Los "países de mierda" le dejan millones de dólares a EE.UU.
Locked
 
|
< But, in the end, I reject that argument. That need for celebrity, that need for drama, or "strong amplification of conflict to bring things into focus" is the problem, not the solution. >
I certainly wasn’t thinking celebrity or drama. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: Los "países de mierda" le dejan millones de dólares a EE.UU.
|
|
In reply to this post by Alfredo Covaleda Vélez-2
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-22/south-korea-tops-global-innovation-ranking-again-as-u-s-falls From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Alfredo Covaleda Vélez <[hidden email]> ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Glen writes:
< If people would, more often, set aside their (mostly illusory anyway) agency and focus on accepting a Pawn role in others' games, we'd see fewer fractures. > Suppose that there are roles in others’ games that need to be filled for the game to keep going, or to improve the chances of winning the game. Why do others want to play that game and not another one? Why should the value of an individual be seen through a preconceived role? If this kind of failure of imagination is just inevitable, then accepting a Pawn role, knowing one can play it well, should indeed be a way to promote acceptance of outsiders simply by providing existence proofs. But this brings me to a concern: Why should anyone have to play a role to make up for a deficit in another person? This leads to dependence on facilitators without understanding their value, e.g. the wife that needs to anticipate an abusive husband’s mood swings to protect the children and herself. It is one thing if that person is a professional like a social worker or police officer that is suitably rewarded for the job they do. Even at the highest levels of government we see such roles being diminished (e.g. at the U.S. State department). Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
Well, I'm not much of a sports oriented person. But sometimes they're useful. Playing, say, right outfield on a baseball team can be satisfying. Sure it's great if you can play short stop, pitch, and catch. But right field is quite nice, actually. I can say the same thing about being a full back in soccer. I was (and am) a terrible sprinter and juggler. But my genes gave me chicken-like quads that can kick a ball the entire length of the pitch. So, I'm grateful for the goalie, the half-backs, and the forwards, because I'm largely incompetent at those roles. Compensation, especially in the context of an amateur team sport, is complex.
Why have defined roles? Well, ask the half-back, who are the most universal players in the game. They kick like mules, juggle, run, and shoot. Every role is open to them, except perhaps goalie. Why shouldn't *everyone* be a half-back? I think the answer is clarified when you watch kids play. Every kid plays every role! ... well, with the exception of the geeks like me who would prefer to stare at the sky than chase a ball. 8^) More importantly, I suppose, in my professional life, I much prefer to keep my head down with someone else being the advocate/champion. It's arguable whether I can "clean up" and interact with customers and investors. I've done both to some extent. But it's exhausting and unpleasant. I'd rather team up with someone else who's energized and enjoys such roles. If your main point is that everyone should do some practical work in a wide variety of roles just to get a sense of, and appreciate, the contributions of others and the flex and slop of role definitions, then I agree. But don't discount the pleasure and fulfillment that can be found in sometimes being a sheeple. On 01/23/2018 09:44 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Suppose that there are roles in others’ games that need to be filled for the game to keep going, or to improve the chances of winning the game. Why do others want to play that game and not another one? Why should the value of an individual be seen through a preconceived role? If this kind of failure of imagination is just inevitable, then accepting a Pawn role, knowing one can play it well, should indeed be a way to promote acceptance of outsiders simply by providing existence proofs. > > But this brings me to a concern: Why should anyone have to play a role to make up for a deficit in another person? This leads to dependence on facilitators without understanding their value, e.g. the wife that needs to anticipate an abusive husband’s mood swings to protect the children and herself. It is one thing if that person is a professional like a social worker or police officer that is suitably rewarded for the job they do. Even at the highest levels of government we see such roles being diminished (e.g. at the U.S. State department). -- ∄ uǝʃƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Glen writes:
“Well, I'm not much of a sports oriented person. But sometimes they're useful.” Certainly, sports metaphors are useful to understand tribalism, because sports are tribal activity. I’m reminded of visiting a company in Austin to discuss a project of mutual interest. I didn’t realize I was being pre-interviewed (or whatever that is called) and didn’t even intend to give those signals. Our discussion was going along fine and then they brought up football. I have never watched football and don’t understand its appeal. When they understood this several of them visibly recoiled. My take is that they wanted someone that would project into their (lower dimensional) tribal space in a seamless way. It was an important part of how they got along. You alluded to collective measures of fitness. A progressive’s measure of fitness is not unlike Shannon entropy – let a thousand flowers bloom. A conservative, however, fears that entropy will be too costly and that people will forget previous fit strategies. In principle, maximizing entropy could push out cultural norms since that is copied information. Imagine a finite length bit string representing a program where skills related to football were sacrificed for skills related to curling or dancing (or more esoteric topics). If you think that the available bit string is short, that then one might worry about locally (or universally) promoting the `right’ cultural information in order for people to get along. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
