congress members are millionaires. The 85 richest people on Earth own as much as the rest of the people. According to Oxfam and the Guardian, the 85 richest people together are as wealthy as the poorest half of the world. At the World Economic Forum in Davos right now, some of them discuss this delicate issue. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world Will the new digital world offer new forms of *-isms as well? We observe currently what happens when 5 billion people come online. Who will shape this new digital world, people like Edward Snowden? The CEOs of the big IT corporations? -J. On 01/20/2014 07:05 AM, Robert J. Cordingley wrote: I tend to think there's a left-wing totalitarianism and a right-wing totalitarianism, but since they are both police states they tend to be indistinguishable. Fascism is a right wing route to totalitarianism. ============================================================ 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
> But public opinion, because of the tremendous urge to conformity in gregarious animals, is less tolerant than any system of law. When human beings are governed by "thou shalt not", the individual can practise a certain amount of eccentricity: when they are supposedly governed by "love" or "reason", he is under continuous pressure to make him behave and think in exactly the same way as everyone else.
Is it the kind of desperation one observes in, say, Christian apologists or evangelicals? That they need love and reason to exist? Since they aren't actually attached to any grounded fixed set of concepts (as with law), they pour more and more into enforcing compliance with the principles (which are still moving targets) that they do have? I'm not sure this is the worst flaw in anarchist or pacifist visions of society, but it is a vulnerability. 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 Jochen Fromm-5
On 01/20/2014 12:39 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
> > http://blog.cas-group.net/2013/07/fascism-and-cancer/ Great post! But, as usual, the metaphor prevents me from thinking more than it helps me to think. It seems fairly obvious to me that cancers are failures at the cellular scale. (Am I wrong?) The coarser and finer constructs are all useful mechanisms that only go bad when the cell scale goes wonky. In order to make this metaphor between totalitarianism and cancer into a useful thinking tool, we have to identify the analog of the cellular scale within the totalitarian system. Does the cell map to the individual? ... if not, then what? If we push the metaphor, I would argue that the humans that constitute totalitarian regimes are _normal_ humans. The merged sub-systems that you're mapping to tumors aren't (to my mind) like tumors at all. They're more like resonant frequencies than misgrown tissues. This brings us back to Arlo's concept of kindling homogenously strapped to the handle of an ax. It's a systemic pattern that, if broken, could snap back to a healthy regime. That's definitely not the case with cancer. Just breaking the resonant pattern so that the cells can float around amongst the their healthy brethren won't do much good at all, and would probably make things much worse. But I suppose you could counter with the idea that the individuals who have been _trained_ by a resonant frequency like capitalism are (over time) broken/damaged by that coarser forcing structure. But I think the cause vs. effect is flipped for the two systems, making the analogy fail in an important way. In one the resonant structure causes the broken individual. In the other, the broken individual causes the neoplasm. -- ⇒⇐ 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: totalitarianism and cancer
|
|
It is not only a metaphor. It goes deeper, and it touches the core of our civilization and what it means to be human. Religious groups are adaptive units subject to evolution. They are based on replicating entities shaped by group selection. First I want to say that true Christians are wonderful people, they are a blessing for everybody. Those who really read the bible every day and practice it, not the ones who only pretend to be it. Jesus must have been a wonderful person, too, someone who loved everyone, men or women, old or young, rich or poor. And when he died this horrible death at the cross his followers must have thought this can't be true, such a wonderful person doesn't deserved this. And some of his followers had the idea to write his story down. When human beings are really governed by love, you indeed get a society worth living in. "thou shalt not" and "eye for an eye; tooth for a tooth" is the Old Testament, the