Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

[Prof David West]

The problem is not with the Religion - it is with various interpretations of the religion.  And it is a myth that there is a "majority" available to counteract or condemn the "minority"

 

Take the obscene group of "Christians" that like to protest at military funerals claiming "the death is a good thing because it is God's  punishment for tolerating gays."  Or the group that financed the film at issue the last few days.  (Or Mel Gibson's father's church.) ....

 

Following Owen's argument we should see almost every other person who professes to be a Christian denounce this kind of base misinterpretation of their Religion.  But it does not happen - because "they" are not "us" and so we do not have to explain, apologize or denounce.  Only a few political and religious leaders will react - the Archbishop of Santa Fe, for example, stated that those people are not following the precepts of the Christian religion and should be ignored.  Note: no one said they should be expelled, excommunicated, from Christianity or that Christians were in any way responsible - even though the extreme position is grounded in another, more mainstream interpretation of what the Bible may or may not say about homosexuality.  Hussein Abbas' eloquent response is a personal example of exactly this kind of phenomenon.

 

There is an exact parallel evident in the middle east today.  Yesterday I heard two imams, the president of Egypt, and the president of Yemen state that Islam provided no excuse for the violence - that blasphemy is not an excuse for violence, even to the blasphemer. (Homenei's famous fatwa against Salman Rushdie was denounced by a majority of other imams.) Also heard were promises to seek out and punish the perpetrators (hard there and equally hard here because of the rule of law). In Pakistan, it is the imams that are denouncing the morons that apparently framed and wanted to put to death a young women with mental development issues, for blasphemy.

 

Owen will never see the reaction he seeks - here, there, anywhere - because sectarianism in every religion means there is no "majority" that can react and that every sect sees themselves as apart from "those idiots over there" and therefore Not Responsible.  Nevertheless, Individual leaders, religious and political, do and are currently doing exactly what Owen asks - denouncing, pointing out misinterpretations, apologizing (for faith and for country) for the miscreants, asking for understanding, and promising all possible corrective action/punishment.

 

Is it our own insistence to treat a highly diverse group as a monolithic bloc the real root of the problems?  Coupled, of course, with our unwillingness to truly examine and understand our own religion let alone that of someone else.

 

dave west

 

 

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012, at 09:25 PM, Hussein Abbass wrote:

Owen

 

                While I am an IT professor, I am very backward in using blogs and almost incapable of expressing myself in emails or otherwise. Your question would be better discussed in a long session with lots of coffees and chocolates J

 

                I do not normally put my Moslim hat on; almost never because I see religion as a relationship between me and God that is no one else business. Therefore, my actions are my responsibilities and if I do something good I take the reward personally so why when I do something bad should my religion, or any dimension of my identity be blamed.

 

                But your question was interesting. Not just from complexity perspective, from many other dimensions that once more, writing long emails would not send the right message through.

 

                Sometimes the good Moslims (whatever this means and in whose eyes) do not respond simply because they do not agree with the premise. The premise of the religion as the centre for conflict. The premise that we should be blamed for our belief. The premise that I should spend my time justifying someone else actions simply because there is a perception that I and them share something in common because it is written in my passport or on a system somewhere. If I believe in doing good, I would like to invest my time in that, and not invest my time to defend bad when bad was not my action in the first place.

 

                So call it an ego-centric or whatever, this is I. In Islam, when we do good, we should not talk about it because we are doing it to fulfil a sacred commitment to God. In fact, there is a premise that you should hide the good you are doing to get a better reward from God. This is too complicated to explain in an email!

 

Some of us just do not wish to be bothered to defend or discuss the bad because the time and resources to spend on doing good alone are very limited. The world is full of opportunities to do good, why should we spend the time to discuss the bad!

 

                Sometimes also if we wish to explain concepts properly, you would not do it properly in a simple email or a simple discussion. There are things that can take a long time to understand before we can use them to explain!

 

                If this sounds a weak argument, we have to dig down to the roots to see what defines weak and strong arguments; and that is a long discussion!

 

                If I want to use a complexity lens, the Egyptian reply was a choice they made on a Pareto curve. If someone seriously wishes to understand it, they will need to analyse in details the underlying axes for this Pareto curve, the sources of anti-correlation, and the interaction of the utility functions. Only then, they will see the complex dilemma setting at the roots of this reply as compared to a possibly artificial politically correct reply that some people expect.

 

                If the above is a starting point for a discussion, next time you visit Australia, drop by and we can attempt to resolve it all on a nice cup of coffee with nice dark chocolates J

 

Kind regards

Hussein

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Friday, 14 September 2012 3:01 AM
To: Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

 

The Economist sent out their weekly email, which included a story on the Libya fiasco: http://goo.gl/0mfCW

 

This reminded me of one of my possibly Politically Incorrect notions: Why don't the civilized muslim world attempt to counter this insanity on the part of their fundamentalists?  At least some attempt to apologize for My Religion, The Bad Parts? God knows I do!

 

We had an imam visit the cathedral in Santa Fe to discuss the simplicity and beauty of his religion.  Some questions were asked about The Bad Parts, in a very civilized manor.  The conversation was sane, polite, and certainly informative.

 

What if the Vatican sent out a hit squad for all the similar anti-Christian movies or other inflammatory media?  Or the Buddhists sent ninjas after non-believers? Or the Jews killed Dutch cartoonists?

 

What I'm getting at is this: why *isn't* there a strong community of sane and vocal muslims at least trying to communicate to the rest of us?

 

Please do understand that this is not a rant against religion, but more of a puzzled look at an insane situation.  And Yes, I really wish we'd keep our nose out of other's affairs.  I'm not trying to be a bigot. But I truly would like to grok this phenomenon. 

 

What am I missing?  Good complexity question, I bet.

 

   -- Owen 

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Douglas Roberts-2]

Well, as much as I respect your opinion, Dave, I could not possibly disagree more with you.  Or at least with your opening sentence.

While I choose not to state it as absolute fact, I would like to suggest that Religion *is* the problem.

Human kind's ongoing attempts to cast one's existence into one or another particular narrow religious world-view where some or another deity is responsible for them, for their well being, for their punishment for failing to follow the tenents of their religion, and for their path to redemption; this is the problem.  Again, just my opinion.  I would not presume to be a dispenser of absolute truth.

--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

The problem is not with the Religion - it is with various interpretations of the religion.  And it is a myth that there is a "majority" available to counteract or condemn the "minority"

 

Take the obscene group of "Christians" that like to protest at military funerals claiming "the death is a good thing because it is God's  punishment for tolerating gays."  Or the group that financed the film at issue the last few days.  (Or Mel Gibson's father's church.) ....

 

Following Owen's argument we should see almost every other person who professes to be a Christian denounce this kind of base misinterpretation of their Religion.  But it does not happen - because "they" are not "us" and so we do not have to explain, apologize or denounce.  Only a few political and religious leaders will react - the Archbishop of Santa Fe, for example, stated that those people are not following the precepts of the Christian religion and should be ignored.  Note: no one said they should be expelled, excommunicated, from Christianity or that Christians were in any way responsible - even though the extreme position is grounded in another, more mainstream interpretation of what the Bible may or may not say about homosexuality.  Hussein Abbas' eloquent response is a personal example of exactly this kind of phenomenon.

 

There is an exact parallel evident in the middle east today.  Yesterday I heard two imams, the president of Egypt, and the president of Yemen state that Islam provided no excuse for the violence - that blasphemy is not an excuse for violence, even to the blasphemer. (Homenei's famous fatwa against Salman Rushdie was denounced by a majority of other imams.) Also heard were promises to seek out and punish the perpetrators (hard there and equally hard here because of the rule of law). In Pakistan, it is the imams that are denouncing the morons that apparently framed and wanted to put to death a young women with mental development issues, for blasphemy.

 

Owen will never see the reaction he seeks - here, there, anywhere - because sectarianism in every religion means there is no "majority" that can react and that every sect sees themselves as apart from "those idiots over there" and therefore Not Responsible.  Nevertheless, Individual leaders, religious and political, do and are currently doing exactly what Owen asks - denouncing, pointing out misinterpretations, apologizing (for faith and for country) for the miscreants, asking for understanding, and promising all possible corrective action/punishment.

 

Is it our own insistence to treat a highly diverse group as a monolithic bloc the real root of the problems?  Coupled, of course, with our unwillingness to truly examine and understand our own religion let alone that of someone else.

 

dave west

 

 

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012, at 09:25 PM, Hussein Abbass wrote:

Owen

 

                While I am an IT professor, I am very backward in using blogs and almost incapable of expressing myself in emails or otherwise. Your question would be better discussed in a long session with lots of coffees and chocolates J

 

                I do not normally put my Moslim hat on; almost never because I see religion as a relationship between me and God that is no one else business. Therefore, my actions are my responsibilities and if I do something good I take the reward personally so why when I do something bad should my religion, or any dimension of my identity be blamed.

 

                But your question was interesting. Not just from complexity perspective, from many other dimensions that once more, writing long emails would not send the right message through.

 

                Sometimes the good Moslims (whatever this means and in whose eyes) do not respond simply because they do not agree with the premise. The premise of the religion as the centre for conflict. The premise that we should be blamed for our belief. The premise that I should spend my time justifying someone else actions simply because there is a perception that I and them share something in common because it is written in my passport or on a system somewhere. If I believe in doing good, I would like to invest my time in that, and not invest my time to defend bad when bad was not my action in the first place.

 

                So call it an ego-centric or whatever, this is I. In Islam, when we do good, we should not talk about it because we are doing it to fulfil a sacred commitment to God. In fact, there is a premise that you should hide the good you are doing to get a better reward from God. This is too complicated to explain in an email!

 

Some of us just do not wish to be bothered to defend or discuss the bad because the time and resources to spend on doing good alone are very limited. The world is full of opportunities to do good, why should we spend the time to discuss the bad!

 

                Sometimes also if we wish to explain concepts properly, you would not do it properly in a simple email or a simple discussion. There are things that can take a long time to understand before we can use them to explain!

 

                If this sounds a weak argument, we have to dig down to the roots to see what defines weak and strong arguments; and that is a long discussion!

 

                If I want to use a complexity lens, the Egyptian reply was a choice they made on a Pareto curve. If someone seriously wishes to understand it, they will need to analyse in details the underlying axes for this Pareto curve, the sources of anti-correlation, and the interaction of the utility functions. Only then, they will see the complex dilemma setting at the roots of this reply as compared to a possibly artificial politically correct reply that some people expect.

