Friam

Abduction

Classic

List

Threaded

170 messages Options

1 ... 456789

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Motives - Was Abduction

Steve writes:

< I think this is the "genius" of Trump's campaign and tenure... he operates from his own (and often ad-hoc) Lexicon and that reported 39% stable base of his seems happy to just rewrite their own dictionary to match his. It has been noted that Trump's presidency has been most significant for helping us understand how much of our government operates on norms and a shared vocabulary. He de(re?)constructs those with virtually every tweet. >

Deconstructing a complex predicate involves taking out sub-predicates and sub-sub predicates and examining all of the facts that cause each predicate to hold or not. Trump’s `leadership’ involves ripping out the top level predicates and simply defining sub-predicates to hold or not depending on his impulses at that minute of the day. Yes, it is his correct recognition that humans, especially the deplorables, aren’t very good with depth first search. He’s got a depth cutoff of about 1, as do they.

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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Nick Thompson

Re: Motives - Was Abduction

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Uh-Oh. Dave’s on the case. I am in DEEP trouble here.

Can I assert that anything is real without implying that some things are “unreal” and, since we are talking about them, must be mere matters of the mind. In other words, can one be a monist realist?

I admit that things aren’t looking good for that position.

However, for your part, inconsistency-wise in your note you trade on the notion of the real to challenge realism. You assert that there is something that is the customs of that tribe, that there is some that those customs define as man and woman, and that those customs are so demanding … so real … that they require some men to adopt part of the role of women to serve other men. Yes I am the pot calling the kettle black.

To be honest, I don’t know how we get out of this mess. One solution I am exploring is trying to make every assertion that something is real into a three valued assertion including point of view. If you come stand where I am standing, you will see what I see. That you can see what I see from where I stand is The Real.

I have to admit, seeing the Wittgenstein quote unnerved me. In his family resemblance model there needs only to be a network of associations but no constant in that network that anchors it and keeps it from drifting off.

My wife got mad at me because I put my dogs on the coffee table.

Why did she get mad?

Because she says the nails scratch the table.

So, why don’t you trim the nails?

Well, I probably would have to have the whole shoe resoled.

Why do you call your shoes “dogs”? I thought they were quite handsome.

Well, I call them that because they have been enduring and reliable and trustworthy. Best shoes I ever had.

Dogged?

Right

Will you be sorry to see them go when they are worn out?

Yeah, doggone it.

And so on.

I suspect that there may be a way out of this via Peirce’s sign theory, but I have never understood Peirce’s sign theory, try as I might. I am not even sure there is a there there. I.e., not sure that there is a real thing called Peirce’s Sign Theory.

Nick

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 Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 10:38 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Aww Nick,

Surely you jest: "Something about the category is real."

Real?

Real, as in dualist metaphysics?

Or merely real in the sense that there is a group of humans willing to behave in a manner consistent with a pretend belief that a labeled category is real?

About a decade back there were ten states (Oregon's courts recently struck down this kind of law, so I think Texas is the last remaining state where this is true) that presenting yourself a "software engineer" was a minor felony. This despite the fact that universities in those states issued hundreds if not thousands of diplomas reading software engineering. The activities typically associated with 'software engineering', primary among them, programming, were being practiced for nearly 20 years before the phrase"software engineering" was first uttered. [[LEO I, first business computer, in 1951 - software engineering first coined in 1968.]]

Transgender as a term, let alone a category, is, in the culture most of the FRIAM list exist within, is less than fifty-years old. [The Sioux had a term,"berdache," for men that dressed and behaved as women while providing sexual services to men observing the 7-year post-partum sex with spouse taboo. And there are hundreds of terms in other cultures not afflicted with the need to disambiguate absolutely everything.]

Can you offer an example of a category where membership criteria is not completely arbitrary and does not change over time? A category that is not not constantly 're-defined' in light of new information? (I am thinking here of biological categories like Linneaus's taxonomy of categories replaced with DNA-based categories, being questioned and on the verge of re-definition as we recognize how "muddled" DNA can be.)

Can a "category" ever be more than a "metaphor?"

When it comes to human beings; can categorization ever rise above being an expression of differentiation between thee and me? It seems to me that categorization is, mostly, little more than a disguised expression of xenophobia.

davew

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019, at 8:50 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Nick writes:

< Ok, Marcus, I am standing my ground as a realist here: ():-[) >

There you go trying to claim semantics for terms in a public dictionary again. (That’s an example of taking ground, like in my Go example.)   Doing so constrains what can even be said. It puts the skeptic in the position of having to deconstruct every single term, and thus be a called terms like smartass when they force the terms to be used in other contexts where the definition doesn’t work.   A culture itself is laden with thousands of de-facto definitions that steer meaning back to conventional (e.g. racist and sexist) expectations.   To even to begin to question these expectations requires having some power base, or safe space, to work from.

In this case, you assert that some discussants are software engineers and that distinguishes them from your category. A discussant of that (accused / implied) type says he is not a member of that set and that it is not even a credible set. Another discussant says the activity of such a group is a skill and if someone lacks it, they could just as well gain it while having other co-equal skills too.   So there is already reason to doubt the categorization you are suggesting.