foundation of the Jewish religion. The main commandment of the New Testament is love (Matthew 22, 36-40): "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. And [..] love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Christians live in bubble of politeness, but rich people, too. See e.g. http://www.vice.com/read/filthy-lucre "If you have money, you can pay to live in a bubble of politesse. Excellent wine choice, sir. Here's your gift bag, madam. Often, you don't have to pay for it [..] Soon, you think this treatment is earned." Rich people pay much money to live in this bubble of politesse and politeness. Living in such a bubble can indeed make you believe you are worth it, and those with money usually think they deserve it. Although they themselves behave quite contrary: arrogance is not uncommon among the rich. Christians have discovered much earlier a way to get along with each other without money, and how to make this miserable place a bit less miserable. Religions are not ancient nonense, they contain ancient wisdom how to make a life worth living. They consist of rules and instructions which are thousands of years old and still work. You know, the holy book which is read every saturday (in the Jewish religion) or sunday (in the Christian one) is in fact nothing else but a bundle of instructions how to create a group of people which get along with each other. The preacher who preaches a sermon is like someone who translate the genes of the holy script. He reads the genetic information (the DNA) and creates a message (the RNA) so that the believers can translate the information into behavior. The behavior of the church members is the protein which is generated. Church service is the expression of cultural genes, and religious groups are adaptive units subject to evolution and group selection. There you have it, the mystery of religion. From a sociological perspective it is quite obvious. All the basic religious terms are related to group terms: god: group sin: breaking the rules of the group blessing/curse: wish to be included in/excluded from the group heaven/hell: being loved/hated by the group prophet: founder of the group priest: maintainer of the group holy (profane): something which belongs to the group (or not) holy book: history and blueprint of the group prayer: conversation of individual and group word of god, commandment: laws of the group baptism: gain a new existence as a member of a group This doesn't mean that we all have to eat only "kosher" things now, though ;-) See also * Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, 1912 * Randall Collins, "Sociological Insight", Oxford University Press, 1992 * David Sloan Wilson, "Darwin's cathedral", University Of Chicago Press, 2003 -Jochen On 01/20/2014 10:40 PM, glen wrote: > On 01/20/2014 12:39 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote: >> http://blog.cas-group.net/2013/07/fascism-and-cancer/ > Great post! But, as usual, the metaphor prevents me from thinking more > than it helps me to think. > > It seems fairly obvious to me that cancers are failures at the cellular > scale. (Am I wrong?) The coarser and finer constructs are all useful > mechanisms that only go bad when the cell scale goes wonky. In order to > make this metaphor between totalitarianism and cancer into a useful > thinking tool, we have to identify the analog of the cellular scale > within the totalitarian system. Does the cell map to the individual? > ... if not, then what? > > If we push the metaphor, I would argue that the humans that constitute > totalitarian regimes are _normal_ humans. The merged sub-systems that > you're mapping to tumors aren't (to my mind) like tumors at all. > They're more like resonant frequencies than misgrown tissues. This > brings us back to Arlo's concept of kindling homogenously strapped to > the handle of an ax. It's a systemic pattern that, if broken, could > snap back to a healthy regime. That's definitely not the case with > cancer. Just breaking the resonant pattern so that the cells can float > around amongst the their healthy brethren won't do much good at all, and > would probably make things much worse. > > But I suppose you could counter with the idea that the individuals who > have been _trained_ by a resonant frequency like capitalism are (over > time) broken/damaged by that coarser forcing structure. But I think the > cause vs. effect is flipped for the two systems, making the analogy fail > in an important way. In one the resonant structure causes the broken > individual. In the other, the broken individual causes the neoplasm. > ============================================================ 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