 

                If the above is a starting point for a discussion, next time you visit Australia, drop by and we can attempt to resolve it all on a nice cup of coffee with nice dark chocolates J

 

Kind regards

Hussein

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Friday, 14 September 2012 3:01 AM
To: Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

 

The Economist sent out their weekly email, which included a story on the Libya fiasco: http://goo.gl/0mfCW

 

This reminded me of one of my possibly Politically Incorrect notions: Why don't the civilized muslim world attempt to counter this insanity on the part of their fundamentalists?  At least some attempt to apologize for My Religion, The Bad Parts? God knows I do!

 

We had an imam visit the cathedral in Santa Fe to discuss the simplicity and beauty of his religion.  Some questions were asked about The Bad Parts, in a very civilized manor.  The conversation was sane, polite, and certainly informative.

 

What if the Vatican sent out a hit squad for all the similar anti-Christian movies or other inflammatory media?  Or the Buddhists sent ninjas after non-believers? Or the Jews killed Dutch cartoonists?

 

What I'm getting at is this: why *isn't* there a strong community of sane and vocal muslims at least trying to communicate to the rest of us?

 

Please do understand that this is not a rant against religion, but more of a puzzled look at an insane situation.  And Yes, I really wish we'd keep our nose out of other's affairs.  I'm not trying to be a bigot. But I truly would like to grok this phenomenon. 

 

What am I missing?  Good complexity question, I bet.

 

   -- Owen 

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Steve Smith]

Doug -

You may be correct that the tools are insufficient and/or distancing through abstraction...  and yes it may be a side show.  But as you point out, a side show that has not even been mounted.

Those issues, of course, being the irrational, hateful, harmful effects of mass adherence to narrow, fundamental religious dogma, plus whatever the deep underlying psychological urges are that constantly seem to draw whole populations into those belief systems.

I don't disagree that these are the *symptoms* we experience/observe.  But I'm still more than a little curious about the *causes*.  You might posit (I think you did! ) that the *cause* of various irrational, hateful, harmful effects are "mass adherence to narrow, fundamental, religious dogma" and I can't really argue with you on that.  But where the hell does *that* come from?   Is it necessary? 

My suggestion of a model (at the risk of distancing through abstraction) is to seek a more "systematic" answer...   *What* are those underlying psychological urges you speak of?  Are there alternative systems of thinking and organization that might yield more desirable global behaviours?   

What *fundamental* aspects of our systems of belief (religious, political, economic, social, etc.) are  *guaranteed* to lead us there over and over.  Call it Islam, call it Mormonism, call it Logical Positivism, but why does it so often lead us back to the same self-rightous, intolerant places?  Were not most if not all religions founded or evolved or shaped around trying to fix the existing flaws in the systems previously in place?

You don't need an ABM to illustrate that; you need a few good history books.

You may read different history books than I do.  The history books I read illustrate *that*  whole populations are drawn into dysfunctional behaviours supported by their belief systems (though depending on who wrote them, it is always a one-sided story, glorifying  one set of dysfunction in contrast to another demonized set. 

 I suggested *illumination* not *illustration*.   I can look around, from your (existing only in photoshop I suspect) racist bumpersticker or just about every conversation I hear to have what we are talking about *illustrated*... but what I want to know is *what is it all about?*, is there anything to be done!  CAN we get enough distance through abstraction to discover actionable or effectual changes in local strategy to effect global change?

Or do we just fall (dive headlong?) into a bubbling mass of xenophobic blame and/or self-righteous cynicism?  I personally prefer the latter, but it really doesn't change anything for the better.

- Steve

Steve,  you perhaps accidentally point out what in my opinion is the primary weakness of this so-called "Complexity" group.  That weakness being, again solely in my opinion, an inability or perhaps an unwillingness to face the real substantive, important complexity issues that surround us.

Instead, the group nearly always proposes to study some superficial abstract, academic side issue.  It doesn't seem to matter what the particular "complexity" issue du Jour is, the "solution" proposed, but never implemented by the members of this list is *always* some abstract, distancing, academic approach.

Not that I am picking on you, really I am not.  But seriously, are you proposing to use an ABM to explain the societal effects of religious fundamentalism?  That would be a side show.  It would place a level of abstraction between the real issue and the observer which would totally mask the underlying causal issues.

Those issues, of course, being the irrational, hateful, harmful effects of mass adherence to narrow, fundamental religious dogma, plus whatever the deep underlying psychological urges are that constantly seem to draw whole populations into those belief systems.

You don't need an ABM to illustrate that; you need a few good history books.

And if you want to understand why people are so prone to locking themselves into destructive, exclusive, egocentric world-views, well, good luck with that.   I suspect however that game theoretics and ABMs are not the proper tools for the job.

--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hussein -

I hear you...   many of us are challenged to defend the name of our God or our Faith or our gender or our cultural or genetic heritage or sexual orientation or hair color or set of our jaw.  Even when  obviously (but superficially?) motivated, these are false challenges and to accept them is a fools game.

The shrill voices against Islam (or even "ahem" Mormons) are not helping, even if some who act in it's name are doing horrific things.  Those who paint with a broad brush can only slop their own paint on themselves...

From much distance at all, everyone else looks like "other".

I'm often disappointed with this list (myself included) that we invoke the terms of Complexity Science but don't often take it anywhere.

Is there a game theoretic model, or more to the point, an agent model based on game theoretic principles that might help to illuminate this phenomenon?  The phenomena of personal vs shared belief, sectarianism, intolerance?   Is there a small subset (in the spirit of the oft-cited MOTH strategy for prisoner's dilemma) of the phenomena that can show a bit of it?

- Steve

-- 
Los Alamos Visualization Associates
LAVA-Synergy
4200 W. Jemez rd
Los Alamos, NM 87544
www.lava3d.com
[hidden email]
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:[phone]" value="[phone]" target="_blank">505-920-0252

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Nick Thompson]

Are physicists guilty of Hiroshima?   Let’s say the Japanese had won the war and Oppenheimer had been hauled before the World Criminal Court in The Hague.  Would he have been guilty of Crimes Against Humanity?  You are a judge on that Court.  Write the opinion. 

 

N

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 10:37 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

 

Well, as much as I respect your opinion, Dave, I could not possibly disagree more with you.  Or at least with your opening sentence.

 

While I choose not to state it as absolute fact, I would like to suggest that Religion *is* the problem.

 

Human kind's ongoing attempts to cast one's existence into one or another particular narrow religious world-view where some or another deity is responsible for them, for their well being, for their punishment for failing to follow the tenents of their religion, and for their path to redemption; this is the problem.  Again, just my opinion.  I would not presume to be a dispenser of absolute truth.

 

--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

The problem is not with the Religion - it is with various interpretations of the religion.  And it is a myth that there is a "majority" available to counteract or condemn the "minority"

 

Take the obscene group of "Christians" that like to protest at military funerals claiming "the death is a good thing because it is God's  punishment for tolerating gays."  Or the group that financed the film at issue the last few days.  (Or Mel Gibson's father's church.) ....

 

Following Owen's argument we should see almost every other person who professes to be a Christian denounce this kind of base misinterpretation of their Religion.  But it does not happen - because "they" are not "us" and so we do not have to explain, apologize or denounce.  Only a few political and religious leaders will react - the Archbishop of Santa Fe, for example, stated that those people are not following the precepts of the Christian religion and should be ignored.  Note: no one said they should be expelled, excommunicated, from Christianity or that Christians were in any way responsible - even though the extreme position is grounded in another, more mainstream interpretation of what the Bible may or may not say about homosexuality.  Hussein Abbas' eloquent response is a personal example of exactly this kind of phenomenon.

 

There is an exact parallel evident in the middle east today.  Yesterday I heard two imams, the president of Egypt, and the president of Yemen state that Islam provided no excuse for the violence - that blasphemy is not an excuse for violence, even to the blasphemer. (Homenei's famous fatwa against Salman Rushdie was denounced by a majority of other imams.) Also heard were promises to seek out and punish the perpetrators (hard there and equally hard here because of the rule of law). In Pakistan, it is the imams that are denouncing the morons that apparently framed and wanted to put to death a young women with mental development issues, for blasphemy.

 

Owen will never see the reaction he seeks - here, there, anywhere - because sectarianism in every religion means there is no "majority" that can react and that every sect sees themselves as apart from "those idiots over there" and therefore Not Responsible.  Nevertheless, Individual leaders, religious and political, do and are currently doing exactly what Owen asks - denouncing, pointing out misinterpretations, apologizing (for faith and for country) for the miscreants, asking for understanding, and promising all possible corrective action/punishment.

 

Is it our own insistence to treat a highly diverse group as a monolithic bloc the real root of the problems?  Coupled, of course, with our unwillingness to truly examine and understand our own religion let alone that of someone else.

 

dave west

 

 

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012, at 09:25 PM, Hussein Abbass wrote:

Owen

 

                While I am an IT professor, I am very backward in using blogs and almost incapable of expressing myself in emails or otherwise. Your question would be better discussed in a long session with lots of coffees and chocolates J

 

                I do not normally put my Moslim hat on; almost never because I see religion as a relationship between me and God that is no one else business. Therefore, my actions are my responsibilities and if I do something good I take the reward personally so why when I do something bad should my religion, or any dimension of my identity be blamed.

 

                But your question was interesting. Not just from complexity perspective, from many other dimensions that once more, writing long emails would not send the right message through.

 

                Sometimes the good Moslims (whatever this means and in whose eyes) do not respond simply because they do not agree with the premise. The premise of the religion as the centre for conflict. The premise that we should be blamed for our belief. The premise that I should spend my time justifying someone else actions simply because there is a perception that I and them share something in common because it is written in my passport or on a system somewhere. If I believe in doing good, I would like to invest my time in that, and not invest my time to defend bad when bad was not my action in the first place.

 

                So call it an ego-centric or whatever, this is I. In Islam, when we do good, we should not talk about it because we are doing it to fulfil a sacred commitment to God. In fact, there is a premise that you should hide the good you are doing to get a better reward from God. This is too complicated to explain in an email!

 

Some of us just do not wish to be bothered to defend or discuss the bad because the time and resources to spend on doing good alone are very limited. The world is full of opportunities to do good, why should we spend the time to discuss the bad!

 

                Sometimes also if we wish to explain concepts properly, you would not do it properly in a simple email or a simple discussion. There are things that can take a long time to understand before we can use them to explain!

 

                If this sounds a weak argument, we have to dig down to the roots to see what defines weak and strong arguments; and that is a long discussion!

 

                If I want to use a complexity lens, the Egyptian reply was a choice they made on a Pareto curve. If someone seriously wishes to understand it, they will need to analyse in details the underlying axes for this Pareto curve, the sources of anti-correlation, and the interaction of the utility functions. Only then, they will see the complex dilemma setting at the roots of this reply as compared to a possibly artificial politically correct reply that some people expect.

 

                If the above is a starting point for a discussion, next time you visit Australia, drop by and we can attempt to resolve it all on a nice cup of coffee with nice dark chocolates J

 

Kind regards

Hussein

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Friday, 14 September 2012 3:01 AM
To: Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

 

The Economist sent out their weekly email, which included a story on the Libya fiasco: http://goo.gl/0mfCW

 

This reminded me of one of my possibly Politically Incorrect notions: Why don't the civilized muslim world attempt to counter this insanity on the part of their fundamentalists?  At least some attempt to apologize for My Religion, The Bad Parts? God knows I do!

 

We had an imam visit the cathedral in Santa Fe to discuss the simplicity and beauty of his religion.  Some questions were asked about The Bad Parts, in a very civilized manor.  The conversation was sane, polite, and certainly informative.

 

What if the Vatican sent out a hit squad for all the similar anti-Christian movies or other inflammatory media?  Or the Buddhists sent ninjas after non-believers? Or the Jews killed Dutch cartoonists?

 

What I'm getting at is this: why *isn't* there a strong community of sane and vocal muslims at least trying to communicate to the rest of us?

 

Please do understand that this is not a rant against religion, but more of a puzzled look at an insane situation.  And Yes, I really wish we'd keep our nose out of other's affairs.  I'm not trying to be a bigot. But I truly would like to grok this phenomenon. 

 

What am I missing?  Good complexity question, I bet.

 

   -- Owen 

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

 

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Douglas Roberts-2]

First things first: the bumper sticker.  It is, sadly, real, and not just a photoshopped artifact:

It came out of Georgia, and the woman who created it was shocked, just shocked, that people would think it racist. 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/don-t-nig-purveyor-paula-smith-says-bumper-185405237.html

More to come...

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Doug -

You may be correct that the tools are insufficient and/or distancing through abstraction...  and yes it may be a side show.  But as you point out, a side show that has not even been mounted.

Those issues, of course, being the irrational, hateful, harmful effects of mass adherence to narrow, fundamental religious dogma, plus whatever the deep underlying psychological urges are that constantly seem to draw whole populations into those belief systems.

I don't disagree that these are the *symptoms* we experience/observe.  But I'm still more than a little curious about the *causes*.  You might posit (I think you did! ) that the *cause* of various irrational, hateful, harmful effects are "mass adherence to narrow, fundamental, religious dogma" and I can't really argue with you on that.  But where the hell does *that* come from?   Is it necessary? 

My suggestion of a model (at the risk of distancing through abstraction) is to seek a more "systematic" answer...   *What* are those underlying psychological urges you speak of?  Are there alternative systems of thinking and organization that might yield more desirable global behaviours?   

What *fundamental* aspects of our systems of belief (religious, political, economic, social, etc.) are  *guaranteed* to lead us there over and over.  Call it Islam, call it Mormonism, call it Logical Positivism, but why does it so often lead us back to the same self-rightous, intolerant places?  Were not most if not all religions founded or evolved or shaped around trying to fix the existing flaws in the systems previously in place?

You don't need an ABM to illustrate that; you need a few good history books.

You may read different history books than I do.  The history books I read illustrate *that*  whole populations are drawn into dysfunctional behaviours supported by their belief systems (though depending on who wrote them, it is always a one-sided story, glorifying  one set of dysfunction in contrast to another demonized set. 

 I suggested *illumination* not *illustration*.   I can look around, from your (existing only in photoshop I suspect) racist bumpersticker or just about every conversation I hear to have what we are talking about *illustrated*... but what I want to know is *what is it all about?*, is there anything to be done!  CAN we get enough distance through abstraction to discover actionable or effectual changes in local strategy to effect global change?

Or do we just fall (dive headlong?) into a bubbling mass of xenophobic blame and/or self-righteous cynicism?  I personally prefer the latter, but it really doesn't change anything for the better.

- Steve

Steve,  you perhaps accidentally point out what in my opinion is the primary weakness of this so-called "Complexity" group.  That weakness being, again solely in my opinion, an inability or perhaps an unwillingness to face the real substantive, important complexity issues that surround us.

Instead, the group nearly always proposes to study some superficial abstract, academic side issue.  It doesn't seem to matter what the particular "complexity" issue du Jour is, the "solution" proposed, but never implemented by the members of this list is *always* some abstract, distancing, academic approach.

Not that I am picking on you, really I am not.  But seriously, are you proposing to use an ABM to explain the societal effects of religious fundamentalism?  That would be a side show.  It would place a level of abstraction between the real issue and the observer which would totally mask the underlying causal issues.

Those issues, of course, being the irrational, hateful, harmful effects of mass adherence to narrow, fundamental religious dogma, plus whatever the deep underlying psychological urges are that constantly seem to draw whole populations into those belief systems.

You don't need an ABM to illustrate that; you need a few good history books.

And if you want to understand why people are so prone to locking themselves into destructive, exclusive, egocentric world-views, well, good luck with that.   I suspect however that game theoretics and ABMs are not the proper tools for the job.

--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hussein -

I hear you...   many of us are challenged to defend the name of our God or our Faith or our gender or our cultural or genetic heritage or sexual orientation or hair color or set of our jaw.  Even when  obviously (but superficially?) motivated, these are false challenges and to accept them is a fools game.

The shrill voices against Islam (or even "ahem" Mormons) are not helping, even if some who act in it's name are doing horrific things.  Those who paint with a broad brush can only slop their own paint on themselves...

From much distance at all, everyone else looks like "other".

I'm often disappointed with this list (myself included) that we invoke the terms of Complexity Science but don't often take it anywhere.

Is there a game theoretic model, or more to the point, an agent model based on game theoretic principles that might help to illuminate this phenomenon?  The phenomena of personal vs shared belief, sectarianism, intolerance?   Is there a small subset (in the spirit of the oft-cited MOTH strategy for prisoner's dilemma) of the phenomena that can show a bit of it?

- Steve

-- 
Los Alamos Visualization Associates
LAVA-Synergy
4200 W. Jemez rd
Los Alamos, NM 87544
www.lava3d.com
[hidden email]
<a href="tel:[phone]" value="[phone]" target="_blank">505-920-0252

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a href="tel:[phone]" value="[phone]" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a href="tel:[phone]" value="[phone]" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Steve Smith]

Doug -

Well, as much as I respect your opinion, Dave, I could not possibly disagree more with you.  Or at least with your opening sentence.

While I choose not to state it as absolute fact, I would like to suggest that Religion *is* the problem.

Whether through formal models (requiring complexity science or not) or otherwise, this is the crux of what I'm seeking:  Thoughtful, introspective ANALYSIS of statements such as this.  

Human kind's ongoing attempts to cast one's existence into one or another particular narrow religious world-view where some or another deity is responsible for them, for their well being, for their punishment for failing to follow the tenents of their religion, and for their path to redemption; this is the problem. 

If I am analyzing your statement properly, you are reducing Religion to the act of deferring responsibility (and authority) to a deity (and by extension a hierarchy of human representatives?) and a prescribed (by the deity) set of rules to be enforced by the hierarchy of human representatives?  Is that all Religion is?  Is that all it can be?  Is there a complementary parallel to "Religion" more aptly called "Spirituality"?

Is there a baby in the bathwater?  Do we care?  Is there any way to pursue such questions with a modicum of rationality and evidence gathering? 

Again, just my opinion.  I would not presume to be a dispenser of absolute truth.

Or is it really all just reduced to "opinions" which we can exchange endlessly or debate violently but with little if any hope of convergence or even agreeing to disagree?

Doug, you and I (and I suspect many others here) may very well have the same "sympathies" about Religion but I'm not convinced that it is that simple really. 

I myself am free of any formal Religion and have no anthropomorphic conception of gods or goddesses creating or ordering reality for me.  But that does not lead me to dismiss it as a harmful conceptual structure at the root of all bad human behaviour.   It might well have a strong role there in many instances and might even be (as I think you posit) a fundamentally destructive element in human society.  But as compelling as that is to me (in it's otherness from my point of view) it has not been demonstrated to me beyond a long list of examples.

There is no "proof by enumeration" unless that enumeration can be demonstrated to be an exhaustive one?    So listing off any number of transgressions in the name of one Religion or another, might be mildly persuasive but it doesn't really take me anywhere real... it just becomes the choir preaching to itself through variations of the standard hymn?

I'm still jetlagged in contraposition to my avoiding deadlines... so maybe I'm just rambling here.

- Steve

--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

The problem is not with the Religion - it is with various interpretations of the religion.  And it is a myth that there is a "majority" available to counteract or condemn the "minority"

 

Take the obscene group of "Christians" that like to protest at military funerals claiming "the death is a good thing because it is God's  punishment for tolerating gays."  Or the group that financed the film at issue the last few days.  (Or Mel Gibson's father's church.) ....

 

Following Owen's argument we should see almost every other person who professes to be a Christian denounce this kind of base misinterpretation of their Religion.  But it does not happen - because "they" are not "us" and so we do not have to explain, apologize or denounce.  Only a few political and religious leaders will react - the Archbishop of Santa Fe, for example, stated that those people are not following the precepts of the Christian religion and should be ignored.  Note: no one said they should be expelled, excommunicated, from Christianity or that Christians were in any way responsible - even though the extreme position is grounded in another, more mainstream interpretation of what the Bible may or may not say about homosexuality.  Hussein Abbas' eloquent response is a personal example of exactly this kind of phenomenon.

 

There is an exact parallel evident in the middle east today.  Yesterday I heard two imams, the president of Egypt, and the president of Yemen state that Islam provided no excuse for the violence - that blasphemy is not an excuse for violence, even to the blasphemer. (Homenei's famous fatwa against Salman Rushdie was denounced by a majority of other imams.) Also heard were promises to seek out and punish the perpetrators (hard there and equally hard here because of the rule of law). In Pakistan, it is the imams that are denouncing the morons that apparently framed and wanted to put to death a young women with mental development issues, for blasphemy.

 

Owen will never see the reaction he seeks - here, there, anywhere - because sectarianism in every religion means there is no "majority" that can react and that every sect sees themselves as apart from "those idiots over there" and therefore Not Responsible.  Nevertheless, Individual leaders, religious and political, do and are currently doing exactly what Owen asks - denouncing, pointing out misinterpretations, apologizing (for faith and for country) for the miscreants, asking for understanding, and promising all possible corrective action/punishment.

 

Is it our own insistence to treat a highly diverse group as a monolithic bloc the real root of the problems?  Coupled, of course, with our unwillingness to truly examine and understand our own religion let alone that of someone else.

 

dave west

 

 

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012, at 09:25 PM, Hussein Abbass wrote:

Owen

 

                While I am an IT professor, I am very backward in using blogs and almost incapable of expressing myself in emails or otherwise. Your question would be better discussed in a long session with lots of coffees and chocolates J

 

                I do not normally put my Moslim hat on; almost never because I see religion as a relationship between me and God that is no one else business. Therefore, my actions are my responsibilities and if I do something good I take the reward personally so why when I do something bad should my religion, or any dimension of my identity be blamed.

 

                But your question was interesting. Not just from complexity perspective, from many other dimensions that once more, writing long emails would not send the right message through.

 

                Sometimes the good Moslims (whatever this means and in whose eyes) do not respond simply because they do not agree with the premise. The premise of the religion as the centre for conflict. The premise that we should be blamed for our belief. The premise that I should spend my time justifying someone else actions simply because there is a perception that I and them share something in common because it is written in my passport or on a system somewhere. If I believe in doing good, I would like to invest my time in that, and not invest my time to defend bad when bad was not my action in the first place.

 

                So call it an ego-centric or whatever, this is I. In Islam, when we do good, we should not talk about it because we are doing it to fulfil a sacred commitment to God. In fact, there is a premise that you should hide the good you are doing to get a better reward from God. This is too complicated to explain in an email!

 

Some of us just do not wish to be bothered to defend or discuss the bad because the time and resources to spend on doing good alone are very limited. The world is full of opportunities to do good, why should we spend the time to discuss the bad!

 

                Sometimes also if we wish to explain concepts properly, you would not do it properly in a simple email or a simple discussion. There are things that can take a long time to understand before we can use them to explain!

 

                If this sounds a weak argument, we have to dig down to the roots to see what defines weak and strong arguments; and that is a long discussion!

 

                If I want to use a complexity lens, the Egyptian reply was a choice they made on a Pareto curve. If someone seriously wishes to understand it, they will need to analyse in details the underlying axes for this Pareto curve, the sources of anti-correlation, and the interaction of the utility functions. Only then, they will see the complex dilemma setting at the roots of this reply as compared to a possibly artificial politically correct reply that some people expect.

 

                If the above is a starting point for a discussion, next time you visit Australia, drop by and we can attempt to resolve it all on a nice cup of coffee with nice dark chocolates J

 

Kind regards

Hussein

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Friday, 14 September 2012 3:01 AM
To: Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

 

The Economist sent out their weekly email, which included a story on the Libya fiasco: http://goo.gl/0mfCW

 

This reminded me of one of my possibly Politically Incorrect notions: Why don't the civilized muslim world attempt to counter this insanity on the part of their fundamentalists?  At least some attempt to apologize for My Religion, The Bad Parts? God knows I do!

 

We had an imam visit the cathedral in Santa Fe to discuss the simplicity and beauty of his religion.  Some questions were asked about The Bad Parts, in a very civilized manor.  The conversation was sane, polite, and certainly informative.

 

What if the Vatican sent out a hit squad for all the similar anti-Christian movies or other inflammatory media?  Or the Buddhists sent ninjas after non-believers? Or the Jews killed Dutch cartoonists?

 

What I'm getting at is this: why *isn't* there a strong community of sane and vocal muslims at least trying to communicate to the rest of us?

 

Please do understand that this is not a rant against religion, but more of a puzzled look at an insane situation.  And Yes, I really wish we'd keep our nose out of other's affairs.  I'm not trying to be a bigot. But I truly would like to grok this phenomenon. 

 

What am I missing?  Good complexity question, I bet.

 

   -- Owen 

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Roger Critchlow-2]

And she removed the bumper-sticker from her web-site after the interview with the journalist from Forbes.  

Incredible but true, some people start ignorant and become less so.

-- rec --

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

First things first: the bumper sticker.  It is, sadly, real, and not just a photoshopped artifact:

It came out of Georgia, and the woman who created it was shocked, just shocked, that people would think it racist. 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/don-t-nig-purveyor-paula-smith-says-bumper-185405237.html

More to come...

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Doug -

You may be correct that the tools are insufficient and/or distancing through abstraction...  and yes it may be a side show.  But as you point out, a side show that has not even been mounted.

Those issues, of course, being the irrational, hateful, harmful effects of mass adherence to narrow, fundamental religious dogma, plus whatever the deep underlying psychological urges are that constantly seem to draw whole populations into those belief systems.

I don't disagree that these are the *symptoms* we experience/observe.  But I'm still more than a little curious about the *causes*.  You might posit (I think you did! ) that the *cause* of various irrational, hateful, harmful effects are "mass adherence to narrow, fundamental, religious dogma" and I can't really argue with you on that.  But where the hell does *that* come from?   Is it necessary? 

My suggestion of a model (at the risk of distancing through abstraction) is to seek a more "systematic" answer...   *What* are those underlying psychological urges you speak of?  Are there alternative systems of thinking and organization that might yield more desirable global behaviours?   

What *fundamental* aspects of our systems of belief (religious, political, economic, social, etc.) are  *guaranteed* to lead us there over and over.  Call it Islam, call it Mormonism, call it Logical Positivism, but why does it so often lead us back to the same self-rightous, intolerant places?  Were not most if not all religions founded or evolved or shaped around trying to fix the existing flaws in the systems previously in place?

You don't need an ABM to illustrate that; you need a few good history books.

You may read different history books than I do.  The history books I read illustrate *that*  whole populations are drawn into dysfunctional behaviours supported by their belief systems (though depending on who wrote them, it is always a one-sided story, glorifying  one set of dysfunction in contrast to another demonized set. 

 I suggested *illumination* not *illustration*.   I can look around, from your (existing only in photoshop I suspect) racist bumpersticker or just about every conversation I hear to have what we are talking about *illustrated*... but what I want to know is *what is it all about?*, is there anything to be done!  CAN we get enough distance through abstraction to discover actionable or effectual changes in local strategy to effect global change?

Or do we just fall (dive headlong?) into a bubbling mass of xenophobic blame and/or self-righteous cynicism?  I personally prefer the latter, but it really doesn't change anything for the better.

- Steve

Steve,  you perhaps accidentally point out what in my opinion is the primary weakness of this so-called "Complexity" group.  That weakness being, again solely in my opinion, an inability or perhaps an unwillingness to face the real substantive, important complexity issues that surround us.

Instead, the group nearly always proposes to study some superficial abstract, academic side issue.  It doesn't seem to matter what the particular "complexity" issue du Jour is, the "solution" proposed, but never implemented by the members of this list is *always* some abstract, distancing, academic approach.

Not that I am picking on you, really I am not.  But seriously, are you proposing to use an ABM to explain the societal effects of religious fundamentalism?  That would be a side show.  It would place a level of abstraction between the real issue and the observer which would totally mask the underlying causal issues.

Those issues, of course, being the irrational, hateful, harmful effects of mass adherence to narrow, fundamental religious dogma, plus whatever the deep underlying psychological urges are that constantly seem to draw whole populations into those belief systems.

You don't need an ABM to illustrate that; you need a few good history books.

And if you want to understand why people are so prone to locking themselves into destructive, exclusive, egocentric world-views, well, good luck with that.   I suspect however that game theoretics and ABMs are not the proper tools for the job.

--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hussein -

I hear you...   many of us are challenged to defend the name of our God or our Faith or our gender or our cultural or genetic heritage or sexual orientation or hair color or set of our jaw.  Even when  obviously (but superficially?) motivated, these are false challenges and to accept them is a fools game.

The shrill voices against Islam (or even "ahem" Mormons) are not helping, even if some who act in it's name are doing horrific things.  Those who paint with a broad brush can only slop their own paint on themselves...

From much distance at all, everyone else looks like "other".

I'm often disappointed with this list (myself included) that we invoke the terms of Complexity Science but don't often take it anywhere.

Is there a game theoretic model, or more to the point, an agent model based on game theoretic principles that might help to illuminate this phenomenon?  The phenomena of personal vs shared belief, sectarianism, intolerance?   Is there a small subset (in the spirit of the oft-cited MOTH strategy for prisoner's dilemma) of the phenomena that can show a bit of it?

- Steve

-- 
Los Alamos Visualization Associates
LAVA-Synergy
4200 W. Jemez rd
Los Alamos, NM 87544
www.lava3d.com
[hidden email]
<a href="tel:[phone]" value="[phone]" target="_blank">505-920-0252

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a href="tel:[phone]" value="[phone]" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a href="tel:[phone]" value="[phone]" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a href="tel:[phone]" value="[phone]" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a href="tel:[phone]" value="[phone]" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Douglas Roberts-2]

I cannot resist:  a very accurate description of the impact of religion, via a single word substitution.

In my opinion.

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

[...]

Incredible but true, some people start ignorant and become more so.

-- rec --

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

First things first: the bumper sticker.  It is, sadly, real, and not just a photoshopped artifact:

It came out of Georgia, and the woman who created it was shocked, just shocked, that people would think it racist. 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/don-t-nig-purveyor-paula-smith-says-bumper-185405237.html

More to come...

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Doug -

You may be correct that the tools are insufficient and/or distancing through abstraction...  and yes it may be a side show.  But as you point out, a side show that has not even been mounted.

Those issues, of course, being the irrational, hateful, harmful effects of mass adherence to narrow, fundamental religious dogma, plus whatever the deep underlying psychological urges are that constantly seem to draw whole populations into those belief systems.

I don't disagree that these are the *symptoms* we experience/observe.  But I'm still more than a little curious about the *causes*.  You might posit (I think you did! ) that the *cause* of various irrational, hateful, harmful effects are "mass adherence to narrow, fundamental, religious dogma" and I can't really argue with you on that.  But where the hell does *that* come from?   Is it necessary? 

My suggestion of a model (at the risk of distancing through abstraction) is to seek a more "systematic" answer...   *What* are those underlying psychological urges you speak of?  Are there alternative systems of thinking and organization that might yield more desirable global behaviours?   

What *fundamental* aspects of our systems of belief (religious, political, economic, social, etc.) are  *guaranteed* to lead us there over and over.  Call it Islam, call it Mormonism, call it Logical Positivism, but why does it so often lead us back to the same self-rightous, intolerant places?  Were not most if not all religions founded or evolved or shaped around trying to fix the existing flaws in the systems previously in place?

You don't need an ABM to illustrate that; you need a few good history books.

You may read different history books than I do.  The history books I read illustrate *that*  whole populations are drawn into dysfunctional behaviours supported by their belief systems (though depending on who wrote them, it is always a one-sided story, glorifying  one set of dysfunction in contrast to another demonized set. 

 I suggested *illumination* not *illustration*.   I can look around, from your (existing only in photoshop I suspect) racist bumpersticker or just about every conversation I hear to have what we are talking about *illustrated*... but what I want to know is *what is it all about?*, is there anything to be done!  CAN we get enough distance through abstraction to discover actionable or effectual changes in local strategy to effect global change?

Or do we just fall (dive headlong?) into a bubbling mass of xenophobic blame and/or self-righteous cynicism?  I personally prefer the latter, but it really doesn't change anything for the better.

- Steve

Steve,  you perhaps accidentally point out what in my opinion is the primary weakness of this so-called "Complexity" group.  That weakness being, again solely in my opinion, an inability or perhaps an unwillingness to face the real substantive, important complexity issues that surround us.

Instead, the group nearly always proposes to study some superficial abstract, academic side issue.  It doesn't seem to matter what the particular "complexity" issue du Jour is, the "solution" proposed, but never implemented by the members of this list is *always* some abstract, distancing, academic approach.

Not that I am picking on you, really I am not.  But seriously, are you proposing to use an ABM to explain the societal effects of religious fundamentalism?  That would be a side show.  It would place a level of abstraction between the real issue and the observer which would totally mask the underlying causal issues.

Those issues, of course, being the irrational, hateful, harmful effects of mass adherence to narrow, fundamental religious dogma, plus whatever the deep underlying psychological urges are that constantly seem to draw whole populations into those belief systems.

You don't need an ABM to illustrate that; you need a few good history books.

And if you want to understand why people are so prone to locking themselves into destructive, exclusive, egocentric world-views, well, good luck with that.   I suspect however that game theoretics and ABMs are not the proper tools for the job.

--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hussein -

I hear you...   many of us are challenged to defend the name of our God or our Faith or our gender or our cultural or genetic heritage or sexual orientation or hair color or set of our jaw.  Even when  obviously (but superficially?) motivated, these are false challenges and to accept them is a fools game.

The shrill voices against Islam (or even "ahem" Mormons) are not helping, even if some who act in it's name are doing horrific things.  Those who paint with a broad brush can only slop their own paint on themselves...

From much distance at all, everyone else looks like "other".

I'm often disappointed with this list (myself included) that we invoke the terms of Complexity Science but don't often take it anywhere.

Is there a game theoretic model, or more to the point, an agent model based on game theoretic principles that might help to illuminate this phenomenon?  The phenomena of personal vs shared belief, sectarianism, intolerance?   Is there a small subset (in the spirit of the oft-cited MOTH strategy for prisoner's dilemma) of the phenomena that can show a bit of it?

- Steve

-- 
Los Alamos Visualization Associates
LAVA-Synergy
4200 W. Jemez rd
Los Alamos, NM 87544
www.lava3d.com
[hidden email]
<a href="tel:[phone]" value="[phone]" target="_blank">505-920-0252

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a href="tel:[phone]" value="[phone]" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a href="tel:[phone]" value="[phone]" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a href="tel:[phone]" value="[phone]" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a href="tel:[phone]" value="[phone]" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Steve Smith]

Roger -

I grant Doug that the bumpersticker apparently wasn't photoshopped, but I wouldn't put it past the anti-whatevers to jump the whatevers for whatever by contriving a "I know this is what they are thinking" device such as this bumper sticker in question...

I have to ask (just because I'm being argumentative?) if her removal of the bumper sticker reflects a reduction of her ignorance or just being intimidated by public outcry?

I myself sometimes suspect myself of not becoming less ignorant over time, but merely shifting my ignorance from relatively innocent to rather willful?  Am I projecting that experience onto everyone else?  I don't know... it seems possible.

- Steve

And she removed the bumper-sticker from her web-site after the interview with the journalist from Forbes.  

Incredible but true, some people start ignorant and become less so.

-- rec --

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

First things first: the bumper sticker.  It is, sadly, real, and not just a photoshopped artifact:

It came out of Georgia, and the woman who created it was shocked, just shocked, that people would think it racist. 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/don-t-nig-purveyor-paula-smith-says-bumper-185405237.html

More to come...

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Doug -

You may be correct that the tools are insufficient and/or distancing through abstraction...  and yes it may be a side show.  But as you point out, a side show that has not even been mounted.

Those issues, of course, being the irrational, hateful, harmful effects of mass adherence to narrow, fundamental religious dogma, plus whatever the deep underlying psychological urges are that constantly seem to draw whole populations into those belief systems.

I don't disagree that these are the *symptoms* we experience/observe.  But I'm still more than a little curious about the *causes*.  You might posit (I think you did! ) that the *cause* of various irrational, hateful, harmful effects are "mass adherence to narrow, fundamental, religious dogma" and I can't really argue with you on that.  But where the hell does *that* come from?   Is it necessary? 

My suggestion of a model (at the risk of distancing through abstraction) is to seek a more "systematic" answer...   *What* are those underlying psychological urges you speak of?  Are there alternative systems of thinking and organization that might yield more desirable global behaviours?   

What *fundamental* aspects of our systems of belief (religious, political, economic, social, etc.) are  *guaranteed* to lead us there over and over.  Call it Islam, call it Mormonism, call it Logical Positivism, but why does it so often lead us back to the same self-rightous, intolerant places?  Were not most if not all religions founded or evolved or shaped around trying to fix the existing flaws in the systems previously in place?

You don't need an ABM to illustrate that; you need a few good history books.

You may read different history books than I do.  The history books I read illustrate *that*  whole populations are drawn into dysfunctional behaviours supported by their belief systems (though depending on who wrote them, it is always a one-sided story, glorifying  one set of dysfunction in contrast to another demonized set. 

 I suggested *illumination* not *illustration*.   I can look around, from your (existing only in photoshop I suspect) racist bumpersticker or just about every conversation I hear to have what we are talking about *illustrated*... but what I want to know is *what is it all about?*, is there anything to be done!  CAN we get enough distance through abstraction to discover actionable or effectual changes in local strategy to effect global change?

Or do we just fall (dive headlong?) into a bubbling mass of xenophobic blame and/or self-righteous cynicism?  I personally prefer the latter, but it really doesn't change anything for the better.

- Steve

Steve,  you perhaps accidentally point out what in my opinion is the primary weakness of this so-called "Complexity" group.  That weakness being, again solely in my opinion, an inability or perhaps an unwillingness to face the real substantive, important complexity issues that surround us.

Instead, the group nearly always proposes to study some superficial abstract, academic side issue.  It doesn't seem to matter what the particular "complexity" issue du Jour is, the "solution" proposed, but never implemented by the members of this list is *always* some abstract, distancing, academic approach.

Not that I am picking on you, really I am not.  But seriously, are you proposing to use an ABM to explain the societal effects of religious fundamentalism?  That would be a side show.  It would place a level of abstraction between the real issue and the observer which would totally mask the underlying causal issues.

Those issues, of course, being the irrational, hateful, harmful effects of mass adherence to narrow, fundamental religious dogma, plus whatever the deep underlying psychological urges are that constantly seem to draw whole populations into those belief systems.

You don't need an ABM to illustrate that; you need a few good history books.

And if you want to understand why people are so prone to locking themselves into destructive, exclusive, egocentric world-views, well, good luck with that.   I suspect however that game theoretics and ABMs are not the proper tools for the job.

--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hussein -

I hear you...   many of us are challenged to defend the name of our God or our Faith or our gender or our cultural or genetic heritage or sexual orientation or hair color or set of our jaw.  Even when  obviously (but superficially?) motivated, these are false challenges and to accept them is a fools game.

The shrill voices against Islam (or even "ahem" Mormons) are not helping, even if some who act in it's name are doing horrific things.  Those who paint with a broad brush can only slop their own paint on themselves...

From much distance at all, everyone else looks like "other".

I'm often disappointed with this list (myself included) that we invoke the terms of Complexity Science but don't often take it anywhere.

Is there a game theoretic model, or more to the point, an agent model based on game theoretic principles that might help to illuminate this phenomenon?  The phenomena of personal vs shared belief, sectarianism, intolerance?   Is there a small subset (in the spirit of the oft-cited MOTH strategy for prisoner's dilemma) of the phenomena that can show a bit of it?

- Steve

-- 
Los Alamos Visualization Associates
LAVA-Synergy
4200 W. Jemez rd
Los Alamos, NM 87544
www.lava3d.com
[hidden email]
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:[phone]" value="[phone]" target="_blank">505-920-0252

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:[phone]" value="[phone]" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:[phone]" value="[phone]" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:[phone]" value="[phone]" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:[phone]" value="[phone]" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Nick Thompson]

Oh, ok.  I have to stop heckling and take this seriously.  DAMN!

 

First, I yield to no one on this list in my atheism.  I have been an atheist longer than most of you have been alive.  So there!  My FATHER was an atheist, my mother was an agnostic.  (For anybody on this list who might have been a child in the 40’s, there was genre of jokes that circulated at the time called “Little Moron” jokes.  One of my favorites was,

 

“My father was a moron, my mother was a moron, and [placing the left index finger in the left ear and making a circle around the right ear with the right index finger and forefinger] I’m just a little pencil-sharpener-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r!”

 

Now it suddenly occurs to me that most of the people on this list are too young to even know what a pencil is, let alone how a manual pencil sharpener works.  So, ask your parents during your next visit to the retirement community. 

 

Second, Doug is asserting that religion is a gateway to intolerance (and other forms of evil) in just the same way that pot is said to be a gateway to heroin.  It could be, for instance, that the sort of people who smoke pot are likely to be the sort of people who use heroin.   Or it could be that almost everybody uses pot, so everybody who has used heroin has previously used pot. 

 

Third, Doug is intolerant of religion. I am led, thereby to wonder if software engineering is a gateway to intolerance.  Hmmmmmm!  I am going to have to think that one over. 

 

But I am still heckling.  The deep question here is whether any human being can live without the kind of faith that religion represents … whether in fact, ANY human does live without such faith.  I have never met a man fuller of unreasoned faith than Richard Dawkins.  [He believes, after all, in The Gene.]  So, given that we are all condemned to a certain sort of metaphysical craziness, the only interesting point is whether we should be allowed to  get together and share our craziness with others.  Is organized craziness the problem?  So, as long as we are all lonely in our craziness, the world will be safe from intolerance?  Certainly, organized craziness is more dangerous than solitary craziness.  But on the other hand, organized sanity is more effective than solitary sanity.  So perhaps “organization” is orthogonal. 

 

I think I have just proved that software engineers should not be allowed to organize. 

 

Perhaps I will leave it there.

 

Nick

 

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 10:37 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

 

Well, as much as I respect your opinion, Dave, I could not possibly disagree more with you.  Or at least with your opening sentence.

 

While I choose not to state it as absolute fact, I would like to suggest that Religion *is* the problem.

 

Human kind's ongoing attempts to cast one's existence into one or another particular narrow religious world-view where some or another deity is responsible for them, for their well being, for their punishment for failing to follow the tenents of their religion, and for their path to redemption; this is the problem.  Again, just my opinion.  I would not presume to be a dispenser of absolute truth.

 

--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

The problem is not with the Religion - it is with various interpretations of the religion.  And it is a myth that there is a "majority" available to counteract or condemn the "minority"

 

Take the obscene group of "Christians" that like to protest at military funerals claiming "the death is a good thing because it is God's  punishment for tolerating gays."  Or the group that financed the film at issue the last few days.  (Or Mel Gibson's father's church.) ....

 

Following Owen's argument we should see almost every other person who professes to be a Christian denounce this kind of base misinterpretation of their Religion.  But it does not happen - because "they" are not "us" and so we do not have to explain, apologize or denounce.  Only a few political and religious leaders will react - the Archbishop of Santa Fe, for example, stated that those people are not following the precepts of the Christian religion and should be ignored.  Note: no one said they should be expelled, excommunicated, from Christianity or that Christians were in any way responsible - even though the extreme position is grounded in another, more mainstream interpretation of what the Bible may or may not say about homosexuality.  Hussein Abbas' eloquent response is a personal example of exactly this kind of phenomenon.

 

There is an exact parallel evident in the middle east today.  Yesterday I heard two imams, the president of Egypt, and the president of Yemen state that Islam provided no excuse for the violence - that blasphemy is not an excuse for violence, even to the blasphemer. (Homenei's famous fatwa against Salman Rushdie was denounced by a majority of other imams.) Also heard were promises to seek out and punish the perpetrators (hard there and equally hard here because of the rule of law). In Pakistan, it is the imams that are denouncing the morons that apparently framed and wanted to put to death a young women with mental development issues, for blasphemy.

 

Owen will never see the reaction he seeks - here, there, anywhere - because sectarianism in every religion means there is no "majority" that can react and that every sect sees themselves as apart from "those idiots over there" and therefore Not Responsible.  Nevertheless, Individual leaders, religious and political, do and are currently doing exactly what Owen asks - denouncing, pointing out misinterpretations, apologizing (for faith and for country) for the miscreants, asking for understanding, and promising all possible corrective action/punishment.

 

Is it our own insistence to treat a highly diverse group as a monolithic bloc the real root of the problems?  Coupled, of course, with our unwillingness to truly examine and understand our own religion let alone that of someone else.

 

dave west

 

 

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012, at 09:25 PM, Hussein Abbass wrote:

Owen

 

                While I am an IT professor, I am very backward in using blogs and almost incapable of expressing myself in emails or otherwise. Your question would be better discussed in a long session with lots of coffees and chocolates J

 

                I do not normally put my Moslim hat on; almost never because I see religion as a relationship between me and God that is no one else business. Therefore, my actions are my responsibilities and if I do something good I take the reward personally so why when I do something bad should my religion, or any dimension of my identity be blamed.

 

                But your question was interesting. Not just from complexity perspective, from many other dimensions that once more, writing long emails would not send the right message through.

 

                Sometimes the good Moslims (whatever this means and in whose eyes) do not respond simply because they do not agree with the premise. The premise of the religion as the centre for conflict. The premise that we should be blamed for our belief. The premise that I should spend my time justifying someone else actions simply because there is a perception that I and them share something in common because it is written in my passport or on a system somewhere. If I believe in doing good, I would like to invest my time in that, and not invest my time to defend bad when bad was not my action in the first place.

 

                So call it an ego-centric or whatever, this is I. In Islam, when we do good, we should not talk about it because we are doing it to fulfil a sacred commitment to God. In fact, there is a premise that you should hide the good you are doing to get a better reward from God. This is too complicated to explain in an email!

 

Some of us just do not wish to be bothered to defend or discuss the bad because the time and resources to spend on doing good alone are very limited. The world is full of opportunities to do good, why should we spend the time to discuss the bad!

 

                Sometimes also if we wish to explain concepts properly, you would not do it properly in a simple email or a simple discussion. There are things that can take a long time to understand before we can use them to explain!

 

                If this sounds a weak argument, we have to dig down to the roots to see what defines weak and strong arguments; and that is a long discussion!

 

                If I want to use a complexity lens, the Egyptian reply was a choice they made on a Pareto curve. If someone seriously wishes to understand it, they will need to analyse in details the underlying axes for this Pareto curve, the sources of anti-correlation, and the interaction of the utility functions. Only then, they will see the complex dilemma setting at the roots of this reply as compared to a possibly artificial politically correct reply that some people expect.

 

                If the above is a starting point for a discussion, next time you visit Australia, drop by and we can attempt to resolve it all on a nice cup of coffee with nice dark chocolates J

 

Kind regards

Hussein

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Friday, 14 September 2012 3:01 AM
To: Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

 

The Economist sent out their weekly email, which included a story on the Libya fiasco: http://goo.gl/0mfCW

 

This reminded me of one of my possibly Politically Incorrect notions: Why don't the civilized muslim world attempt to counter this insanity on the part of their fundamentalists?  At least some attempt to apologize for My Religion, The Bad Parts? God knows I do!

 

We had an imam visit the cathedral in Santa Fe to discuss the simplicity and beauty of his religion.  Some questions were asked about The Bad Parts, in a very civilized manor.  The conversation was sane, polite, and certainly informative.

 

What if the Vatican sent out a hit squad for all the similar anti-Christian movies or other inflammatory media?  Or the Buddhists sent ninjas after non-believers? Or the Jews killed Dutch cartoonists?

 

What I'm getting at is this: why *isn't* there a strong community of sane and vocal muslims at least trying to communicate to the rest of us?

 

Please do understand that this is not a rant against religion, but more of a puzzled look at an insane situation.  And Yes, I really wish we'd keep our nose out of other's affairs.  I'm not trying to be a bigot. But I truly would like to grok this phenomenon. 

 

What am I missing?  Good complexity question, I bet.

 

   -- Owen 

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

 

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Steve Smith]

Doug -

I cannot resist:  a very accurate description of the impact of religion, via a single word substitution.

As long as we are being pointed, my last response to Roger's comment and my ongoing response to yours follows this point:

When does the "Religion of Cynicism" become indistinguishable from all others?

I don't believe one can become *more* ignorant, merely more willful about it.  I'm (becoming?) living proof (by example) of that methinks.

If this is an "opinion" it is an opinion about the meaning of words, not about the state of the world.  And apparently the dictionary fails to define "the N word" as racist? 

- Steve

In my opinion.

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

[...]

Incredible but true, some people start ignorant and become more so.

-- rec --

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

First things first: the bumper sticker.  It is, sadly, real, and not just a photoshopped artifact:

It came out of Georgia, and the woman who created it was shocked, just shocked, that people would think it racist. 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/don-t-nig-purveyor-paula-smith-says-bumper-185405237.html

More to come...

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Doug -

You may be correct that the tools are insufficient and/or distancing through abstraction...  and yes it may be a side show.  But as you point out, a side show that has not even been mounted.

Those issues, of course, being the irrational, hateful, harmful effects of mass adherence to narrow, fundamental religious dogma, plus whatever the deep underlying psychological urges are that constantly seem to draw whole populations into those belief systems.

I don't disagree that these are the *symptoms* we experience/observe.  But I'm still more than a little curious about the *causes*.  You might posit (I think you did! ) that the *cause* of various irrational, hateful, harmful effects are "mass adherence to narrow, fundamental, religious dogma" and I can't really argue with you on that.  But where the hell does *that* come from?   Is it necessary? 

My suggestion of a model (at the risk of distancing through abstraction) is to seek a more "systematic" answer...   *What* are those underlying psychological urges you speak of?  Are there alternative systems of thinking and organization that might yield more desirable global behaviours?   

What *fundamental* aspects of our systems of belief (religious, political, economic, social, etc.) are  *guaranteed* to lead us there over and over.  Call it Islam, call it Mormonism, call it Logical Positivism, but why does it so often lead us back to the same self-rightous, intolerant places?  Were not most if not all religions founded or evolved or shaped around trying to fix the existing flaws in the systems previously in place?

You don't need an ABM to illustrate that; you need a few good history books.

You may read different history books than I do.  The history books I read illustrate *that*  whole populations are drawn into dysfunctional behaviours supported by their belief systems (though depending on who wrote them, it is always a one-sided story, glorifying  one set of dysfunction in contrast to another demonized set. 

 I suggested *illumination* not *illustration*.   I can look around, from your (existing only in photoshop I suspect) racist bumpersticker or just about every conversation I hear to have what we are talking about *illustrated*... but what I want to know is *what is it all about?*, is there anything to be done!  CAN we get enough distance through abstraction to discover actionable or effectual changes in local strategy to effect global change?

Or do we just fall (dive headlong?) into a bubbling mass of xenophobic blame and/or self-righteous cynicism?  I personally prefer the latter, but it really doesn't change anything for the better.

- Steve

Steve,  you perhaps accidentally point out what in my opinion is the primary weakness of this so-called "Complexity" group.  That weakness being, again solely in my opinion, an inability or perhaps an unwillingness to face the real substantive, important complexity issues that surround us.

Instead, the group nearly always proposes to study some superficial abstract, academic side issue.  It doesn't seem to matter what the particular "complexity" issue du Jour is, the "solution" proposed, but never implemented by the members of this list is *always* some abstract, distancing, academic approach.

Not that I am picking on you, really I am not.  But seriously, are you proposing to use an ABM to explain the societal effects of religious fundamentalism?  That would be a side show.  It would place a level of abstraction between the real issue and the observer which would totally mask the underlying causal issues.

Those issues, of course, being the irrational, hateful, harmful effects of mass adherence to narrow, fundamental religious dogma, plus whatever the deep underlying psychological urges are that constantly seem to draw whole populations into those belief systems.

You don't need an ABM to illustrate that; you need a few good history books.

And if you want to understand why people are so prone to locking themselves into destructive, exclusive, egocentric world-views, well, good luck with that.   I suspect however that game theoretics and ABMs are not the proper tools for the job.

--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hussein -

I hear you...   many of us are challenged to defend the name of our God or our Faith or our gender or our cultural or genetic heritage or sexual orientation or hair color or set of our jaw.  Even when  obviously (but superficially?) motivated, these are false challenges and to accept them is a fools game.

The shrill voices against Islam (or even "ahem" Mormons) are not helping, even if some who act in it's name are doing horrific things.  Those who paint with a broad brush can only slop their own paint on themselves...

From much distance at all, everyone else looks like "other".

I'm often disappointed with this list (myself included) that we invoke the terms of Complexity Science but don't often take it anywhere.

Is there a game theoretic model, or more to the point, an agent model based on game theoretic principles that might help to illuminate this phenomenon?  The phenomena of personal vs shared belief, sectarianism, intolerance?   Is there a small subset (in the spirit of the oft-cited MOTH strategy for prisoner's dilemma) of the phenomena that can show a bit of it?

- Steve

-- 
Los Alamos Visualization Associates
LAVA-Synergy
4200 W. Jemez rd
Los Alamos, NM 87544
www.lava3d.com
[hidden email]
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:[phone]" value="[phone]" target="_blank">505-920-0252

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:[phone]" value="[phone]" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:[phone]" value="[phone]" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:[phone]" value="[phone]" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:[phone]" value="[phone]" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Douglas Roberts-2]

Unsympathetic, perhaps.  Not intolerant, though.  I'm perfectly happy letting anybody live in whatever delusional world-view they find compelling.

On the other hand, I am decidedly intolerant of religious proselytizing.  Or religion-based judgmental behavior.  Or religion-based intolerance.   Or religion-based wars.  Or religion-based cruelty towards animals.

Other than than, I'm perfectly fine with religion.

--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

[...] 

 

Third, Doug is intolerant of religion.

 

[...] 

Nick

 

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts

Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 10:37 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

 

Well, as much as I respect your opinion, Dave, I could not possibly disagree more with you.  Or at least with your opening sentence.

 

While I choose not to state it as absolute fact, I would like to suggest that Religion *is* the problem.

 

Human kind's ongoing attempts to cast one's existence into one or another particular narrow religious world-view where some or another deity is responsible for them, for their well being, for their punishment for failing to follow the tenents of their religion, and for their path to redemption; this is the problem.  Again, just my opinion.  I would not presume to be a dispenser of absolute truth.

 

--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

The problem is not with the Religion - it is with various interpretations of the religion.  And it is a myth that there is a "majority" available to counteract or condemn the "minority"

 

Take the obscene group of "Christians" that like to protest at military funerals claiming "the death is a good thing because it is God's  punishment for tolerating gays."  Or the group that financed the film at issue the last few days.  (Or Mel Gibson's father's church.) ....

 

Following Owen's argument we should see almost every other person who professes to be a Christian denounce this kind of base misinterpretation of their Religion.  But it does not happen - because "they" are not "us" and so we do not have to explain, apologize or denounce.  Only a few political and religious leaders will react - the Archbishop of Santa Fe, for example, stated that those people are not following the precepts of the Christian religion and should be ignored.  Note: no one said they should be expelled, excommunicated, from Christianity or that Christians were in any way responsible - even though the extreme position is grounded in another, more mainstream interpretation of what the Bible may or may not say about homosexuality.  Hussein Abbas' eloquent response is a personal example of exactly this kind of phenomenon.

 

There is an exact parallel evident in the middle east today.  Yesterday I heard two imams, the president of Egypt, and the president of Yemen state that Islam provided no excuse for the violence - that blasphemy is not an excuse for violence, even to the blasphemer. (Homenei's famous fatwa against Salman Rushdie was denounced by a majority of other imams.) Also heard were promises to seek out and punish the perpetrators (hard there and equally hard here because of the rule of law). In Pakistan, it is the imams that are denouncing the morons that apparently framed and wanted to put to death a young women with mental development issues, for blasphemy.

 

Owen will never see the reaction he seeks - here, there, anywhere - because sectarianism in every religion means there is no "majority" that can react and that every sect sees themselves as apart from "those idiots over there" and therefore Not Responsible.  Nevertheless, Individual leaders, religious and political, do and are currently doing exactly what Owen asks - denouncing, pointing out misinterpretations, apologizing (for faith and for country) for the miscreants, asking for understanding, and promising all possible corrective action/punishment.

 

Is it our own insistence to treat a highly diverse group as a monolithic bloc the real root of the problems?  Coupled, of course, with our unwillingness to truly examine and understand our own religion let alone that of someone else.

 

dave west

 

 

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012, at 09:25 PM, Hussein Abbass wrote:

Owen

 

                While I am an IT professor, I am very backward in using blogs and almost incapable of expressing myself in emails or otherwise. Your question would be better discussed in a long session with lots of coffees and chocolates J

 

                I do not normally put my Moslim hat on; almost never because I see religion as a relationship between me and God that is no one else business. Therefore, my actions are my responsibilities and if I do something good I take the reward personally so why when I do something bad should my religion, or any dimension of my identity be blamed.

 

                But your question was interesting. Not just from complexity perspective, from many other dimensions that once more, writing long emails would not send the right message through.

 

                Sometimes the good Moslims (whatever this means and in whose eyes) do not respond simply because they do not agree with the premise. The premise of the religion as the centre for conflict. The premise that we should be blamed for our belief. The premise that I should spend my time justifying someone else actions simply because there is a perception that I and them share something in common because it is written in my passport or on a system somewhere. If I believe in doing good, I would like to invest my time in that, and not invest my time to defend bad when bad was not my action in the first place.

 

                So call it an ego-centric or whatever, this is I. In Islam, when we do good, we should not talk about it because we are doing it to fulfil a sacred commitment to God. In fact, there is a premise that you should hide the good you are doing to get a better reward from God. This is too complicated to explain in an email!

 

Some of us just do not wish to be bothered to defend or discuss the bad because the time and resources to spend on doing good alone are very limited. The world is full of opportunities to do good, why should we spend the time to discuss the bad!

 

                Sometimes also if we wish to explain concepts properly, you would not do it properly in a simple email or a simple discussion. There are things that can take a long time to understand before we can use them to explain!

 

                If this sounds a weak argument, we have to dig down to the roots to see what defines weak and strong arguments; and that is a long discussion!

 

                If I want to use a complexity lens, the Egyptian reply was a choice they made on a Pareto curve. If someone seriously wishes to understand it, they will need to analyse in details the underlying axes for this Pareto curve, the sources of anti-correlation, and the interaction of the utility functions. Only then, they will see the complex dilemma setting at the roots of this reply as compared to a possibly artificial politically correct reply that some people expect.

 

                If the above is a starting point for a discussion, next time you visit Australia, drop by and we can attempt to resolve it all on a nice cup of coffee with nice dark chocolates J

 

Kind regards

Hussein

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Friday, 14 September 2012 3:01 AM
To: Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

 

The Economist sent out their weekly email, which included a story on the Libya fiasco: http://goo.gl/0mfCW

 

This reminded me of one of my possibly Politically Incorrect notions: Why don't the civilized muslim world attempt to counter this insanity on the part of their fundamentalists?  At least some attempt to apologize for My Religion, The Bad Parts? God knows I do!

 

We had an imam visit the cathedral in Santa Fe to discuss the simplicity and beauty of his religion.  Some questions were asked about The Bad Parts, in a very civilized manor.  The conversation was sane, polite, and certainly informative.

 

What if the Vatican sent out a hit squad for all the similar anti-Christian movies or other inflammatory media?  Or the Buddhists sent ninjas after non-believers? Or the Jews killed Dutch cartoonists?

 

What I'm getting at is this: why *isn't* there a strong community of sane and vocal muslims at least trying to communicate to the rest of us?

 

Please do understand that this is not a rant against religion, but more of a puzzled look at an insane situation.  And Yes, I really wish we'd keep our nose out of other's affairs.  I'm not trying to be a bigot. But I truly would like to grok this phenomenon. 

 

What am I missing?  Good complexity question, I bet.

 

   -- Owen 

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

 

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a href="tel:[phone]" value="[phone]" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a href="tel:[phone]" value="[phone]" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Owen Densmore]

I do not believe this to be a religious issue at all.  The question is of groups and institutions.

When a faction of a group becomes apparently insane, do we not expect the entire group, its leaders and majority, to speak up and to mend?

When civil rights were an issue in the south, many of us (I was at Georgia Tech) spoke up, and indeed many churches of all stripes did so.  Many NRA members also speak up about the extreme position the organization takes.  Examples abound.  And yes, I consider this a Complexity domain, much like Miller's Applause model.

Isn't this possibly a cultural issue?  Possibly regional?  The largest Muslim population is not Libya or Egypt or even all of the middle east, its Indonesia.  They do not appear to have this issue.

So my question stands as Kofi stated:

    "Where are the leaders?  Where is the Majority?  Nobody speaks up."

NOT the religious leaders but the leaders of the culture in which the religion lies.

And Hussein, forgive me, but your inward religious stance has nothing to do with speaking out against injustice.  It is not a religious issue, but a civic, cultural one.

   -- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Douglas Roberts-2]

Let's see if I understand you correctly, Owen. 

There are a bunch of fundamentalist Islamists all up in arms shouting "Allahu Akhbar" whilst burning down our embassies and killing our diplomats because there is a film out that is derogatory of the Muslim religion.

And this is not about religion?

I don't see it.

Or you don't see it.

What I do see is that there is one very large disconnect on this particular issue.

--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

I do not believe this to be a religious issue at all.  The question is of groups and institutions.

When a faction of a group becomes apparently insane, do we not expect the entire group, its leaders and majority, to speak up and to mend?

When civil rights were an issue in the south, many of us (I was at Georgia Tech) spoke up, and indeed many churches of all stripes did so.  Many NRA members also speak up about the extreme position the organization takes.  Examples abound.  And yes, I consider this a Complexity domain, much like Miller's Applause model.

Isn't this possibly a cultural issue?  Possibly regional?  The largest Muslim population is not Libya or Egypt or even all of the middle east, its Indonesia.  They do not appear to have this issue.

So my question stands as Kofi stated:

    "Where are the leaders?  Where is the Majority?  Nobody speaks up."

NOT the religious leaders but the leaders of the culture in which the religion lies.

And Hussein, forgive me, but your inward religious stance has nothing to do with speaking out against injustice.  It is not a religious issue, but a civic, cultural one.

   -- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Douglas Roberts-2]

One semi-final note from me about culture and religion:  I lived in Libya for a year in 1976 when I was a consultant to Occidental Petroleum.  I traveled extensively between Tripoli, Benghazi, and several points about 900 miles southeast of Tripoli in the northern tip of the Sahara during that year.  I quickly learned that the culture of the Arabic half of Libya (as compared to the Berber Bedouin culture that comprises the eastern half of the country) is dominated by the Islamic religion.  You cannot separate them.  Religion is interwoven into every aspect of their culture.  Any attempt to exclude the impact of religion on their culture will fail.

--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

Let's see if I understand you correctly, Owen. 

There are a bunch of fundamentalist Islamists all up in arms shouting "Allahu Akhbar" whilst burning down our embassies and killing our diplomats because there is a film out that is derogatory of the Muslim religion.

And this is not about religion?

I don't see it.

Or you don't see it.

What I do see is that there is one very large disconnect on this particular issue.

--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

I do not believe this to be a religious issue at all.  The question is of groups and institutions.

When a faction of a group becomes apparently insane, do we not expect the entire group, its leaders and majority, to speak up and to mend?

When civil rights were an issue in the south, many of us (I was at Georgia Tech) spoke up, and indeed many churches of all stripes did so.  Many NRA members also speak up about the extreme position the organization takes.  Examples abound.  And yes, I consider this a Complexity domain, much like Miller's Applause model.

Isn't this possibly a cultural issue?  Possibly regional?  The largest Muslim population is not Libya or Egypt or even all of the middle east, its Indonesia.  They do not appear to have this issue.

So my question stands as Kofi stated:

    "Where are the leaders?  Where is the Majority?  Nobody speaks up."

NOT the religious leaders but the leaders of the culture in which the religion lies.

And Hussein, forgive me, but your inward religious stance has nothing to do with speaking out against injustice.  It is not a religious issue, but a civic, cultural one.

   -- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a href="tel:[phone]" value="[phone]" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a href="tel:[phone]" value="[phone]" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Robert J. Cordingley]

Or there's a bunch of irate terrorists/loonies/freedom fighters that hijack the Islamic cause because they can't stand America(ns) and want to hurt us as much as possible - pursuing 'death by a thousand cuts' and know they can rile up the locals to act/riot/revolt.

Or has this theory been discredited.

Robert C

On 9/14/12 10:24 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

Let's see if I understand you correctly, Owen. 

There are a bunch of fundamentalist Islamists all up in arms shouting "Allahu Akhbar" whilst burning down our embassies and killing our diplomats because there is a film out that is derogatory of the Muslim religion.

And this is not about religion?

I don't see it.

Or you don't see it.

What I do see is that there is one very large disconnect on this particular issue.

--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

I do not believe this to be a religious issue at all.  The question is of groups and institutions.

When a faction of a group becomes apparently insane, do we not expect the entire group, its leaders and majority, to speak up and to mend?

When civil rights were an issue in the south, many of us (I was at Georgia Tech) spoke up, and indeed many churches of all stripes did so.  Many NRA members also speak up about the extreme position the organization takes.  Examples abound.  And yes, I consider this a Complexity domain, much like Miller's Applause model.

Isn't this possibly a cultural issue?  Possibly regional?  The largest Muslim population is not Libya or Egypt or even all of the middle east, its Indonesia.  They do not appear to have this issue.

So my question stands as Kofi stated:

    "Where are the leaders?  Where is the Majority?  Nobody speaks up."

NOT the religious leaders but the leaders of the culture in which the religion lies.

And Hussein, forgive me, but your inward religious stance has nothing to do with speaking out against injustice.  It is not a religious issue, but a civic, cultural one.

   -- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Roger Critchlow-2]

The Fixation of Belief, Charles S. Peirce, Popular Science Monthly, November 1877.

http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html

I was going to paraphrase another part of this, but looking at it again I realize my feeble bowdlerization wouldn't do it justice.  [Emphasis added]

Let the will of the state act, then, instead of that of the individual. Let an institution be created which shall have for its object to keep correct doctrines before the attention of the people, to reiterate them perpetually, and to teach them to the young; having at the same time power to prevent contrary doctrines from being taught, advocated, or expressed. Let all possible causes of a change of mind be removed from men's apprehensions. Let them be kept ignorant, lest they should learn of some reason to think otherwise than they do. Let their passions be enlisted, so that they may regard private and unusual opinions with hatred and horror. Then, let all men who reject the established belief be terrified into silence. Let the people turn out and tar-and-feather such men, or let inquisitions be made into the manner of thinking of suspected persons, and when they are found guilty of forbidden beliefs, let them be subjected to some signal punishment. When complete agreement could not otherwise be reached, a general massacre of all who have not thought in a certain way has proved a very effective means of settling opinion in a country. If the power to do this be wanting, let a list of opinions be drawn up, to which no man of the least independence of thought can assent, and let the faithful be required to accept all these propositions, in order to segregate them as radically as possible from the influence of the rest of the world.

This isn't Peirce's solution to the question.  And it doesn't really matter whether you let the religious fringe, the religious moderates, the rationalists, or the state enforce correct doctrines, the doctrines are never completely correct, and you always get unfortunate errors in the enforcement.

-- rec --

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Belinda Wong-Swanson]

Great discussion, everyone.

To Owen's point about speaking out against injustice, perhaps we should start a world-wide organization of the "6-Sigma Peaceful Majority", speaking out against violence and hatred for any reason. May be it's time for the grass-root majority to be the leaders of peace and tolerance.

Belinda

On Sep 14, 2012, at 10:44 AM, Robert J. Cordingley wrote:

Or there's a bunch of irate terrorists/loonies/freedom fighters that hijack the Islamic cause because they can't stand America(ns) and want to hurt us as much as possible - pursuing 'death by a thousand cuts' and know they can rile up the locals to act/riot/revolt.

Or has this theory been discredited.

Robert C

On 9/14/12 10:24 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

Let's see if I understand you correctly, Owen. 

There are a bunch of fundamentalist Islamists all up in arms shouting "Allahu Akhbar" whilst burning down our embassies and killing our diplomats because there is a film out that is derogatory of the Muslim religion.

And this is not about religion?

I don't see it.

Or you don't see it.

What I do see is that there is one very large disconnect on this particular issue.

--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

I do not believe this to be a religious issue at all.  The question is of groups and institutions.

When a faction of a group becomes apparently insane, do we not expect the entire group, its leaders and majority, to speak up and to mend?

When civil rights were an issue in the south, many of us (I was at Georgia Tech) spoke up, and indeed many churches of all stripes did so.  Many NRA members also speak up about the extreme position the organization takes.  Examples abound.  And yes, I consider this a Complexity domain, much like Miller's Applause model.

Isn't this possibly a cultural issue?  Possibly regional?  The largest Muslim population is not Libya or Egypt or even all of the middle east, its Indonesia.  They do not appear to have this issue.

So my question stands as Kofi stated:

    "Where are the leaders?  Where is the Majority?  Nobody speaks up."

NOT the religious leaders but the leaders of the culture in which the religion lies.

And Hussein, forgive me, but your inward religious stance has nothing to do with speaking out against injustice.  It is not a religious issue, but a civic, cultural one.

   -- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Victoria Hughes]

Exactly. 

Thanks, Roger. 

On Sep 14, 2012, at 10:47 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote:

The Fixation of Belief, Charles S. Peirce, Popular Science Monthly, November 1877.

http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html

I was going to paraphrase another part of this, but looking at it again I realize my feeble bowdlerization wouldn't do it justice.  [Emphasis added]

Let the will of the state act, then, instead of that of the individual. Let an institution be created which shall have for its object to keep correct doctrines before the attention of the people, to reiterate them perpetually, and to teach them to the young; having at the same time power to prevent contrary doctrines from being taught, advocated, or expressed. Let all possible causes of a change of mind be removed from men's apprehensions. Let them be kept ignorant, lest they should learn of some reason to think otherwise than they do. Let their passions be enlisted, so that they may regard private and unusual opinions with hatred and horror. Then, let all men who reject the established belief be terrified into silence. Let the people turn out and tar-and-feather such men, or let inquisitions be made into the manner of thinking of suspected persons, and when they are found guilty of forbidden beliefs, let them be subjected to some signal punishment. When complete agreement could not otherwise be reached, a general massacre of all who have not thought in a certain way has proved a very effective means of settling opinion in a country. If the power to do this be wanting, let a list of opinions be drawn up, to which no man of the least independence of thought can assent, and let the faithful be required to accept all these propositions, in order to segregate them as radically as possible from the influence of the rest of the world.

This isn't Peirce's solution to the question.  And it doesn't really matter whether you let the religious fringe, the religious moderates, the rationalists, or the state enforce correct doctrines, the doctrines are never completely correct, and you always get unfortunate errors in the enforcement.

-- rec --

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Nick Thompson]

Roger,

 

I am always stunned by your ability to mine the web for wonderful stuff. 

 

I happen to have the Peirce paper sitting on my table, so let me draw his argument out a bit further.  Piece describes 4 ways of fixing belief … This one he calls authority.  The two others he disapproves of are essentially stubbornness … pick something and run with it … and forming a school – getting together with a bunch of people and agreeing on something to run with.  He thinks that all of these means have some benefits, but that the only beliefs that will endure are scientific beliefs, i.e., beliefs that are formed through organized scientific truth-seeking … experimentation, replication, theory, criticism, argument, instrument building, etc., etc.  But even scientific beliefs are only fated to be true in the very long run, and nothing that we believe now can be counted on to be true.   Also, truth is DEFINED in Perce to be just that which we are, in the very long fated to believe.  So, instead of justifying the scientific method as that which takes us to the truth, he defines the truth as that which the scientific method [broadly understood] takes us to.  It’s a very strange philosophy, and it is classically pragmatic.  Just as Holmes defined justice as what good judges do in the long run, Peirce defined truth as what good scientists produce, in the long run.  In the short run, you’re on you own.  And bad scientists, just like other people, are prone to fixing belief on one of the other, less enduring, ways. 

 

Nick

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:friam-b [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 12:47 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

 

The Fixation of Belief, Charles S. Peirce, Popular Science Monthly, November 1877.

 

http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html

 

I was going to paraphrase another part of this, but looking at it again I realize my feeble bowdlerization wouldn't do it justice.  [Emphasis added]

 

Let the will of the state act, then, instead of that of the individual. Let an institution be created which shall have for its object to keep correct doctrines before the attention of the people, to reiterate them perpetually, and to teach them to the young; having at the same time power to prevent contrary doctrines from being taught, advocated, or expressed. Let all possible causes of a change of mind be removed from men's apprehensions. Let them be kept ignorant, lest they should learn of some reason to think otherwise than they do. Let their passions be enlisted, so that they may regard private and unusual opinions with hatred and horror. Then, let all men who reject the established belief be terrified into silence. Let the people turn out and tar-and-feather such men, or let inquisitions be made into the manner of thinking of suspected persons, and when they are found guilty of forbidden beliefs, let them be subjected to some signal punishment. When complete agreement could not otherwise be reached, a general massacre of all who have not thought in a certain way has proved a very effective means of settling opinion in a country. If the power to do this be wanting, let a list of opinions be drawn up, to which no man of the least independence of thought can assent, and let the faithful be required to accept all these propositions, in order to segregate them as radically as possible from the influence of the rest of the world.

 

This isn't Peirce's solution to the question.  And it doesn't really matter whether you let the religious fringe, the religious moderates, the rationalists, or the state enforce correct doctrines, the doctrines are never completely correct, and you always get unfortunate errors in the enforcement.

 

-- rec --

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org