< You cannot be against categories because you cannot TALK without categories. “person” and “dog” are categories. Yes, the thought they call up in me is inevitably wrong in some respect. I see you with Korgies, but they are actually Irish Wolf Hounds. You cannot bake a sentence without breaking some categories, yet the categories endure. Something about the category is real. >

Are you claiming that the concept of membership in particular biological species is a subjective concept?   That I am hijacking the meaning of a person or a dog? Really?

< So, if you are not against categorization, per se, and since all categories do violence of one sort or another, you must be against categories that do more violence than they do good. So, when I called you a gazelle, what violence did I do? Would I have done better to call you a Wildebeest? Would I be more or less disappointed in my expectations had I called you a Springbok? >

For example, it would be better to call the young person in this story a girl. That requires having the cognitive flexibility to recognize that some terms are dynamic or at least a matter of debate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/opinion/trans-teen-transition.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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Motives - Was Abduction

Nick writes:

< One solution I am exploring is trying to make every assertion that something is real into a three valued assertion including point of view. >

Confounding variables, like your example with Simpson’s Paradox. In functional programming, the life history of said person’s evolving point of view might live in a monad (a big object). Every assertion could be bind inside the monad and access private information. Sometimes the assertions would fail, but it would fail in a subjective way.

Marcus

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Motives - Was Abduction

In my mind, the distinction is important between an assertion failing subjectively and objectively. An assertion could fail for sound reasons in a subjective way, but not be transparent. A Trump voter who wants to Cause harm to Washington might have some private theory of how the harm would unfold and why it would be a Good Thing. Alternatively, they could just be acting in some vague emotional way based on feelings of alienation or humiliation or fear. In contrast, an assertion could fail outside of the monad, amongst a set of types shared by many agents. And by virtue of being instances of shared types, the utterances at some level are all self-consistent. I am skeptical that a point of view can be turned into an artifact and shared in all cases. It’s a best-effort thing even among willing participants, and many participants (maybe all) will not be able to accurately reflect on themselves.

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Date: Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 2:10 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Nick writes:

< One solution I am exploring is trying to make every assertion that something is real into a three valued assertion including point of view. >

Marcus

Prof David West

Re: Motives - Was Abduction

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Nick, no so much ...

... as reification seems to be unavoidable, and hence I am guilty as charged. Everything is the fault of that pesky verb "to be," as Korzibski warned us.

davew

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019, at 1:54 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Uh-Oh. Dave’s on the case. I am in DEEP trouble here.

Can I assert that anything is real without implying that some things are “unreal” and, since we are talking about them, must be mere matters of the mind.   In other words, can one be a monist realist?

I admit that things aren’t looking good for that position.

However, for your part, inconsistency-wise in your note you trade on the notion of the real to challenge realism. You assert that there is something that is the customs of that tribe, that there is some that those customs define as man and woman, and that those customs are so demanding … so real … that they require some men to adopt part of the role of women to serve other men. Yes I am the pot calling the kettle black.

To be honest, I don’t know how we get out of this mess. One solution I am exploring is trying to make every assertion that something is real into a three valued assertion including point of view. If you come stand where I am standing, you will see what I see. That you can see what I see from where I stand is The Real.

I have to admit, seeing the Wittgenstein quote unnerved me. In his family resemblance model there needs only to be a network of associations but no constant in that network that anchors it and keeps it from drifting off.

My wife got mad at me because I put my dogs on the coffee table.
Why did she get mad?
Because she says the nails scratch the table.
So, why don’t you trim the nails?
Well, I probably would have to have the whole shoe resoled.
Why do you call your shoes “dogs”? I thought they were quite handsome.
Well, I call them that because they have been enduring and reliable and trustworthy.   Best shoes I ever had.
Dogged?
Right
Will you be sorry to see them go when they are worn out?
Yeah, doggone it.
And so on.

I suspect that there may be a way out of this via Peirce’s sign theory, but I have never understood Peirce’s sign theory, try as I might. I am not even sure there is a there there. I.e., not sure that there is a real thing called Peirce’s Sign Theory.
Nick
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 Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 10:38 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Aww Nick,

Surely you jest: "Something about the category is real."

Real?

Real, as in dualist metaphysics?

Or merely real in the sense that there is a group of humans willing to behave in a manner consistent with a pretend belief that a labeled category is real?

About a decade back there were ten states (Oregon's courts recently struck down this kind of law, so I think Texas is the last remaining state where this is true) that presenting yourself a "software engineer" was a minor felony. This despite the fact that universities in those states issued hundreds if not thousands of diplomas reading software engineering. The activities typically associated with 'software engineering', primary among them, programming, were being practiced for nearly 20 years before the phrase"software engineering" was first uttered. [[LEO I, first business computer, in 1951 - software engineering first coined in 1968.]]

Transgender as a term, let alone a category, is, in the culture most of the FRIAM list exist within, is less than fifty-years old. [The Sioux had a term,"berdache," for men that dressed and behaved as women while providing sexual services to men observing the 7-year post-partum sex with spouse taboo. And there are hundreds of terms in other cultures not afflicted with the need to disambiguate absolutely everything.]

Can you offer an example of a category where membership criteria is not completely arbitrary and does not change over time? A category that is not not constantly 're-defined' in light of new information? (I am thinking here of biological categories like Linneaus's taxonomy of categories replaced with DNA-based categories, being questioned and on the verge of re-definition as we recognize how "muddled" DNA can be.)

Can a "category" ever be more than a "metaphor?"