Glen -
>> http://blog.cas-group.net/2013/07/fascism-and-cancer/ Thanks Jochem! > Great post! But, as usual, the metaphor prevents me from thinking more > than it helps me to think. Very good point. I find that metaphors help me *express* but they often muddle or misdirect my thinking. They offer *perspective* and provide *synthetic thinking* but fail in *analytical thinking*. > > It seems fairly obvious to me that cancers are failures at the cellular > scale. (Am I wrong?) The coarser and finer constructs are all useful > mechanisms that only go bad when the cell scale goes wonky. In order to > make this metaphor between totalitarianism and cancer into a useful > thinking tool, we have to identify the analog of the cellular scale > within the totalitarian system. Does the cell map to the individual? > ... if not, then what? I think that if there is a mapping, the the cell in the target domain is any sufficiently small sub-unit with sufficient coherence (membrane?) and self-sufficiency to allow it identity... "nuclear family", "small business", maybe "congregation", or "club chapter" might fit this... > > If we push the metaphor, I would argue that the humans that constitute > totalitarian regimes are _normal_ humans. Very much so! And this is the fallacy in *most* thinking about any abberant form of society or government... the individual citizens, and even "statesmen" are not necessarily abnormal... or if they are, their abnormality is as much a *product* of their circumstance, their embedding in a crazy system as it is a *cause* of it. While certain behaviours or perspectives or "values" if you must may help steer the group toward or away from particular abberations (a relative term in it's own right?), I don't think we get to blame as directly as we would like, individual personality (types)? > The merged sub-systems that > you're mapping to tumors aren't (to my mind) like tumors at all. > They're more like resonant frequencies than misgrown tissues. This > brings us back to Arlo's concept of kindling homogenously strapped to > the handle of an ax. I didn't speak up then, but I believe the "image" of the fascia Arlo Brought up is backed by an anecdote about how "divided we break, united we don't"... and it was I think a rallying concept between the original 13 colonies... this was like 3rd grade "government" class I thought... telling me that the fascia on the dime had 13 sticks to represent those colonies? I'm too lazy to Google... and besides you don't need to read the residue of the rathole I would probably find myself going down if I went there. > It's a systemic pattern that, if broken, could > snap back to a healthy regime. I don't think the Fascia really suggests that. Unbundle the sticks and start breaking them, and they don't unbreak and the remaining sticks are weaker for it. > That's definitely not the case with > cancer. Just breaking the resonant pattern so that the cells can float > around amongst the their healthy brethren won't do much good at all, and > would probably make things much worse. Hmm... I think that is somewhat true... not unlike with Ideological terrorists... busting them up in say Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, probably just *makes* them metastasize, go systemic. > > But I suppose you could counter with the idea that the individuals who > have been _trained_ by a resonant frequency like capitalism are (over > time) broken/damaged by that coarser forcing structure. I don't need to say "damaged" so much as to say "deformed in a plastic mode" or even softer yet, "entrained". You can yank the guy off the front of the peleton and you will still have a peleton. Or the lead crane in a migration V. > But I think the > cause vs. effect is flipped for the two systems, making the analogy fail > in an important way. In one the resonant structure causes the broken > individual. In the other, the broken individual causes the neoplasm. I think you demonstrated two counterpoints here in general. Metaphors *can* be useful for thinking about something *and* they can also interfere with the thinking. Once again, I think the main power of metaphor is in explanation, exploration, or discovery, not so much in critical analysis. - 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: totalitarianism and cancer
|
|
In reply to this post by Jochen Fromm-5
Hola Todos:
With no disparagement intended to Jochen, I will point out that the sacred texts of Judeo-Christianity are riddled with commandments of intolerance as well as love. God is on the record as demanding murder and worse for trivial acts or for simply living in the wrong valley.