On 01/25/2018 05:39 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> My take is that they wanted someone that would project into their (lower dimensional) tribal space in a seamless way. It was an important part of how they got along. > > You alluded to collective measures of fitness. A progressive’s measure of fitness is not unlike Shannon entropy – let a thousand flowers bloom. A conservative, however, fears that entropy will be too costly and that people will forget previous fit strategies. In principle, maximizing entropy could push out cultural norms since that is copied information. Imagine a finite length bit string representing a program where skills related to football were sacrificed for skills related to curling or dancing (or more esoteric topics). If you think that the available bit string is short, that then one might worry about locally (or universally) promoting the `right’ cultural information in order for people to get along. That's a great way to characterize the individualist vs. communitarian dichotomy. But I still think it's too false. The available bit string is so large it may as well be infinite. I could go further, I think, and assert that it's binned so thoroughly (hierarchically even) that it might as well not even be a discrete list at all. But what I'm going to say doesn't depend on the continuity of that machine. If the "metaphors everywhere" people are right, then it's reasonable to infer learning to use football as social grease would be trivial as long as the learner already has *some* form of grease. E.g. if one's used to schmoozing with colleagues in terms of ballroom dancing, that person can learn just enough of the rules and norms of football fans (and to whatever extent necessary, of the game, players, owners, etc.) and map that schema onto their extant ballroom dancing schema. We can do that analogizing because our "bit string" is reflective, parts of the bit string turn on or off other parts of it, chunk parts of it, etc. Of course, some domains select for different types of machine. The real trick, I think, lies in whether "conservatism" assumes less adaptability. Neoliberals, typically called "conservative" these days, should be comfortable with high entropy strategies because a tactic that emerged before will *re-emerge* if it's still appropriate. But authoritarian conservatives probably wouldn't. Similar binning can occur on the progressive's side. Those football fans you met with are probably a bit authoritarian, regardless of whether they're progressive or conservative, ultimately. Regardless of all my rhetoric, though, I think I see the point. A highly adaptive person may find it easy and good to sometimes merge with the mob, then decouple for awhile, then merge with another mob, etc. But a less adaptive person may accidentally *fall* into some form of groupthink and never find the opportunity to escape. That reduces my point to one of "be careful of falling into the groupthink trap that is individualism". -- ∄ uǝʃƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Apologies for arriving late at the party and then quibbling, but .... I assume we all agree that not all groups of people with a common set of values and interests are "mobs". As I wrote in a BRILLIANT POST …a week or so back, not all group thought is Group Think. To believe otherwise is libertarian GroupThink. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- On 01/25/2018 05:39 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > My take is that they wanted someone that would project into their (lower dimensional) tribal space in a seamless way. It was an important part of how they got along. > > You alluded to collective measures of fitness. A progressive’s measure of fitness is not unlike Shannon entropy – let a thousand flowers bloom. A conservative, however, fears that entropy will be too costly and that people will forget previous fit strategies. In principle, maximizing entropy could push out cultural norms since that is copied information. Imagine a finite length bit string representing a program where skills related to football were sacrificed for skills related to curling or dancing (or more esoteric topics). If you think that the available bit string is short, that then one might worry about locally (or universally) promoting the `right’ cultural information in order for people to get along. That's a great way to characterize the individualist vs. communitarian dichotomy. But I still think it's too false. The available bit string is so large it may as well be infinite. I could go further, I think, and assert that it's binned so thoroughly (hierarchically even) that it might as well not even be a discrete list at all. But what I'm going to say doesn't depend on the continuity of that machine. If the "metaphors everywhere" people are right, then it's reasonable to infer learning to use football as social grease would be trivial as long as the learner already has *some* form of grease. E.g. if one's used to schmoozing with colleagues in terms of ballroom dancing, that person can learn just enough of the rules and norms of football fans (and to whatever extent necessary, of the game, players, owners, etc.) and map that schema onto their extant ballroom dancing schema. We can do that analogizing because our "bit string" is reflective, parts of the bit string turn on or off other parts of it, chunk parts of it, etc. Of course, some domains select for different types of machine. The real trick, I think, lies in whether "conservatism" assumes less adaptability. Neoliberals, typically called "conservative" these days, should be comfortable with high entropy strategies because a tactic that emerged before will *re-emerge* if it's still appropriate. But authoritarian conservatives probably wouldn't. Similar binning can occur on the progressive's side. Those football fans you met with are probably a bit authoritarian, regardless of whether they're progressive or conservative, ultimately. Regardless of all my rhetoric, though, I think I see the point. A highly adaptive person may find it easy and good to sometimes merge with the mob, then decouple for awhile, then merge with another mob, etc. But a less adaptive person may accidentally *fall* into some form of groupthink and never find the opportunity to escape. That reduces my point to one of "be careful of falling into the groupthink trap that is individualism". -- ∄ uǝʃƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