When it comes to human beings; can categorization ever rise above being an expression of differentiation between thee and me? It seems to me that categorization is, mostly, little more than a disguised expression of xenophobia.

davew

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019, at 8:50 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Nick writes:

< Ok, Marcus, I am standing my ground as a realist here: ():-[) >

There you go trying to claim semantics for terms in a public dictionary again. (That’s an example of taking ground, like in my Go example.)   Doing so constrains what can even be said. It puts the skeptic in the position of having to deconstruct every single term, and thus be a called terms like smartass when they force the terms to be used in other contexts where the definition doesn’t work.   A culture itself is laden with thousands of de-facto definitions that steer meaning back to conventional (e.g. racist and sexist) expectations.   To even to begin to question these expectations requires having some power base, or safe space, to work from.

In this case, you assert that some discussants are software engineers and that distinguishes them from your category. A discussant of that (accused / implied) type says he is not a member of that set and that it is not even a credible set. Another discussant says the activity of such a group is a skill and if someone lacks it, they could just as well gain it while having other co-equal skills too.   So there is already reason to doubt the categorization you are suggesting.

< You cannot be against categories because you cannot TALK without categories. “person” and “dog” are categories. Yes, the thought they call up in me is inevitably wrong in some respect. I see you with Korgies, but they are actually Irish Wolf Hounds. You cannot bake a sentence without breaking some categories, yet the categories endure. Something about the category is real. >

Are you claiming that the concept of membership in particular biological species is a subjective concept?   That I am hijacking the meaning of a person or a dog? Really?

< So, if you are not against categorization, per se, and since all categories do violence of one sort or another, you must be against categories that do more violence than they do good. So, when I called you a gazelle, what violence did I do? Would I have done better to call you a Wildebeest? Would I be more or less disappointed in my expectations had I called you a Springbok? >

For example, it would be better to call the young person in this story a girl. That requires having the cognitive flexibility to recognize that some terms are dynamic or at least a matter of debate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/opinion/trans-teen-transition.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

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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

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

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Nick Thompson

Re: Motives - Was Abduction

What famous philosopher once said:

“It depends on what the definition of “is” is.”

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 Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 2:31 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Nick, no so much ...

... as reification seems to be unavoidable, and hence I am guilty as charged. Everything is the fault of that pesky verb "to be," as Korzibski warned us.

davew

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019, at 1:54 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Uh-Oh. Dave’s on the case. I am in DEEP trouble here.

Can I assert that anything is real without implying that some things are “unreal” and, since we are talking about them, must be mere matters of the mind.   In other words, can one be a monist realist?

I admit that things aren’t looking good for that position.

However, for your part, inconsistency-wise in your note you trade on the notion of the real to challenge realism. You assert that there is something that is the customs of that tribe, that there is some that those customs define as man and woman, and that those customs are so demanding … so real … that they require some men to adopt part of the role of women to serve other men. Yes I am the pot calling the kettle black.

To be honest, I don’t know how we get out of this mess. One solution I am exploring is trying to make every assertion that something is real into a three valued assertion including point of view. If you come stand where I am standing, you will see what I see. That you can see what I see from where I stand is The Real.

I have to admit, seeing the Wittgenstein quote unnerved me. In his family resemblance model there needs only to be a network of associations but no constant in that network that anchors it and keeps it from drifting off.

My wife got mad at me because I put my dogs on the coffee table.
Why did she get mad?
Because she says the nails scratch the table.
So, why don’t you trim the nails?
Well, I probably would have to have the whole shoe resoled.
Why do you call your shoes “dogs”? I thought they were quite handsome.
Well, I call them that because they have been enduring and reliable and trustworthy.   Best shoes I ever had.
Dogged?
Right
Will you be sorry to see them go when they are worn out?
Yeah, doggone it.
And so on.

I suspect that there may be a way out of this via Peirce’s sign theory, but I have never understood Peirce’s sign theory, try as I might. I am not even sure there is a there there. I.e., not sure that there is a real thing called Peirce’s Sign Theory.
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 10:38 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Aww Nick,

Surely you jest: "Something about the category is real."

Real?
Real, as in dualist metaphysics?
Or merely real in the sense that there is a group of humans willing to behave in a manner consistent with a pretend belief that a labeled category is real?

About a decade back there were ten states (Oregon's courts recently struck down this kind of law, so I think Texas is the last remaining state where this is true) that presenting yourself a "software engineer" was a minor felony. This despite the fact that universities in those states issued hundreds if not thousands of diplomas reading software engineering. The activities typically associated with 'software engineering', primary among them, programming, were being practiced for nearly 20 years before the phrase"software engineering" was first uttered. [[LEO I, first business computer, in 1951 - software engineering first coined in 1968.]]

Transgender as a term, let alone a category, is, in the culture most of the FRIAM list exist within, is less than fifty-years old. [The Sioux had a term,"berdache," for men that dressed and behaved as women while providing sexual services to men observing the 7-year post-partum sex with spouse taboo. And there are hundreds of terms in other cultures not afflicted with the need to disambiguate absolutely everything.]

Can you offer an example of a category where membership criteria is not completely arbitrary and does not change over time? A category that is not not constantly 're-defined' in light of new information? (I am thinking here of biological categories like Linneaus's taxonomy of categories replaced with DNA-based categories, being questioned and on the verge of re-definition as we recognize how "muddled" DNA can be.)

Can a "category" ever be more than a "metaphor?"

When it comes to human beings; can categorization ever rise above being an expression of differentiation between thee and me? It seems to me that categorization is, mostly, little more than a disguised expression of xenophobia.

davew

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019, at 8:50 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
Nick writes:

< Ok, Marcus, I am standing my ground as a realist here: ():-[) >

There you go trying to claim semantics for terms in a public dictionary again. (That’s an example of taking ground, like in my Go example.)   Doing so constrains what can even be said. It puts the skeptic in the position of having to deconstruct every single term, and thus be a called terms like smartass when they force the terms to be used in other contexts where the definition doesn’t work.   A culture itself is laden with thousands of de-facto definitions that steer meaning back to conventional (e.g. racist and sexist) expectations.   To even to begin to question these expectations requires having some power base, or safe space, to work from.

In this case, you assert that some discussants are software engineers and that distinguishes them from your category. A discussant of that (accused / implied) type says he is not a member of that set and that it is not even a credible set. Another discussant says the activity of such a group is a skill and if someone lacks it, they could just as well gain it while having other co-equal skills too.   So there is already reason to doubt the categorization you are suggesting.

< You cannot be against categories because you cannot TALK without categories. “person” and “dog” are categories. Yes, the thought they call up in me is inevitably wrong in some respect. I see you with Korgies, but they are actually Irish Wolf Hounds. You cannot bake a sentence without breaking some categories, yet the categories endure. Something about the category is real. >

Are you claiming that the concept of membership in particular biological species is a subjective concept?   That I am hijacking the meaning of a person or a dog? Really?

< So, if you are not against categorization, per se, and since all categories do violence of one sort or another, you must be against categories that do more violence than they do good. So, when I called you a gazelle, what violence did I do? Would I have done better to call you a Wildebeest? Would I be more or less disappointed in my expectations had I called you a Springbok? >

For example, it would be better to call the young person in this story a girl. That requires having the cognitive flexibility to recognize that some terms are dynamic or at least a matter of debate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/opinion/trans-teen-transition.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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Nick Thompson

Re: Motives - Was Abduction

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

Hi, Marcus,

This is the kind of comment that makes me which I knew more about … um … what it is you do. I get these intimations that your experience might be very useful to philosophical cogitations if only I could share it.

Nick

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 Marcus Daniels
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 2:10 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Nick writes:

< One solution I am exploring is trying to make every assertion that something is real into a three valued assertion including point of view. >

Marcus

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Motives - Was Abduction

Good news, your mind hasn’t been damaged by the popular programming languages.

http://learnyouahaskell.com/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Date: Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 3:56 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Hi, Marcus,

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

Nick writes:

< One solution I am exploring is trying to make every assertion that something is real into a three valued assertion including point of view. >

Marcus

gepr

Re: Motives - Was Abduction

Ha! Unless you consider all that philosophy he's polluted his mind with. >8^D (JK, of course.)

On 1/9/19 3:05 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Good news, your mind hasn’t been damaged by the popular programming languages.
>
> http://learnyouahaskell.com/

--
☣ uǝlƃ

============================================================
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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Nick Thompson

Re: Motives - Was Abduction

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Steve Smith wrote:

I sense frustration in many of us when we try to talk about our various topics of specialty (as amatuers or professionals) with our significantly educated (but in other (sub)disciplines) lay-colleagues. It seems that in the attempt to be more precise or to make evident our own lexicons for a particular subject that we end up tangling our webs in this tower of Complexity Babel (Babble?) we roam, colliding occasionally here and there.

Right, Steve.

I wouldn’t have it any other way. It is one of the few places on earth where, fwiw, people are struggling with the problem. Fighting the good fight against semantic hegemony.

Nick

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 Steven A Smith
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 12:20 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Nick writes:

< Ok, Marcus, I am standing my ground as a realist here: ():-[) >

There you go trying to claim semantics for terms in a public dictionary again. (That’s an example of taking ground, like in my Go example.) Doing so constrains what can even be said. It puts the skeptic in the position of having to deconstruct every single term, and thus be a called terms like smartass when they force the terms to be used in other contexts where the definition doesn’t work. A culture itself is laden with thousands of de-facto definitions that steer meaning back to conventional (e.g. racist and sexist) expectations. To even to begin to question these expectations requires having some power base, or safe space, to work from.

I think this is the "genius" of Trump's campaign and tenure... he operates from his own (and often ad-hoc) Lexicon and that reported 39% stable base of his seems happy to just rewrite their own dictionary to match his. That seems to be roughly Kellyanne's and Sarah's only role (and skill?), helping those who want to keep their dictionaries up to date with his shifting use of terms and concepts up to date.

It has been noted that Trump's presidency has been most significant for helping us understand how much of our government operates on norms and a shared vocabulary. He de(re?)constructs those with virtually every tweet. While I find it quite disturbing on many levels, I also find it fascinating. I've never been one to take the media or politicians very seriously, but he has demonstrated quite thoroughly why one not only shouldn't but ultimately *can't*.

In this case, you assert that some discussants are software engineers and that distinguishes them from your category. A discussant of that (accused / implied) type says he is not a member of that set and that it is not even a credible set. Another discussant says the activity of such a group is a skill and if someone lacks it, they could just as well gain it while having other co-equal skills too. So there is already reason to doubt the categorization you are suggesting.