---- Pat On Monday, January 20, 2014, Jochen Fromm <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, please send an email to [hidden email]. ============================================================ 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: totalitarianism and cancer
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
On 01/20/2014 02:40 PM, glen wrote: > If we push the metaphor, I would argue that the humans that constitute > totalitarian regimes are _normal_ humans. Depends what you mean by normal. Some epigenetic change, say, caused by a toxic environment or poor diet or lifestyle choices, might cause proteins to express at an unusual rate, or cause tumor suppressing cells (e.g. civil servants, teachers, civil rights advocates, etc.) to fail to reproduce at a fast enough rate. All that matters is that clonal evolution tips in a different direction. The causes of that could be very complex, but in the end still be populated by lots of `normal' cells. I think the interesting part on both sides of the metaphor are probably more on the adaptive (immune system) end than on the static side (DNA / laws / religion). 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 Patrick Reilly
Patrick -
Hola Todos:I am possibly the *least* religious person on this list (despite all my mad psuedospiritual ravings) and I agree with you that there are hugely *offensive* (by today's standards) statements made in the name of or on behalf of the (Old Testament/Quranic/Talmudic/???) judgemental, punishing, paternalistic god. But that is just a reflection of how cultures of those times and places worked. I suppose your point is made, however... that does not provide a promising basis for a "kinder, gentler" way... but then that is what I suppose Christ was interested into the mix for, throw in some more peace, love and forgiveness! So I will also support Jochen's statement that "true Christians" (WeverTF those are, or if I ever met one) are "really good people"... insomuch as they actually *follow* the new testament message and allow it to supercede the old testament. *I* suspect that there could be some work to do some formal "deprecation" of the worst of the Old Testament? Lose the Smiting and Spiting? And yet all (?) contemporary cultures are full of "punishing" behaviour. MADD mothers and Greenpeace and PETA being examples of near militaristic forms of "kindness". Maybe there *is* no social "programme" without a stick *and* a carrot? Continuar Amigos y Amigas, - 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: totalitarianism and cancer
|
|
Hi Steve:
I guess my point is that one can prettify religious traditions with gentle filtering of their full legacy, but the context of their cultures can't be scrubbed by merely proposing that you intuit what a "true believer" would accept and reject from their texts.
--- Pat On Monday, January 20, 2014, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, please send an email to [hidden email]. ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Pat -
I agree... "true believer" too often connotes "radical fundamentalist" which I'm pretty sure turns out poorly for everyone (usually including the radical themselves). - Steve Hi 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 Steve Smith
On 01/20/2014 02:18 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> I find that metaphors help me *express* but they > often muddle or misdirect my thinking. They offer *perspective* and > provide *synthetic thinking* but fail in *analytical thinking*. Well, I wouldn't go quite that far. [grin] Being a professional simulant, I have to be capable of arguing for analogical thinking, including the willy-nilly use of bad metaphors. But if the analog is constructed well, then it can be very useful in analytical thinking. In particular, it's important to identify where the metaphor works and where it doesn't. I suppose if we stick to the typical conversation context, then I agree with you. Metaphors are great for broaching a subject, either with confrontational jerks like me or with acolytes you intend to lead astray. If Jochen's metaphor between cancer and totalitarianism weren't so flawed, I probably would have kept my thoughts to myself. On 01/20/2014 01:40 PM, glen wrote: >> Does the cell map to the individual? ... if not, then what? > > I think that if there is a mapping, the the cell in the target domain is > any sufficiently small sub-unit with sufficient coherence (membrane?) > and self-sufficiency to allow it identity... "nuclear family", "small > business", maybe "congregation", or "club chapter" might fit this... Jochen raises this in the link "cultural stem cells": http://blog.cas-group.net/2010/10/cultural-stem-cells/ >> If we push the metaphor, I would argue that the humans that constitute >> totalitarian regimes are _normal_ humans. > Very much so! And this is the fallacy in *most* thinking about any > abberant form of society or government... the individual citizens, and > even "statesmen" are not necessarily abnormal... or if they are, their > abnormality is as much a *product* of their circumstance, their > embedding in a crazy system as it is a *cause* of it. While certain > behaviours or perspectives or "values" if you must may help steer the > group toward or away from particular abberations (a relative term in > it's own right?), I don't think we get to blame as directly as we would > like, individual personality (types)? Right. I agree. > I didn't speak up then, but I believe the "image" of the fascia Arlo > Brought up is backed by an anecdote about how "divided we break, united > we don't"... and it was I think a rallying concept between the original > 13 colonies... this was like 3rd grade "government" class I thought... > telling me that the fascia on the dime had 13 sticks to represent those > colonies? Interesting. That would play well into the idea that societal -isms are more like resonances than systemic properties arising from broken constituents. We can doff and don aspects of them to suit our rhetoric, unlike the hallmarks of cancer. >> It's a systemic pattern that, if broken, could >> snap back to a healthy regime. > I don't think the Fascia really suggests that. Unbundle the sticks and > start breaking them, and they don't unbreak and the remaining sticks are > weaker for it. Who said anything about breaking the sticks? Just unbundling them is adequate. I.e. bundled, they are fascist. Unbundled they're ready to fit into any other pattern, including healthy patterns. >> That's definitely not the case with >> cancer. Just breaking the resonant pattern so that the cells can float >> around amongst the their healthy brethren won't do much good at all, and >> would probably make things much worse. > Hmm... I think that is somewhat true... not unlike with Ideological > terrorists... busting them up in say Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, probably > just *makes* them metastasize, go systemic. I don't think so. I think what you see is part of a larger resonant pattern. Breaking a tiny part of the resonator (e.g. putting something inside your guitar, a block of balsa wood, say) reduces the resonance, but does not break it. The larger system still resonates. If you change it in a big enough way, you can destroy it. Or (more likely) you just change the character of the resonator. That entire region of the planet is the resonator. Changes to, say, Egypt or Syria, do affect it, but perhaps not enough to break it. The same could be said of the fascia. Yes, you could loosen the bundle a bit. You could arrange it so that the large ends of all the sticks are up or down, or alternate, or whatever. But only small changes may not change the salient aspects of the pattern. In either case, it is very unlike cancer. -- -- ⇒⇐ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jochen Fromm-5
On 01/20/2014 02:12 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
> > It is not only a metaphor. It goes deeper, and it touches the core of > our civilization and what it means to be human. Religious groups are > adaptive units subject to evolution. They are based on replicating > entities shaped by group selection. I'm not convinced. The idea is that the gene-related family or the meme-related group is the map to the cell, with accompanying lineages. And when that family or group is corrupted in some way, then that seeds the tumor. My main criticism still stands: The intervention for cancer relies on killing the broken cells. You can't just scatter them and have them blend into healthy tissue. But you _can_ scatter the families/groups and have them blend into a healthy society. But even if we dive down deeper into your analogy, there is another glaring difference: In cancer, each cell has its own copy of the DNA. Mutations happen at that level. Granted, there are differences in the interpretation of the DNA as well. But I don't know of evidence that cancer is _primarily_ epigenetic. Am I simply ignorant, here? Because individual cells have their own copy of DNA, they are more autonomous than, say, a family/group that uses a holy book like the bible or quran. A great example might be the consideration of the various sects. Both Jehova's Witnesses and Catholics claim to read the bible as a holy book. Same book, seemingly different "group DNA". So, _if_ the analogy maps cells to families/groups, then the holy book is definitely _not_ analogous to DNA. Some other structure is required, something intra-group that allows the group to be more autonomous. We can go further and nit-pick each mapping. But I think the most important one is the intervention problem mentioned above. I don't think we're going to find a "cure" for totalitarianism that is in any way similar to whatever cure we might find for cancer. At least, so far, the abatement methods for cancer don't seem to bear any resemblance to the abatement methods for totalitarianism ... unless your proposal is that the state of the art treatment for totalitarianism is to kill the citizens... which seems a bit extreme. > You know, the holy book which is read every saturday (in the Jewish > religion) or sunday (in the Christian one) is in fact nothing else but a > bundle of instructions how to create a group of people which get along > with each other. The preacher who preaches a sermon is like someone who > translate the genes of the holy script. He reads the genetic information > (the DNA) and creates a message (the RNA) so that the believers can > translate the information into behavior. The behavior of the church > members is the protein which is generated. Church service is the > expression of cultural genes, and religious groups are adaptive units > subject to evolution and group selection. > > There you have it, the mystery of religion. From a sociological > perspective it is quite obvious. All the basic religious terms are > related to group terms: > > god: group > sin: breaking the rules of the group > blessing/curse: wish to be included in/excluded from the group > heaven/hell: being loved/hated by the group > prophet: founder of the group > priest: maintainer of the group > holy (profane): something which belongs to the group (or not) > holy book: history and blueprint of the group > prayer: conversation of individual and group > word of god, commandment: laws of the group > baptism: gain a new existence as a member of a group -- ⇒⇐ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
On 01/20/2014 02:22 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> > Depends what you mean by normal. Some epigenetic change, say, caused by > a toxic environment or poor diet or lifestyle choices, might cause > proteins to express at an unusual rate, or cause tumor suppressing cells > (e.g. civil servants, teachers, civil rights advocates, etc.) to fail to > reproduce at a fast enough rate. All that matters is that clonal > evolution tips in a different direction. The causes of that could be > very complex, but in the end still be populated by lots of `normal' > cells. I think the interesting part on both sides of the metaphor are > probably more on the adaptive (immune system) end than on the static > side (DNA / laws / religion). True. The symptomatic failure, what kills the organism, in both cancer and totalitarianism lies in systemic regulation, for whatever that's worth. But we're dealing with a drastic difference in scale. So, while reductionist methods may well work (are working) against cancer, it is much more doubtful that they'll work against totalitarianism. In particular, it is much easier for an individual to change their environment in specific ways than it is for the families/groups in a society to change theirs. So, even if the analogy triggers a dopaminergic reward in calling totalitarianism "evil" or "bad" (by analogizing with cancer, which nobody really considers "good"), it doesn't seem help us in any other way. At least _I_ can't see any other way the analogy helps us. -- ⇒⇐ 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: totalitarianism and cancer
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
Glen writes:
"My main criticism still stands: The intervention for cancer relies on killing the broken cells. You can't just scatter them and have them blend into healthy tissue. But you_can_ scatter the families/groups and have them blend into a healthy society." Some constituents of a fascist society can be scattered, but some members, esp. the leaders or those guilty of `war crimes' get hunted down. Cells form the organisms be compared to, so it is not surprising that they are more easily discarded. (Ok, the difference in scale makes a lot of this silly.) And in human illness, there is more of distinction between the host and the non-host. The winner writes history and declares itself the `host'; a brain tumor would not be called `an alternative point of view'. 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 |
|
|
On 01/21/2014 11:42 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> Some constituents of a fascist society can be scattered, but some > members, esp. the leaders or those guilty of `war crimes' get hunted > down. Cells form the organisms be compared to, so it is not surprising > that they are more easily discarded. Good point. Are there some cells, in the same cancer, that are more (or less) metastatic than other cells in that same cancer? Although it seems reasonable that some cells will be more likely to dislodge from the tissue and traipse around, it's not clear to me that we've fully validated the distinction between metastatic and non-metastatic cancer cells. Anyway, if so, then we could credibly map mobile cancer cells to leaders, gurus, prophets, virile breeders, etc. within totalitarian systems. But that still doesn't mean that physically breaking up a tumor consisting of all non-metastatic cells, and scattering those cells across the body would _not_ cause all sorts of new tumors wherever these non-metastatic cells landed. I.e. perhaps the only thing keeping non-metastatic cancer cells from being metastatic is their lack of mobility, a problem solved by the scattering intervention. This might be quite distinct from scattering the non-leader members of a totalitarian system. By definition of totalitarianism, I would posit that the non-leaders are not really capable of starting their own budding totalitarian states. I'd be more likely to accept an analogy between a more organic -ism (e.g. Al-Qaeda) and cancer. The key property is the autonomy, the colony forming ability, of the constituents. -- ⇒⇐ 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: totalitarianism and cancer
|
|
On 1/21/14, 5:29 PM, glen wrote:
> Are there some cells, in the same cancer, that are more (or less) > metastatic than other cells in that same cancer? I seem to recall one hypothesis was that stem cells were suspect in cancer in part because they tend to resist chemotherapy. And that one benefit of developmental specialization of cells was to be resistant to that kind of corruption. I don't think it is the case that tumors are heterogeneous. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/full/nature12624.html 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: totalitarianism and cancer
|
|
On 01/21/2014 06:00 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > I don't think it is the case that tumors are heterogeneous. > sorry, I meant to say "do think". ============================================================ 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 |