On 01/25/2018 08:42 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Apologies for arriving late at the party and then quibbling, but .... I assume we all agree that not all groups of people with a common set of values and interests are "mobs". We can't really agree on that unless we define "mobs" in such a way as to allow persnickety particulars. 8^) Because I don't find anything wrong with groupthink, or mobs, it will be difficult for me to justify those persnickety particulars ... and the round-and-round sophistry we'll have to go through to arrive at them. The truth (as in the eventual consensus after years of haggling) will be "everything in moderation, including moderation". Being trapped by an entraining pattern is good, as long as it's not permanent. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Glen/Nick/Marcus/List -
When reading Ben Franklin's autobiography as a young man (me not Ben), I remember being disturbed by his observation about the members of the Continental Congress as (paraphrase) "building factions in response to a particular topic, then dissolving and reforming them into different factions for the next topic". I thought he was criticizing this behaviour, that he was suggesting that this was "fickle". I now am not sure if that was the case, I think instead, it was (at least) my own projection. As a strongly individualistic personality, at least by circumstance, I think I found the possibility of (more) persistent tribalism/factionation being a holy grail... I know I am still *highly* conflicted about my own role with "tribe". I don't like to have to be anti-choice to be pro-life (or pro-death to be pro-choice), I don't like to have to be anti-semitic to question Israel's treatment of Palestinians, I don't like to have to be a "Republican" or "Conservative" if I might not support the current Democrat running (or in office) or not agree with every detail of the current instance of a collective "Liberal" or "Progressive" issue. It seems that tribalism too often degenerates to false dichotomies. As for "mob", I understand that Glen was deliberately invoking it to cajole/confront us with it's negative implications. My own biggest discomfort(s) with "the mob" is twofold: 1) I seem never comfortable in a "Mob" because I can't shake the awareness that they could "turn on me" in a heartbeat if I didn't manage to remain fully compliant with their rhetoric; 2) I am equally uncomfortable with my own "berserker" element... next to having my own tribe (mob) turn against me on a whim is the fear I will wake up and realize that I have been entrained in something abhorrent to me. I really respect Glen's contrarian contributions, so don't mean this to be an argument *against* "merging with the mob", merely bracketing aspects of it that I think are key in doing it "righteously" if there is such a thing. Looking briefly at the complementary space, after 50 or 60 years of being "me" and having a fairly strong "individualist" bias, I accept that there is something fundamentally flawed with that as a default solution. Sure, every hive species seems to have "rogue" members who do not live within the hive, and our closest familiars in collective animal species (herd and pack animals) have examples of highly individualistic "batchelor" outliers who do not participate in the herd/pack from "inside", though I think they generally contribute as "outsiders" in some sense. Carry On, - Steve On 1/25/18 9:59 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: > On 01/25/2018 08:42 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: >> Apologies for arriving late at the party and then quibbling, but .... I assume we all agree that not all groups of people with a common set of values and interests are "mobs". > We can't really agree on that unless we define "mobs" in such a way as to allow persnickety particulars. 8^) Because I don't find anything wrong with groupthink, or mobs, it will be difficult for me to justify those persnickety particulars ... and the round-and-round sophistry we'll have to go through to arrive at them. > > The truth (as in the eventual consensus after years of haggling) will be "everything in moderation, including moderation". Being trapped by an entraining pattern is good, as long as it's not permanent. > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Another distinction I would make, not directly in response to any recent remarks in this thread, is the distinction between people (or groups of people) and ideas. True, a group can be built around some ideas, and that
group can have high cohesion or a thick membrane, but ideas can exist without a group having those properties.
One can study sociology without actually being concerned with in the life story of every person. What matters are the generative properties of life -- how predispositions and experiences lead to different kinds of outcomes on average. Sure, there will be some probability that a child with a good upbringing will fall in with a bad crowd and become a chronic user of drugs, or that a young adult will get cancer and create catastrophic consequences for her family, or that for no good reason an imbecile becomes president. There's a non-zero variance in real-world distributions.