I took Nick's point to be that the Metaphors that those among us who spend a significant amount of time writing (or desiging) computer systems is alien to him, and that despite making an attempt when he first came here to develop the skills (and therefore the culture), he feels he has failed and the lingua franca of computer (types, geeks, ???) is foreign to him. Here on FriAM, I feel we speak a very rough Pidgen (not quite developed enough to be a proper Creole?) admixture of computer-geek, physics, sociology, psychology, linguistics, philosophy, mathematics, hard-science-other-than physics, etc.

- Sieve

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

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

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Steve Smith

Re: Motives - Was Abduction

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

Marcus -

Thanks for that deep dive into the (lack of) structure of Trump's bombast. I'm not sure that the 39% (number varies) of his base are simply deplorable breadth-never parsers, though it would seem they would have to be to not trip over his rhetoric. Some (maybe even members of this list?) may support him as "the Great Disruptor" while seeing entirely through his very poorly crafted rhetoric?

More importantly to me, is the effect it has on the larger population, on the norms and expectations of voters/citizens and other political operators. I'd like to think of Trump as one big fat ugly dose of live-vaccine which has put the country into a harsh reaction which will ultimately leave it with some immunity to his particular style of whackadoodlery. On the other hand, we may sustain systemic damage that leaves this country lamed until our eventual and inevitable demise (as a country/culture/???).

- Steve

PS does anyone know what this rough 39% figure is *of*? Is it 39% of citizens, eligible voters, voters in the last election, poll subjects(whose?)? I'm not even sure where I get the number, it seems to be the most common number thrown around in many situations.... Sometimes it is a round 40% and I think sometimes more like 37%... but it doesn't seem to have varied much for quite a while. Seems like it may be more apocryphal than real?

On 1/9/19 12:49 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Steve writes:

< I think this is the "genius" of Trump's campaign and tenure... he operates from his own (and often ad-hoc) Lexicon and that reported 39% stable base of his seems happy to just rewrite their own dictionary to match his. It has been noted that Trump's presidency has been most significant for helping us understand how much of our government operates on norms and a shared vocabulary. He de(re?)constructs those with virtually every tweet. >

Deconstructing a complex predicate involves taking out sub-predicates and sub-sub predicates and examining all of the facts that cause each predicate to hold or not. Trump’s `leadership’ involves ripping out the top level predicates and simply defining sub-predicates to hold or not depending on his impulses at that minute of the day. Yes, it is his correct recognition that humans, especially the deplorables, aren’t very good with depth first search. He’s got a depth cutoff of about 1, as do they.

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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: Motives - Was Abduction

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

-- rec --

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 11:23 PM Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Marcus -

Thanks for that deep dive into the (lack of) structure of Trump's bombast.   I'm not sure that the 39% (number varies) of his base are simply deplorable breadth-never parsers, though it would seem they would have to be to not trip over his rhetoric.   Some (maybe even members of this list?) may support him as "the Great Disruptor" while seeing entirely through his very poorly crafted rhetoric?

More importantly to me, is the effect it has on the larger population, on the norms and expectations of voters/citizens and other political operators.    I'd like to think of Trump as one big fat ugly dose of live-vaccine which has put the country into a harsh reaction which will ultimately leave it with some immunity to his particular style of whackadoodlery.   On the other hand, we may sustain systemic damage that leaves this country lamed until our eventual and inevitable demise (as a country/culture/???).

- Steve

PS does anyone know what this rough 39% figure is *of*? Is it 39% of citizens, eligible voters, voters in the last election, poll subjects(whose?)?   I'm not even sure where I get the number, it seems to be the most common number thrown around in many situations.... Sometimes it is a round 40% and I think sometimes more like 37%... but it doesn't seem to have varied much for quite a while. Seems like it may be more apocryphal than real?

On 1/9/19 12:49 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
Steve writes:

< I think this is the "genius" of Trump's campaign and tenure... he operates from his own (and often ad-hoc) Lexicon and that reported 39% stable base of his seems happy to just rewrite their own dictionary to match his. It has been noted that Trump's presidency has been most significant for helping us understand how much of our government operates on norms and a shared vocabulary. He de(re?)constructs those with virtually every tweet. >

Deconstructing a complex predicate involves taking out sub-predicates and sub-sub predicates and examining all of the facts that cause each predicate to hold or not. Trump’s `leadership’ involves ripping out the top level predicates and simply defining sub-predicates to hold or not depending on his impulses at that minute of the day. Yes, it is his correct recognition that humans, especially the deplorables, aren’t very good with depth first search. He’s got a depth cutoff of about 1, as do they.

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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================
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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Prof David West

Re: Motives - Was Abduction

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Trump is coming up frequently in this "abduction" thread, especially with regard communication and rhetoric.A very good, quite enlightening, book about this is Scott Adams' (yes, the Dilbert cartoonist) Win Bigly.

davew

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019, at 9:03 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Steve Smith wrote:

I sense frustration in many of us when we try to talk about our various topics of specialty (as amatuers or professionals) with our significantly educated (but in other (sub)disciplines) lay-colleagues.   It seems that in the attempt to be more precise or to make evident our own lexicons for a particular subject that we end up tangling our webs in this tower of Complexity Babel (Babble?) we roam, colliding occasionally here and there.
Right, Steve.

I wouldn’t have it any other way. It is one of the few places on earth where, fwiw, people are struggling with the problem. Fighting the good fight against semantic hegemony.

Nick

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 Steven A Smith
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 12:20 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Nick writes:

< Ok, Marcus, I am standing my ground as a realist here: ():-[) >

There you go trying to claim semantics for terms in a public dictionary again. (That’s an example of taking ground, like in my Go example.)   Doing so constrains what can even be said. It puts the skeptic in the position of having to deconstruct every single term, and thus be a called terms like smartass when they force the terms to be used in other contexts where the definition doesn’t work.   A culture itself is laden with thousands of de-facto definitions that steer meaning back to conventional (e.g. racist and sexist) expectations.   To even to begin to question these expectations requires having some power base, or safe space, to work from.
I think this is the "genius" of Trump's campaign and tenure... he operates from his own (and often ad-hoc) Lexicon and that reported 39% stable base of his seems happy to just rewrite their own dictionary to match his.   That seems to be roughly Kellyanne's and Sarah's only role (and skill?), helping those who want to keep their dictionaries up to date with his shifting use of terms and concepts up to date.
It has been noted that Trump's presidency has been most significant for helping us understand how much of our government operates on norms and a shared vocabulary.   He de(re?)constructs those with virtually every tweet.   While I find it quite disturbing on many levels, I also find it fascinating.   I've never been one to take the media or politicians very seriously, but he has demonstrated quite thoroughly why one not only shouldn't but ultimately *can't*.
In this case, you assert that some discussants are software engineers and that distinguishes them from your category. A discussant of that (accused / implied) type says he is not a member of that set and that it is not even a credible set. Another discussant says the activity of such a group is a skill and if someone lacks it, they could just as well gain it while having other co-equal skills too.   So there is already reason to doubt the categorization you are suggesting.
I took Nick's point to be that the Metaphors that those among us who spend a significant amount of time writing (or desiging) computer systems is alien to him, and that despite making an attempt when he first came here to develop the skills (and therefore the culture), he feels he has failed and the lingua franca of computer (types, geeks, ???) is foreign to him.   Here on FriAM, I feel we speak a very rough Pidgen (not quite developed enough to be a proper Creole?) admixture of computer-geek, physics, sociology, psychology, linguistics, philosophy, mathematics, hard-science-other-than physics, etc.
I sense frustration in many of us when we try to talk about our various topics of specialty (as amatuers or professionals) with our significantly educated (but in other (sub)disciplines) lay-colleagues.   It seems that in the attempt to be more precise or to make evident our own lexicons for a particular subject that we end up tangling our webs in this tower of Complexity Babel (Babble?) we roam, colliding occasionally here and there.
- Sieve
============================================================
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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================

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

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Motives - Was Abduction

If there were a deep state it would have disappeared this guy. Hierarchical systems are way too efficient.

Steve Smith

Re: Motives - Was Abduction

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Dave -

This contribution (Adam's "Win Bigly") and Roger's offering of the John Boehner (apparent?) endorsement of the American Cannabis Summit helps to remind me of the underlying struggle I am having with some of the conversation here, and most of what passes for public conversation at large (in and out of the media).

Donald is pretty clear, for example, that even when he is claiming moral high-ground, that his primary (singular?) goal is to WIN. While I've only read summaries and reviews of Adam's "Bigly", I sense that his topic is truly (and singularly?) about being persuasive (aka Winning?), up to and including hypnotism (or NLP techniques?).

The American Cannabis Summit video Roger linked suggests that there is "wealth" to be had by jumping on the Cannabis bandwagon, comparing it to Tobacco, among other things. The message seems to equate "wealth" with "leverage over others"... without much more than a passing nod to the actual enrichment of lives (individually and collectively). Without debating whether the widespread legalization and commercialization of Cannabis implies/supports some "greater good"

I happen to be reading Rebecca Solnit's "A Paradise Built in Hell" which is a deep dive into the theme of how people (sometimes) show their best while suffering great disasters. Particularly in the area of community spirit and synergistic cooperation. She anecdotally and analytically reviews disasters from the 1906 San Francisco earthquake to Katrina, focusing *mostly* on the positive examples of people stepping up individually and collectively to show demonstrate/discover their "best selves". In this, she speaks of the tension between "Seeking a better life" and "Seeking a better world". It is suggested that in the face of disaster, the latter is evidently the most efficient route to the former, and on the whole, the behaviour of individuals in those contexts suggests that such is self-evident. She acknowledges that there are plenty of opportunists who *do not* apprehend that their "best interests" are supported by cooperation, but instead notice that the fragility of their context allows them to "exploit" that fragility, and in fact seem convinced that it is not only an opportunity but an unction. In their zero (or negative) sum model, the only way to get what they need is to take it (or hoard it) from someone else, and *sharing* is deeply suspect at best and

ON the topic of "persuasion" vs "ethics", one of Adam's reviewers reflected: "But, when I was in school, we always discussed ethical responsibility of the persuader and Adams does not. As long as Trump was persuasive he was going to win and that’s what matters." I suppose this is the tension I often experience... between that which is "efficacioius" in a (deliberately?) limited context, and that which has a larger context and is nominally discussed in terms of ethical and moral frameworks.

I was raised in various cultures of "rugged individualism" which biases me toward what I perceive to be a *natural/instinctual* state of "me first". I would claim that *fortunately*, I grew (over many decades now) into an awareness that while that might be the default position to retreat to when all available strategies for a larger collective (family, neighborhood, tribe, etc.) seem hopeless or negative, that those collectives are a deeply adaptive aspect of life's evolution. Many organisms are capable of living in relative isolation from members of their own group, but do seem to thrive in groups of their own type but also enhanced by modest diversity (forests, savannahs, blooms, pods, hives, tribes, schools, flocks, etc.).

I'm rambling/rattling on (as usual) here, but I'd like to hear your (DaveW) perspective on this topic, since you have spoken fairly directly to the ideals of individualism.

What is the case (from your perspective) to the complement to rabid individualism? Does the individualists bogeymen of collectivism or in the (relative) extreme Globalism have *any* redeeming qualities, or is the very idea of participating in larger and larger collectives (hierarchical or heterarchical) completely antithetical to the survival and enrichment of the individual?

- SteveS

On 1/10/19 6:40 AM, Prof David West wrote:

Trump is coming up frequently in this "abduction" thread, especially with regard communication and rhetoric.A very good, quite enlightening, book about this is Scott Adams' (yes, the Dilbert cartoonist) Win Bigly.

davew

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019, at 9:03 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
Steve Smith wrote:

I sense frustration in many of us when we try to talk about our various topics of specialty (as amatuers or professionals) with our significantly educated (but in other (sub)disciplines) lay-colleagues.   It seems that in the attempt to be more precise or to make evident our own lexicons for a particular subject that we end up tangling our webs in this tower of Complexity Babel (Babble?) we roam, colliding occasionally here and there.

Right, Steve.

I wouldn’t have it any other way. It is one of the few places on earth where, fwiw, people are struggling with the problem. Fighting the good fight against semantic hegemony.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 12:20 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Nick writes:

< Ok, Marcus, I am standing my ground as a realist here: ():-[) >

There you go trying to claim semantics for terms in a public dictionary again. (That’s an example of taking ground, like in my Go example.)   Doing so constrains what can even be said. It puts the skeptic in the position of having to deconstruct every single term, and thus be a called terms like smartass when they force the terms to be used in other contexts where the definition doesn’t work.   A culture itself is laden with thousands of de-facto definitions that steer meaning back to conventional (e.g. racist and sexist) expectations.   To even to begin to question these expectations requires having some power base, or safe space, to work from.

I think this is the "genius" of Trump's campaign and tenure... he operates from his own (and often ad-hoc) Lexicon and that reported 39% stable base of his seems happy to just rewrite their own dictionary to match his.   That seems to be roughly Kellyanne's and Sarah's only role (and skill?), helping those who want to keep their dictionaries up to date with his shifting use of terms and concepts up to date.

It has been noted that Trump's presidency has been most significant for helping us understand how much of our government operates on norms and a shared vocabulary.   He de(re?)constructs those with virtually every tweet.   While I find it quite disturbing on many levels, I also find it fascinating.   I've never been one to take the media or politicians very seriously, but he has demonstrated quite thoroughly why one not only shouldn't but ultimately *can't*.

In this case, you assert that some discussants are software engineers and that distinguishes them from your category. A discussant of that (accused / implied) type says he is not a member of that set and that it is not even a credible set. Another discussant says the activity of such a group is a skill and if someone lacks it, they could just as well gain it while having other co-equal skills too.   So there is already reason to doubt the categorization you are suggesting.

I took Nick's point to be that the Metaphors that those among us who spend a significant amount of time writing (or desiging) computer systems is alien to him, and that despite making an attempt when he first came here to develop the skills (and therefore the culture), he feels he has failed and the lingua franca of computer (types, geeks, ???) is foreign to him.   Here on FriAM, I feel we speak a very rough Pidgen (not quite developed enough to be a proper Creole?) admixture of computer-geek, physics, sociology, psychology, linguistics, philosophy, mathematics, hard-science-other-than physics, etc.

I sense frustration in many of us when we try to talk about our various topics of specialty (as amatuers or professionals) with our significantly educated (but in other (sub)disciplines) lay-colleagues.   It seems that in the attempt to be more precise or to make evident our own lexicons for a particular subject that we end up tangling our webs in this tower of Complexity Babel (Babble?) we roam, colliding occasionally here and there.

- Sieve
============================================================
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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================

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

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================
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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Motives - Was Abduction

Steve writes:

< I happen to be reading Rebecca Solnit's "A Paradise Built in Hell" which is a deep dive into the theme of how people (sometimes) show their best while suffering great disasters. Particularly in the area of community spirit and synergistic cooperation. She anecdotally and analytically reviews disasters from the 1906 San Francisco earthquake to Katrina, focusing *mostly* on the positive examples of people stepping up individually and collectively to show demonstrate/discover their "best selves". In this, she speaks of the tension between "Seeking a better life" and "Seeking a better world". It is suggested that in the face of disaster, the latter is evidently the most efficient route to the former, and on the whole, the behaviour of individuals in those contexts suggests that such is self-evident. She acknowledges that there are plenty of opportunists who *do not* apprehend that their "best interests" are supported by cooperation, but instead notice that the fragility of their context allows them to "exploit" that fragility, and in fact seem convinced that it is not only an opportunity but an unction. >

There’s a more cynical interpretation of positive disaster behavior. Because of the way human memory works, everyone understands that *many* people will remember in vivid detail all kinds of nuances about a crisis. So it is of benefit to be helpful, because others will remember that. It does not necessarily mean that anything will change about how an otherwise Grinch-like person will behave after the crisis. Goodwill is a currency and a crisis is when one can buy low. Also it may just be collectively necessary in some circumstances for everyone to cooperate, and even a completely selfish person can see that.

Marcus

Steve Smith

Re: Motives - Was Abduction

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

Marcus Daniels wrote:

If there were a deep state it would have disappeared this guy. Hierarchical systems are way too efficient.

I'd like to (and sometimes do) believe that Trump & Co's apparent incompetence and general foolishness reflects a lack of deep conspiracy ON the Right, as well as his continued survival (not shot, poisoned, or pushed from the open door of Marine 1) suggests there is no Deep State.

On the other hand, as I always ask conspiracy theorists, "what if his presence in this role *serves* the Deep State?"

While many (most) conspiracists might applaud Trump's ascendency and consider it a victory over their favorite bogeymen, I can't see anything that would suggest that if such bogeymen actually do exist that they wouldn't be *using* this train-wreck for their own purposes. And is there a singular monolithic bogeyman called "Deep State" or is it factionated into many subgroups who are right now in their evil lair fighting over whether or when or how to "neutralize" or "liquidate" Agent Orange? In this parallel universe, how many times has one agent of the deep state interfered with the Sniper in the Clocktower... Spy vs Spy style?

The *left-wing* CS types who are sure he's in Putin's pocket don't seem to recognize that Putin (and many others with less profile) might be using Trump (and others with less profile) as blunt instruments... just softening us up by stirring us up... with little if any regard for the specific puppeteering often attributed to them? While Trump's attempted withdrawal of troops from Syria *might* have been a response to direct Putin-Whispering or Erdogan-Whispering, it might have just been a whim based on his motivated but under-informed style of isolationism.

- Sieve

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Motives - Was Abduction

Steve writes:

< On the other hand, as I always ask conspiracy theorists, "what if his presence in this role *serves* the Deep State?" >

To clarify, I’m talking about the hypothesis of a Deep State that breaks rules as they need to be broken to advance the general welfare of people in the country & world. I don’t have any doubt that the kind of Deep State you are describing exists, but that reality is more the failure of organizations to police themselves than a (sub)organization that has become especially autonomous and potent.

Marcus

Steve Smith

Re: Motives - Was Abduction

Marcus -

< On the other hand, as I always ask conspiracy theorists, "what if his presence in this role *serves* the Deep State?" >

To clarify, I’m talking about the hypothesis of a Deep State that breaks rules as they need to be broken to advance the general welfare of people in the country & world.

I didn't know anyone hypothesized this version... the people I know who run on incessantly about "Deep State" seem to be categorically talking about a deeply non-altruistic version.

And my original point still (might) hold(s) if we push the ends/means justification far enough. What if having Trump in office somehow *does* advance the general welfare of the people (and sentient animals) in the country and the world? Sort of a "back fire" against the more effective, institutionalized fascist narcissism of the "shallow state/culture/..."?

The version you reference here, reminds me (quite tangentially) of the collective sub-protaganists in John Brunner's 1984 novel "Shockwave Rider" where a collective of well meaning individuals set up (Precipice) to provide a ubiquitous anonymous ear (Hearing Aid) for anyone "just needing to talk".

From Wikipedia's plot summary:

Precipice turns out to be a Utopian community of a few thousand people. The nearest comparison would be an agrarian, cottage industry community designed by William Morris. Precipice is also the home of "Hearing Aid", an anonymous telephone confession service accessible to anyone in the country. Hearing Aid is also known as the "Ten Nines", after the phone number used to call it: 999-999-9999. People call the service, a human operator answers, and they simply talk while the operator listens. Some rant, others seek sympathy, still others commit suicide while on the phone. Hearing Aid's promise is that nobody else, not even the government, will hear the call. The only response Hearing Aid gives to a caller is "Only I heard that, I hope it helped."

A million plot twists aside, the bottom line (as I remember it when I read it) was that the *collective* knowledge/intelligence of the members of Precipice gained by having listened to millions of people talk openly to them about their greatest hopes/fears gave them some incredible advantage/perspective which supported their Utopian ideals (nominally altruistic in the sense you reference above). As I remember it, this consequence was an entirely unintended side-consequence.

I don’t have any doubt that the kind of Deep State you are describing exists, but that reality is more the failure of organizations to police themselves than a (sub)organization that has become especially autonomous and potent.

I would suppose that any and all criminal organizations which have penetrated various parts of "the State" *are* this. The (alleged?) criminal elements of the CIA and/or foreign equivalents (e.g KGB) or even the Mexican Federal Police, for example.

Is this another example of the conflation of "absence of evidence" with "evidence of absence"?

- Steve

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Motives - Was Abduction

Steve writes:

< And my original point still (might) hold(s) if we push the ends/means justification far enough. What if having Trump in office somehow *does* advance the general welfare of the people (and sentient animals) in the country and the world? Sort of a "back fire" against the more effective, institutionalized fascist narcissism of the "shallow state/culture/..."? >

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung

1 ... 456789