To reject tribalism in the way I mean is to learn about the common properties of social systems, and to try to make models more predictive and general. To do this does not imply having a Dunbar number > 7 billion. It helps if a lot of people look at a lot of life stories, but that doesn't imply that those doing the research need to have a social circle of a particular diameter.
Another simple metaphor would be between a (deterministic) pseudo-random number generator having a functional form and a known seed versus the output of that generator. The amount of information in the former is relatively
compact (a few pages of text). However, compressing all of that detail with a popular compression program would not discover that functional form. Knowing the life stories of 7 billion people would be like the output.
Marcus
From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 6:39:18 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] merging with the mob Glen writes:
“Well, I'm not much of a sports oriented person. But sometimes they're useful.” Certainly, sports metaphors are useful to understand tribalism, because sports are tribal activity. I’m reminded of visiting a company in Austin to discuss a project of mutual interest. I didn’t realize I was being pre-interviewed (or whatever that is called) and didn’t even intend to give those signals. Our discussion was going along fine and then they brought up football. I have never watched football and don’t understand its appeal. When they understood this several of them visibly recoiled. My take is that they wanted someone that would project into their (lower dimensional) tribal space in a seamless way. It was an important part of how they got along. You alluded to collective measures of fitness. A progressive’s measure of fitness is not unlike Shannon entropy – let a thousand flowers bloom. A conservative, however, fears that entropy will be too costly and that people will forget previous fit strategies. In principle, maximizing entropy could push out cultural norms since that is copied information. Imagine a finite length bit string representing a program where skills related to football were sacrificed for skills related to curling or dancing (or more esoteric topics). If you think that the available bit string is short, that then one might worry about locally (or universally) promoting the `right’ cultural information in order for people to get along. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
I think both Occupy and the Tea Party, present challenges to your argument, here. What about mobs *without* a "master equation"? ... an, in principle, incompressibility? ... they don't generalize at all? In either case, even the most coherent advocates failed in their descriptions of the "movements". (Scare quotes used to indicate that the reason we use the word "movement" is precisely because these phenomena don't submit to coherent description.)
E.g. to me, much of what's happening, including the "not racist" racism emerging around migration is (stigmergically) arising from a more open-ended, high dimensional, multitude of threats. Any comprehensive predicate for it would go way beyond all the individual silos (sociology, psychology, biology, etc.). It would touch every layer-of-explanation (including explanation-ology). It's possible that such a comprehension might be practically incomputable. (Douglas Adams?) It seems to me like you're claiming the comprehensions *always* exist and are, at least in principle, computable. On 01/25/2018 10:19 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Another distinction I would make, not directly in response to any recent remarks in this thread, is the distinction between people (or groups of people) and ideas. True, a group can be built around some ideas, and that group can have high cohesion or a thick membrane, but ideas can exist without a group having those properties. > > > One can study sociology without actually being concerned with in the life story of every person. What matters are the generative properties of life -- how predispositions and experiences lead to different kinds of outcomes on average. Sure, there will be some probability that a child with a good upbringing will fall in with a bad crowd and become a chronic user of drugs, or that a young adult will get cancer and create catastrophic consequences for her family, or that for no good reason an imbecile becomes president. There's a non-zero variance in real-world distributions. > > > To reject tribalism in the way I mean is to learn about the common properties of social systems, and to try to make models more predictive and general. To do this does not imply having a Dunbar number > 7 billion. It helps if a lot of people look at a lot of life stories, but that doesn't imply that those doing the research need to have a social circle of a particular diameter. > > > Another simple metaphor would be between a (deterministic) pseudo-random number generator having a functional form and a known seed versus the output of that generator. The amount of information in the former is relatively compact (a few pages of text). However, compressing all of that detail with a popular compression program would not discover that functional form. Knowing the life stories of 7 billion people would be like the output. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
< It seems to me like you're claiming the comprehensions *always* exist and are, at least in principle, computable. >
A parochial perspective doesn't *aim* to synthesize multiple local representations into a global view; it aims to only focus on one local prescription. Only by having the ambition of a universalist perspective does one even try to do that synthesis to see what is needed. Whether the best way to do that involves one or a few general models or hundreds of local models which are voted is just a question of what works and what gives insight.
Marcus From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣ <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 12:08:24 PM To: FriAM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] merging with the mob I think both Occupy and the Tea Party, present challenges to your argument, here. What about mobs *without* a "master equation"? ... an, in principle, incompressibility? ... they don't generalize at all? In either case, even the most
coherent advocates failed in their descriptions of the "movements". (Scare quotes used to indicate that the reason we use the word "movement" is precisely because these phenomena don't submit to coherent description.)
E.g. to me, much of what's happening, including the "not racist" racism emerging around migration is (stigmergically) arising from a more open-ended, high dimensional, multitude of threats. Any comprehensive predicate for it would go way beyond all the individual silos (sociology, psychology, biology, etc.). It would touch every layer-of-explanation (including explanation-ology). It's possible that such a comprehension might be practically incomputable. (Douglas Adams?) It seems to me like you're claiming the comprehensions *always* exist and are, at least in principle, computable. On 01/25/2018 10:19 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Another distinction I would make, not directly in response to any recent remarks in this thread, is the distinction between people (or groups of people) and ideas. True, a group can be built around some ideas, and that group can have high cohesion or a thick membrane, but ideas can exist without a group having those properties. > > > One can study sociology without actually being concerned with in the life story of every person. What matters are the generative properties of life -- how predispositions and experiences lead to different kinds of outcomes on average. Sure, there will be some probability that a child with a good upbringing will fall in with a bad crowd and become a chronic user of drugs, or that a young adult will get cancer and create catastrophic consequences for her family, or that for no good reason an imbecile becomes president. There's a non-zero variance in real-world distributions. > > > To reject tribalism in the way I mean is to learn about the common properties of social systems, and to try to make models more predictive and general. To do this does not imply having a Dunbar number > 7 billion. It helps if a lot of people look at a lot of life stories, but that doesn't imply that those doing the research need to have a social circle of a particular diameter. > > > Another simple metaphor would be between a (deterministic) pseudo-random number generator having a functional form and a known seed versus the output of that generator. The amount of information in the former is relatively compact (a few pages of text). However, compressing all of that detail with a popular compression program would not discover that functional form. Knowing the life stories of 7 billion people would be like the output. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
> The truth (as in the eventual consensus after years of haggling) will be "everything in moderation, including moderation". Being trapped by an entraining pattern is good, as long as it's not permanent.
My preferred way to say this, for many years now, has been “Some things in moderation”. I would hope that is the category of humor that for whatever reason appeals to logicians. But nobody ever seems to laugh or be otherwise delighted when I say it. Oh well. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
I think it just represents their attempt to moderate their response to you! btw... as I wrote that I realized how differently we use the term
"moderate" as a verb and as an adjective or noun. The noun
seems to naturally derive from the verb... that if a process is
moderated then it's outcome/result will be "moderate" relative to
the range in an "unmoderated" process, but it is interesting that
some of the Noun-ness seems to stick to the Verb-ness... in
particular I think we often conflate the results of "a moderated
process" with being "moderate" in the sense of "mediocre" or
perhaps "mild" Moderate
On 1/25/18 2:55 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
The truth (as in the eventual consensus after years of haggling) will be "everything in moderation, including moderation". Being trapped by an entraining pattern is good, as long as it's not permanent.My preferred way to say this, for many years now, has been “Some things in moderation”. I would hope that is the category of humor that for whatever reason appeals to logicians. But nobody ever seems to laugh or be otherwise delighted when I say it. Oh well. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
I laughed, though I'm not a logician.
But both of you are pointing out why "some things in moderation" is different from "everything ... including moderation". The latter is obviously loopy, self-referential. It wears its "logical depth" on its sleeve. The former is flattened out, which is what makes it closer to "this sentence is false", but also more hermeneutic ... an inside joke. It moves some of the loopiness from the sequence of words into the words. By invoking "everything in moderation, including moderation", my intention is to say we should all go crazy sporadically. Not periodically, sporadically. I.e. even the moderation of one's moderation should be merely somewhat moderated moderation. And so on ... There has to be a better word for "irregular" than "some" ... unpredictably moderated? Moderate chaos? Regulated chaos? Chaotic governance? Hmmm. On 01/25/2018 02:27 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: > btw... as I wrote that I realized how differently we use the term > "moderate" as a verb and as an adjective or noun. The noun seems to > naturally derive from the verb... that if a process is moderated then > it's outcome/result will be "moderate" relative to the range in an > "unmoderated" process, but it is interesting that some of the Noun-ness > seems to stick to the Verb-ness... in particular I think we often > conflate the results of "a moderated process" with being "moderate" in > the sense of "mediocre" or perhaps "mild" -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |