Friam

Re: words for Nick (political-words focused)

Classic

List

Threaded

17 messages Options

Eric Charles-2

Re: words for Nick (political-words focused)

Liberal; was, "laissez-faire, free market"; is now, "humanist, socialist".

Conservative: was "royalist, authoritarian; is now, "fascist, oligarchic."

It is worse than that. At this point they don't mean anything so clear as what your quote implies.

Circa the French and American revolutions, the royalists were correctly labeled as conservatives, because authoritarian-government was what they had already, and the liberals were progressive, because they thought a world with more freedom would be a better world. So a bunch of the terms became conflated by historic accident.

It should be that there is a spectrum from libral to authoritarian, and an orthagonal scale from progressive to conservative.

A liberal is someone who is striving to increase liberty (for whatever reason). An authoritarian is striving to give control to a small central group or individual (for whatever reason).

A progressive is striving towards some future state (gambling with the current state in the belief there are better states coming). A conservative is striving to maintain the current state (leering of risking what we have, because what comes next might be worse).

It should, therefore, be possible to be a libreal conservative, a liberal progressive, an authoritarian conservative, or an authoritarian progressive, depending on what the current state is, and whether you want to keep it or move on from it.

If we had people on some sort of normal distribution of people in those perspectives, with all of them coming to the town square, they could act as checks and balances on each other. Society-as-a-whole could be most conservative about the things that most needed conserving, while being the most progressive about the things that most needed progressing. Similarly, we could be delicate and precise in our restrictions of freedoms. THAT is the means by which democracy adds value as a means of governing (see Dewey, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and other pragmatist political philosophers). That democracy is sometimes implemented as "50% + 1 can do whatever they want" is a different matter entirely, which is why (as brought up in FRIAM this week), "the tyranny of the majority" was a big topic of discussion at various points in the past.

The conflation of the crucial political terms has made it extremely difficult to have certain types of political conversations in the U.S. For example, the cake-baking controversy:

Some people think that forcing someone to bake a cake for an event they don't want to support is a "liberal" stance. That's crazy. The liberal stance would be to let the bakers do what they want. Telling them they have to bake the cake because a world in which they bake the cake is a better world, is a progressive-authoritarian stance. (It might be the right thing to do, it might be the wrong thing to do; our inability to describe the stances sensibly interferes with our ability to reach consensus on the issue.) Our "liberals" aren't trying to make us freer, they are trying to dictate from a seat of power; their efforts are authoritarian.
Other people think it would be a better world if the baker could refuse to make cakes much more broadly. For example, that it would be better if the bakers could refuse to bake cakes for interracial couples, or for a couple being married by a heathen religion. That isn't conservative at all! It isn't a respect for the hard-fought gains of the past and a reticence to risk losing those gains.

Uhg!

(Yes, yes, many of those so-called conservatives imagine that the "better state" they seek has already existed in some mythic past, but that is a different issue all together; our liberal-progressive founders were inspired by stories of ancient Greece and Rome, but they weren't trying to conserve ancient Greece.)

Some other examples:

We have had Social Security in the U.S. for almost 100 years. At this point, it is a thing achieved in the distant past. Wanting to change social security is progressive, and efforts to ensure social security can continue as it is indefinitely are conservative.
At this point we have had a schizophrenic web of social-safety-net and wealth-redistribution programs for decades (from social security and food stamps to Pell grants, child tax credits, and first-time homebuyer programs). Each program has its own requirements, and its own hoops to jump through, and it could easily become a full time job just trying to get all the benefits one is entitled to. In the face of that, one could easily be a liberal-progressive arguing for Universal Basic Income, if you were using that as a means to dismantle the existing programs and provide people more freedom regarding how they are using the cash you are giving them. Milton Freedman argued in favor of UBI for that reason, but it is hard for most people to imagine that, because "wasn't he a conservative?" In contrast, one could also argue for UBI from an authoritarian position, if you can only think of the effort as coupled with a big tax increase, because your main motivation is to use government power to force more of rich people's money to be given to poor people. The latter is, in comparison to the Freedman version, much closer to the midline of the progressive-conservative spectrum.

Uhg all around!

When Libertarians complain (not as often now as in decades past) the two major parties are "basically the same" (not as true now as in past decades), they mean to point out that both parties are heavily, Heavily, authoritarian. Both parties flood power to the Presidency that shouldn't be there. Both parties want to legislate and regulate how people should behave in a heavy handed manner, in a ridiculously wide range of situations. Both parties are an inconsistent and contradictory mix of progressivism and conservatism, depending on the issue. Etc. See, for example, Pelosi tearing up the state of the union speech while working to nigh-simultaneously to ensuring the renewal of the Patriot Act and FISA, and worse, ensuring that it happened without any of the bi-partisan proposed amendments to enhance privacy protections. That is straight authoritarian-conservative where it counts, with a thin veneer of performative grandstanding. I get it Nancy, "Orange Man Bad!", but, like, would it be that hard to to support even a shred of actually liberal efforts while you are shouting that from the rafters?!?

Sure, some of the things democrats want to dictate about my behavior are different than some of the things conservatives want to dictate... but those are (under more normal circumstances) small details, if you would consider the possibility that we could maybe go a few years without stripping freedoms and without funneling more unchecked power to the Presidency. If I stand a decent distance on the liberal side of the liberal-to-authoritarian spectrum, and both "major parties" stand towards the extreme of the authoritarian side, sharing the variation from authoritarian-progressive to authoritarian-conservative with a heavy amount of overlap, they look pretty similar from where I stand a lot of the time.

Of course, there is a difference, and I have a preference, and there is a lot more pressure to vote that preference this cycle than in more normal cycles... but that is a different issue.

[hidden email]

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 11:22 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

So, we add to Dave's list, as follows.

Liberal; was, "laissez-faire, free market"; is now, "humanist, socialist".

Conservative: was "royalist, authoritarian; is now, "fascist, oligarchic."

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 8:27 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] words for Nick

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 11:24:20AM -0400, Eric Charles wrote:
> "Awesome" is one of my favorites. Now used to indicate general
> goodness. Not generally used in situations where one say "i was in awe".
>
> "Liberal" and "conservative" are two of my least favorite. Liberal
> was about promoting freedom. Conservative was about retaining past
> ways. Note that those are clearly orthogonal issues in their original
> usage, and now we act like they are opposites, which is terrible.

And just as bizarrely, in Australia they are synonyms. The Liberal party is
the conservative party.

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders [hidden email]
http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Prof David West

Re: words for Nick (political-words focused)

Eric C. wrote:

"A liberal is someone who is striving to increase liberty (for whatever reason). An authoritarian is striving to give control to a small central group or individual (for whatever reason)."

Around here, your observation would be 180 degrees opposite.

A liberal (read Democrat) is someone who is striving to increase control by a small central group (by reasons of the fact that they are smarter and more enlightened than everyone else and only centralized government works) A conservative [substituted because I think your use of authoritarian violated the orthogonality you correctly noted.] (read Reupublican) is someone who is striving to increase individual liberty and freedom from intervention (by reason of seeing themselves as adults capable of making their own decisions.)

davew

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020, at 9:03 AM, Eric Charles wrote:

Liberal; was, "laissez-faire, free market"; is now, "humanist, socialist".

Conservative: was "royalist, authoritarian; is now, "fascist, oligarchic."

It is worse than that. At this point they don't mean anything so clear as what your quote implies.

Circa the French and American revolutions, the royalists were correctly labeled as conservatives, because authoritarian-government was what they had already, and the liberals were progressive, because they thought a world with more freedom would be a better world. So a bunch of the terms became conflated by historic accident.

It should be that there is a spectrum from libral to authoritarian, and an orthagonal scale from progressive to conservative.

A liberal is someone who is striving to increase liberty (for whatever reason). An authoritarian is striving to give control to a small central group or individual (for whatever reason).

A progressive is striving towards some future state (gambling with the current state in the belief there are better states coming). A conservative is striving to maintain the current state (leering of risking what we have, because what comes next might be worse).

It should, therefore, be possible to be a libreal conservative, a liberal progressive, an authoritarian conservative, or an authoritarian progressive, depending on what the current state is, and whether you want to keep it or move on from it.

If we had people on some sort of normal distribution of people in those perspectives, with all of them coming to the town square, they could act as checks and balances on each other. Society-as-a-whole could be most conservative about the things that most needed conserving, while being the most progressive about the things that most needed progressing. Similarly, we could be delicate and precise in our restrictions of freedoms. THAT is the means by which democracy adds value as a means of governing (see Dewey, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and other pragmatist political philosophers). That democracy is sometimes implemented as "50% + 1 can do whatever they want" is a different matter entirely, which is why (as brought up in FRIAM this week), "the tyranny of the majority" was a big topic of discussion at various points in the past.

The conflation of the crucial political terms has made it extremely difficult to have certain types of political conversations in the U.S. For example, the cake-baking controversy:
Some people think that forcing someone to bake a cake for an event they don't want to support is a "liberal" stance. That's crazy. The liberal stance would be to let the bakers do what they want. Telling them they have to bake the cake because a world in which they bake the cake is a better world, is a progressive-authoritarian stance. (It might be the right thing to do, it might be the wrong thing to do; our inability to describe the stances sensibly interferes with our ability to reach consensus on the issue.) Our "liberals" aren't trying to make us freer, they are trying to dictate from a seat of power; their efforts are authoritarian.
Other people think it would be a better world if the baker could refuse to make cakes much more broadly. For example, that it would be better if the bakers could refuse to bake cakes for interracial couples, or for a couple being married by a heathen religion. That isn't conservative at all! It isn't a respect for the hard-fought gains of the past and a reticence to risk losing those gains.
Uhg!

(Yes, yes, many of those so-called conservatives imagine that the "better state" they seek has already existed in some mythic past, but that is a different issue all together; our liberal-progressive founders were inspired by stories of ancient Greece and Rome, but they weren't trying to conserve ancient Greece.)

Some other examples:
We have had Social Security in the U.S. for almost 100 years. At this point, it is a thing achieved in the distant past. Wanting to change social security is progressive, and efforts to ensure social security can continue as it is indefinitely are conservative.
At this point we have had a schizophrenic web of social-safety-net and wealth-redistribution programs for decades (from social security and food stamps to Pell grants, child tax credits, and first-time homebuyer programs). Each program has its own requirements, and its own hoops to jump through, and it could easily become a full time job just trying to get all the benefits one is entitled to. In the face of that, one could easily be a liberal-progressive arguing for Universal Basic Income, if you were using that as a means to dismantle the existing programs and provide people more freedom regarding how they are using the cash you are giving them. Milton Freedman argued in favor of UBI for that reason, but it is hard for most people to imagine that, because "wasn't he a conservative?" In contrast, one could also argue for UBI from an authoritarian position, if you can only think of the effort as coupled with a big tax increase, because your main motivation is to use government power to force more of rich people's money to be given to poor people. The latter is, in comparison to the Freedman version, much closer to the midline of the progressive-conservative spectrum.
Uhg all around!

When Libertarians complain (not as often now as in decades past) the two major parties are "basically the same" (not as true now as in past decades), they mean to point out that both parties are heavily, Heavily, authoritarian. Both parties flood power to the Presidency that shouldn't be there. Both parties want to legislate and regulate how people should behave in a heavy handed manner, in a ridiculously wide range of situations. Both parties are an inconsistent and contradictory mix of progressivism and conservatism, depending on the issue. Etc. See, for example, Pelosi tearing up the state of the union speech while working to nigh-simultaneously to ensuring the renewal of the Patriot Act and FISA, and worse, ensuring that it happened without any of the bi-partisan proposed amendments to enhance privacy protections. That is straight authoritarian-conservative where it counts, with a thin veneer of performative grandstanding. I get it Nancy, "Orange Man Bad!", but, like, would it be that hard to to support even a shred of actually liberal efforts while you are shouting that from the rafters?!?

Sure, some of the things democrats want to dictate about my behavior are different than some of the things conservatives want to dictate... but those are (under more normal circumstances) small details, if you would consider the possibility that we could maybe go a few years without stripping freedoms and without funneling more unchecked power to the Presidency. If I stand a decent distance on the liberal side of the liberal-to-authoritarian spectrum, and both "major parties" stand towards the extreme of the authoritarian side, sharing the variation from authoritarian-progressive to authoritarian-conservative with a heavy amount of overlap, they look pretty similar from where I stand a lot of the time.

Of course, there is a difference, and I have a preference, and there is a lot more pressure to vote that preference this cycle than in more normal cycles... but that is a different issue.
[hidden email]

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 11:22 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:
So, we add to Dave's list, as follows.

Liberal; was, "laissez-faire, free market"; is now, "humanist, socialist".

Conservative: was "royalist, authoritarian; is now, "fascist, oligarchic."

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 8:27 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] words for Nick

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 11:24:20AM -0400, Eric Charles wrote:
> "Awesome" is one of my favorites. Now used to indicate general
> goodness. Not generally used in situations where one say "i was in awe".
>
> "Liberal" and "conservative" are two of my least favorite. Liberal
> was about promoting freedom. Conservative was about retaining past
> ways. Note that those are clearly orthogonal issues in their original
> usage, and now we act like they are opposites, which is terrible.

And just as bizarrely, in Australia they are synonyms. The Liberal party is
the conservative party.

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders [hidden email]
http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Eric Charles-2

Re: words for Nick (political-words focused)

David,

That might have been true at some point, it is not any more. At this point they have different oligarchs they would prefer to control us, and those oligarchs have different aspects of our lives that they want to control. Neither major party has any interest in net-increasing personal liberty. The Bush II years saw HUGE decreases in freedom, and a huge uptick in Orwellian messaging (do you remember the "free speech zones"!?! Where Bush would protect your right to speech, but only if you stood in a fenced off cage while you were talking?). Trump certainly hasn't helped. Did Bush I? What regime of Republican control are you trying to reference? McConnell stopped Obama from doing lots of things, but all evidence is (based on his behavior and his overt speech) that his goal was to stonewall Obama, not to fight for our freedom. Plus, a huge chunk of the Republican Party (as it is today) would happily restrict our freedoms in line with the dogma of their particular brand of Christianity.

I mean, you can't be pushing for net freedom if you think a baker should be free to refuse bake a cake for a gay couple, but also think that being a gay couple should be criminal.

Now, maybe you are more annoyed about the freedoms that the Democrats are trying to take away than the freedoms the Republicans are trying to take away. I know many people who feel that way, and I know many who feel the opposite way.... but that doesn't make either one actually pro-freedom.

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 2:21 PM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

Eric C. wrote:

"A liberal is someone who is striving to increase liberty (for whatever reason). An authoritarian is striving to give control to a small central group or individual (for whatever reason)."

Around here, your observation would be 180 degrees opposite.

A liberal (read Democrat) is someone who is striving to increase control by a small central group (by reasons of the fact that they are smarter and more enlightened than everyone else and only centralized government works) A conservative [substituted because I think your use of authoritarian violated the orthogonality you correctly noted.] (read Reupublican) is someone who is striving to increase individual liberty and freedom from intervention (by reason of seeing themselves as adults capable of making their own decisions.)

davew

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020, at 9:03 AM, Eric Charles wrote:
Liberal; was, "laissez-faire, free market"; is now, "humanist, socialist".

Conservative: was "royalist, authoritarian; is now, "fascist, oligarchic."

It is worse than that. At this point they don't mean anything so clear as what your quote implies.

Circa the French and American revolutions, the royalists were correctly labeled as conservatives, because authoritarian-government was what they had already, and the liberals were progressive, because they thought a world with more freedom would be a better world. So a bunch of the terms became conflated by historic accident.

It should be that there is a spectrum from libral to authoritarian, and an orthagonal scale from progressive to conservative.

A liberal is someone who is striving to increase liberty (for whatever reason). An authoritarian is striving to give control to a small central group or individual (for whatever reason).

A progressive is striving towards some future state (gambling with the current state in the belief there are better states coming). A conservative is striving to maintain the current state (leering of risking what we have, because what comes next might be worse).

It should, therefore, be possible to be a libreal conservative, a liberal progressive, an authoritarian conservative, or an authoritarian progressive, depending on what the current state is, and whether you want to keep it or move on from it.

If we had people on some sort of normal distribution of people in those perspectives, with all of them coming to the town square, they could act as checks and balances on each other. Society-as-a-whole could be most conservative about the things that most needed conserving, while being the most progressive about the things that most needed progressing. Similarly, we could be delicate and precise in our restrictions of freedoms. THAT is the means by which democracy adds value as a means of governing (see Dewey, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and other pragmatist political philosophers). That democracy is sometimes implemented as "50% + 1 can do whatever they want" is a different matter entirely, which is why (as brought up in FRIAM this week), "the tyranny of the majority" was a big topic of discussion at various points in the past.

The conflation of the crucial political terms has made it extremely difficult to have certain types of political conversations in the U.S. For example, the cake-baking controversy:
Some people think that forcing someone to bake a cake for an event they don't want to support is a "liberal" stance. That's crazy. The liberal stance would be to let the bakers do what they want. Telling them they have to bake the cake because a world in which they bake the cake is a better world, is a progressive-authoritarian stance. (It might be the right thing to do, it might be the wrong thing to do; our inability to describe the stances sensibly interferes with our ability to reach consensus on the issue.) Our "liberals" aren't trying to make us freer, they are trying to dictate from a seat of power; their efforts are authoritarian.
Other people think it would be a better world if the baker could refuse to make cakes much more broadly. For example, that it would be better if the bakers could refuse to bake cakes for interracial couples, or for a couple being married by a heathen religion. That isn't conservative at all! It isn't a respect for the hard-fought gains of the past and a reticence to risk losing those gains.
Uhg!

(Yes, yes, many of those so-called conservatives imagine that the "better state" they seek has already existed in some mythic past, but that is a different issue all together; our liberal-progressive founders were inspired by stories of ancient Greece and Rome, but they weren't trying to conserve ancient Greece.)

Some other examples:
We have had Social Security in the U.S. for almost 100 years. At this point, it is a thing achieved in the distant past. Wanting to change social security is progressive, and efforts to ensure social security can continue as it is indefinitely are conservative.
At this point we have had a schizophrenic web of social-safety-net and wealth-redistribution programs for decades (from social security and food stamps to Pell grants, child tax credits, and first-time homebuyer programs). Each program has its own requirements, and its own hoops to jump through, and it could easily become a full time job just trying to get all the benefits one is entitled to. In the face of that, one could easily be a liberal-progressive arguing for Universal Basic Income, if you were using that as a means to dismantle the existing programs and provide people more freedom regarding how they are using the cash you are giving them. Milton Freedman argued in favor of UBI for that reason, but it is hard for most people to imagine that, because "wasn't he a conservative?" In contrast, one could also argue for UBI from an authoritarian position, if you can only think of the effort as coupled with a big tax increase, because your main motivation is to use government power to force more of rich people's money to be given to poor people. The latter is, in comparison to the Freedman version, much closer to the midline of the progressive-conservative spectrum.
Uhg all around!

When Libertarians complain (not as often now as in decades past) the two major parties are "basically the same" (not as true now as in past decades), they mean to point out that both parties are heavily, Heavily, authoritarian. Both parties flood power to the Presidency that shouldn't be there. Both parties want to legislate and regulate how people should behave in a heavy handed manner, in a ridiculously wide range of situations. Both parties are an inconsistent and contradictory mix of progressivism and conservatism, depending on the issue. Etc. See, for example, Pelosi tearing up the state of the union speech while working to nigh-simultaneously to ensuring the renewal of the Patriot Act and FISA, and worse, ensuring that it happened without any of the bi-partisan proposed amendments to enhance privacy protections. That is straight authoritarian-conservative where it counts, with a thin veneer of performative grandstanding. I get it Nancy, "Orange Man Bad!", but, like, would it be that hard to to support even a shred of actually liberal efforts while you are shouting that from the rafters?!?

Sure, some of the things democrats want to dictate about my behavior are different than some of the things conservatives want to dictate... but those are (under more normal circumstances) small details, if you would consider the possibility that we could maybe go a few years without stripping freedoms and without funneling more unchecked power to the Presidency. If I stand a decent distance on the liberal side of the liberal-to-authoritarian spectrum, and both "major parties" stand towards the extreme of the authoritarian side, sharing the variation from authoritarian-progressive to authoritarian-conservative with a heavy amount of overlap, they look pretty similar from where I stand a lot of the time.

Of course, there is a difference, and I have a preference, and there is a lot more pressure to vote that preference this cycle than in more normal cycles... but that is a different issue.
[hidden email]

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 11:22 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:
So, we add to Dave's list, as follows.

Liberal; was, "laissez-faire, free market"; is now, "humanist, socialist".

Conservative: was "royalist, authoritarian; is now, "fascist, oligarchic."

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 8:27 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] words for Nick

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 11:24:20AM -0400, Eric Charles wrote:
> "Awesome" is one of my favorites. Now used to indicate general
> goodness. Not generally used in situations where one say "i was in awe".
>
> "Liberal" and "conservative" are two of my least favorite. Liberal
> was about promoting freedom. Conservative was about retaining past
> ways. Note that those are clearly orthogonal issues in their original
> usage, and now we act like they are opposites, which is terrible.

And just as bizarrely, in Australia they are synonyms. The Liberal party is
the conservative party.

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders [hidden email]
http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: words for Nick (political-words focused)

What freedoms are Democrats trying to take away? The freedom to dump mine tailings in creeks? That's the one that I can think of.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 4:41 PM Eric Charles <[hidden email]> wrote:

David,
That might have been true at some point, it is not any more. At this point they have different oligarchs they would prefer to control us, and those oligarchs have different aspects of our lives that they want to control. Neither major party has any interest in net-increasing personal liberty. The Bush II years saw HUGE decreases in freedom, and a huge uptick in Orwellian messaging (do you remember the "free speech zones"!?! Where Bush would protect your right to speech, but only if you stood in a fenced off cage while you were talking?). Trump certainly hasn't helped. Did Bush I? What regime of Republican control are you trying to reference? McConnell stopped Obama from doing lots of things, but all evidence is (based on his behavior and his overt speech) that his goal was to stonewall Obama, not to fight for our freedom. Plus, a huge chunk of the Republican Party (as it is today) would happily restrict our freedoms in line with the dogma of their particular brand of Christianity.

I mean, you can't be pushing for net freedom if you think a baker should be free to refuse bake a cake for a gay couple, but also think that being a gay couple should be criminal.

Now, maybe you are more annoyed about the freedoms that the Democrats are trying to take away than the freedoms the Republicans are trying to take away. I know many people who feel that way, and I know many who feel the opposite way.... but that doesn't make either one actually pro-freedom.

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 2:21 PM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:
Eric C. wrote:

"A liberal is someone who is striving to increase liberty (for whatever reason). An authoritarian is striving to give control to a small central group or individual (for whatever reason)."

Around here, your observation would be 180 degrees opposite.

A liberal (read Democrat) is someone who is striving to increase control by a small central group (by reasons of the fact that they are smarter and more enlightened than everyone else and only centralized government works) A conservative [substituted because I think your use of authoritarian violated the orthogonality you correctly noted.] (read Reupublican) is someone who is striving to increase individual liberty and freedom from intervention (by reason of seeing themselves as adults capable of making their own decisions.)

davew

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020, at 9:03 AM, Eric Charles wrote:
Liberal; was, "laissez-faire, free market"; is now, "humanist, socialist".

Conservative: was "royalist, authoritarian; is now, "fascist, oligarchic."

It is worse than that. At this point they don't mean anything so clear as what your quote implies.

Circa the French and American revolutions, the royalists were correctly labeled as conservatives, because authoritarian-government was what they had already, and the liberals were progressive, because they thought a world with more freedom would be a better world. So a bunch of the terms became conflated by historic accident.

It should be that there is a spectrum from libral to authoritarian, and an orthagonal scale from progressive to conservative.

A liberal is someone who is striving to increase liberty (for whatever reason). An authoritarian is striving to give control to a small central group or individual (for whatever reason).

A progressive is striving towards some future state (gambling with the current state in the belief there are better states coming). A conservative is striving to maintain the current state (leering of risking what we have, because what comes next might be worse).

It should, therefore, be possible to be a libreal conservative, a liberal progressive, an authoritarian conservative, or an authoritarian progressive, depending on what the current state is, and whether you want to keep it or move on from it.

If we had people on some sort of normal distribution of people in those perspectives, with all of them coming to the town square, they could act as checks and balances on each other. Society-as-a-whole could be most conservative about the things that most needed conserving, while being the most progressive about the things that most needed progressing. Similarly, we could be delicate and precise in our restrictions of freedoms. THAT is the means by which democracy adds value as a means of governing (see Dewey, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and other pragmatist political philosophers). That democracy is sometimes implemented as "50% + 1 can do whatever they want" is a different matter entirely, which is why (as brought up in FRIAM this week), "the tyranny of the majority" was a big topic of discussion at various points in the past.

The conflation of the crucial political terms has made it extremely difficult to have certain types of political conversations in the U.S. For example, the cake-baking controversy:
Some people think that forcing someone to bake a cake for an event they don't want to support is a "liberal" stance. That's crazy. The liberal stance would be to let the bakers do what they want. Telling them they have to bake the cake because a world in which they bake the cake is a better world, is a progressive-authoritarian stance. (It might be the right thing to do, it might be the wrong thing to do; our inability to describe the stances sensibly interferes with our ability to reach consensus on the issue.) Our "liberals" aren't trying to make us freer, they are trying to dictate from a seat of power; their efforts are authoritarian.
Other people think it would be a better world if the baker could refuse to make cakes much more broadly. For example, that it would be better if the bakers could refuse to bake cakes for interracial couples, or for a couple being married by a heathen religion. That isn't conservative at all! It isn't a respect for the hard-fought gains of the past and a reticence to risk losing those gains.
Uhg!

(Yes, yes, many of those so-called conservatives imagine that the "better state" they seek has already existed in some mythic past, but that is a different issue all together; our liberal-progressive founders were inspired by stories of ancient Greece and Rome, but they weren't trying to conserve ancient Greece.)

Some other examples:
We have had Social Security in the U.S. for almost 100 years. At this point, it is a thing achieved in the distant past. Wanting to change social security is progressive, and efforts to ensure social security can continue as it is indefinitely are conservative.
At this point we have had a schizophrenic web of social-safety-net and wealth-redistribution programs for decades (from social security and food stamps to Pell grants, child tax credits, and first-time homebuyer programs). Each program has its own requirements, and its own hoops to jump through, and it could easily become a full time job just trying to get all the benefits one is entitled to. In the face of that, one could easily be a liberal-progressive arguing for Universal Basic Income, if you were using that as a means to dismantle the existing programs and provide people more freedom regarding how they are using the cash you are giving them. Milton Freedman argued in favor of UBI for that reason, but it is hard for most people to imagine that, because "wasn't he a conservative?" In contrast, one could also argue for UBI from an authoritarian position, if you can only think of the effort as coupled with a big tax increase, because your main motivation is to use government power to force more of rich people's money to be given to poor people. The latter is, in comparison to the Freedman version, much closer to the midline of the progressive-conservative spectrum.
Uhg all around!

When Libertarians complain (not as often now as in decades past) the two major parties are "basically the same" (not as true now as in past decades), they mean to point out that both parties are heavily, Heavily, authoritarian. Both parties flood power to the Presidency that shouldn't be there. Both parties want to legislate and regulate how people should behave in a heavy handed manner, in a ridiculously wide range of situations. Both parties are an inconsistent and contradictory mix of progressivism and conservatism, depending on the issue. Etc. See, for example, Pelosi tearing up the state of the union speech while working to nigh-simultaneously to ensuring the renewal of the Patriot Act and FISA, and worse, ensuring that it happened without any of the bi-partisan proposed amendments to enhance privacy protections. That is straight authoritarian-conservative where it counts, with a thin veneer of performative grandstanding. I get it Nancy, "Orange Man Bad!", but, like, would it be that hard to to support even a shred of actually liberal efforts while you are shouting that from the rafters?!?

Sure, some of the things democrats want to dictate about my behavior are different than some of the things conservatives want to dictate... but those are (under more normal circumstances) small details, if you would consider the possibility that we could maybe go a few years without stripping freedoms and without funneling more unchecked power to the Presidency. If I stand a decent distance on the liberal side of the liberal-to-authoritarian spectrum, and both "major parties" stand towards the extreme of the authoritarian side, sharing the variation from authoritarian-progressive to authoritarian-conservative with a heavy amount of overlap, they look pretty similar from where I stand a lot of the time.

Of course, there is a difference, and I have a preference, and there is a lot more pressure to vote that preference this cycle than in more normal cycles... but that is a different issue.
[hidden email]

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 11:22 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:
So, we add to Dave's list, as follows.

Liberal; was, "laissez-faire, free market"; is now, "humanist, socialist".

Conservative: was "royalist, authoritarian; is now, "fascist, oligarchic."

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 8:27 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] words for Nick

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 11:24:20AM -0400, Eric Charles wrote:
> "Awesome" is one of my favorites. Now used to indicate general
> goodness. Not generally used in situations where one say "i was in awe".
>
> "Liberal" and "conservative" are two of my least favorite. Liberal
> was about promoting freedom. Conservative was about retaining past
> ways. Note that those are clearly orthogonal issues in their original
> usage, and now we act like they are opposites, which is terrible.

And just as bizarrely, in Australia they are synonyms. The Liberal party is
the conservative party.

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders [hidden email]
http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

gepr

Re: words for Nick (political-words focused)

I think the standard rhetoric is that the Dems limit positive freedoms, where the Reps limit negative freedoms. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/ Though I have lots of problems with this (always false) dichotomy.

There are exceptions, of course. Anti-abortion Reps want to limit your ability to get an abortion (a positive liberty), whereas Dems tend to want to limit your cloistering away from people different from you (a negative liberty) [⛧]. But it's a good enough dichotomy for most things. I tend to think of the Dems as constraint-based solvers (inverse map) and Reps as positivists (forward map). Personally, I try to be pluralist and agnostic and choose solvers that seem to have a history of working.

[⛧] I'd be happy to live somewhere without any sushi, for example. Those damned Democrats keep trying to force me to eat sushi. 8^D I have the right to live in a sushi-free zone. Don't bring your damned sushi to go plate into the local tap room or I'll be forced to shoot you in the face with my 9mm loaded with 15 hollow points that I trained for a WHOLE HOUR so I can carry it in my pocket.

On 8/22/20 5:26 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> What freedoms are Democrats trying to take away? The freedom to dump mine tailings in creeks? That's the one that I can think of.

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: words for Nick (political-words focused)

I have never eaten nor will I ever eat sushi.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 9:10 AM glen∉ℂ <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think the standard rhetoric is that the Dems limit positive freedoms, where the Reps limit negative freedoms. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/ Though I have lots of problems with this (always false) dichotomy.

There are exceptions, of course. Anti-abortion Reps want to limit your ability to get an abortion (a positive liberty), whereas Dems tend to want to limit your cloistering away from people different from you (a negative liberty) [⛧]. But it's a good enough dichotomy for most things. I tend to think of the Dems as constraint-based solvers (inverse map) and Reps as positivists (forward map). Personally, I try to be pluralist and agnostic and choose solvers that seem to have a history of working.

[⛧] I'd be happy to live somewhere without any sushi, for example. Those damned Democrats keep trying to force me to eat sushi. 8^D I have the right to live in a sushi-free zone. Don't bring your damned sushi to go plate into the local tap room or I'll be forced to shoot you in the face with my 9mm loaded with 15 hollow points that I trained for a WHOLE HOUR so I can carry it in my pocket.

On 8/22/20 5:26 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> What freedoms are Democrats trying to take away? The freedom to dump mine tailings in creeks? That's the one that I can think of.

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Jochen Fromm-5

Re: words for Nick (political-words focused)

What is so bad about Sushi? It is a bit fishy and cold, but on hot summer days it can be refreshing. I am not a fan of raw fish but good Sushi is an art.

-J.

-------- Original message --------

From: Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]>

Date: 8/23/20 18:52 (GMT+01:00)

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] words for Nick (political-words focused)

I have never eaten nor will I ever eat sushi.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 9:10 AM glen∉ℂ <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think the standard rhetoric is that the Dems limit positive freedoms, where the Reps limit negative freedoms. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/ Though I have lots of problems with this (always false) dichotomy.

There are exceptions, of course. Anti-abortion Reps want to limit your ability to get an abortion (a positive liberty), whereas Dems tend to want to limit your cloistering away from people different from you (a negative liberty) [⛧]. But it's a good enough dichotomy for most things. I tend to think of the Dems as constraint-based solvers (inverse map) and Reps as positivists (forward map). Personally, I try to be pluralist and agnostic and choose solvers that seem to have a history of working.

[⛧] I'd be happy to live somewhere without any sushi, for example. Those damned Democrats keep trying to force me to eat sushi. 8^D I have the right to live in a sushi-free zone. Don't bring your damned sushi to go plate into the local tap room or I'll be forced to shoot you in the face with my 9mm loaded with 15 hollow points that I trained for a WHOLE HOUR so I can carry it in my pocket.

On 8/22/20 5:26 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> What freedoms are Democrats trying to take away? The freedom to dump mine tailings in creeks? That's the one that I can think of.

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Gary Schiltz-4

Re: words for Nick (political-words focused)

In reply to this post by gepr

I'm sure there are studies showing the dangers of exposure to second hand sushi. I know the smell lakes me want to barf.

On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 10:10 AM glen∉ℂ <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think the standard rhetoric is that the Dems limit positive freedoms, where the Reps limit negative freedoms. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/ Though I have lots of problems with this (always false) dichotomy.

There are exceptions, of course. Anti-abortion Reps want to limit your ability to get an abortion (a positive liberty), whereas Dems tend to want to limit your cloistering away from people different from you (a negative liberty) [⛧]. But it's a good enough dichotomy for most things. I tend to think of the Dems as constraint-based solvers (inverse map) and Reps as positivists (forward map). Personally, I try to be pluralist and agnostic and choose solvers that seem to have a history of working.

[⛧] I'd be happy to live somewhere without any sushi, for example. Those damned Democrats keep trying to force me to eat sushi. 8^D I have the right to live in a sushi-free zone. Don't bring your damned sushi to go plate into the local tap room or I'll be forced to shoot you in the face with my 9mm loaded with 15 hollow points that I trained for a WHOLE HOUR so I can carry it in my pocket.

On 8/22/20 5:26 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

> What freedoms are Democrats trying to take away? The freedom to dump mine tailings in creeks? That's the one that I can think of.

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

thompnickson2

Re: words for Nick (political-words focused)

In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2

I would sooner eat Dog.

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2020 11:20 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] words for Nick (political-words focused)

What is so bad about Sushi? It is a bit fishy and cold, but on hot summer days it can be refreshing. I am not a fan of raw fish but good Sushi is an art.

-J.

-------- Original message --------

From: Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]>

Date: 8/23/20 18:52 (GMT+01:00)

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] words for Nick (political-words focused)

I have never eaten nor will I ever eat sushi.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 9:10 AM glen∉ℂ <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think the standard rhetoric is that the Dems limit positive freedoms, where the Reps limit negative freedoms. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/ Though I have lots of problems with this (always false) dichotomy.

There are exceptions, of course. Anti-abortion Reps want to limit your ability to get an abortion (a positive liberty), whereas Dems tend to want to limit your cloistering away from people different from you (a negative liberty) [⛧]. But it's a good enough dichotomy for most things. I tend to think of the Dems as constraint-based solvers (inverse map) and Reps as positivists (forward map). Personally, I try to be pluralist and agnostic and choose solvers that seem to have a history of working.

[⛧] I'd be happy to live somewhere without any sushi, for example. Those damned Democrats keep trying to force me to eat sushi. 8^D I have the right to live in a sushi-free zone. Don't bring your damned sushi to go plate into the local tap room or I'll be forced to shoot you in the face with my 9mm loaded with 15 hollow points that I trained for a WHOLE HOUR so I can carry it in my pocket.

On 8/22/20 5:26 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> What freedoms are Democrats trying to take away? The freedom to dump mine tailings in creeks? That's the one that I can think of.

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Prof David West

Re: words for Nick (political-words focused)

The year I lived in Japan, I ate sushi so much that I lost all appetite for it for a couple of decades. But my acceptance level has returned. It is quite tasty. I especially like raw tuna. I have had Fugu and the tingling sensation on lips and tongue is incomparable to any other dish. On two occasions I ate live fish, once in a tofu soup heated at your table; the fish burrowing into the tofu cubes to avoid the heat, then you toss back the tofu. The other time was catching a small fish with your chopsticks, dipping it in a hot sauce and tossing it back. As it wiggled down your throat the hot sauce felt like burning lava, then the heat exploded and you did not even notice the rest of the fish you ate.

One of the wonders of being an anthropologist is eating exotic foods in order not to insult your hosts.

davew

On Sun, Aug 23, 2020, at 1:29 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

I would sooner eat Dog.

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2020 11:20 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] words for Nick (political-words focused)

What is so bad about Sushi? It is a bit fishy and cold, but on hot summer days it can be refreshing. I am not a fan of raw fish but good Sushi is an art.

-J.

-------- Original message --------
From: Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]>
Date: 8/23/20 18:52 (GMT+01:00)
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] words for Nick (political-words focused)

I have never eaten nor will I ever eat sushi.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 9:10 AM glen∉ℂ <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think the standard rhetoric is that the Dems limit positive freedoms, where the Reps limit negative freedoms. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/ Though I have lots of problems with this (always false) dichotomy.

There are exceptions, of course. Anti-abortion Reps want to limit your ability to get an abortion (a positive liberty), whereas Dems tend to want to limit your cloistering away from people different from you (a negative liberty) [⛧]. But it's a good enough dichotomy for most things. I tend to think of the Dems as constraint-based solvers (inverse map) and Reps as positivists (forward map). Personally, I try to be pluralist and agnostic and choose solvers that seem to have a history of working.

[⛧] I'd be happy to live somewhere without any sushi, for example. Those damned Democrats keep trying to force me to eat sushi. 8^D I have the right to live in a sushi-free zone. Don't bring your damned sushi to go plate into the local tap room or I'll be forced to shoot you in the face with my 9mm loaded with 15 hollow points that I trained for a WHOLE HOUR so I can carry it in my pocket.

On 8/22/20 5:26 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> What freedoms are Democrats trying to take away? The freedom to dump mine tailings in creeks? That's the one that I can think of.

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: words for Nick (political-words focused)

I'm glad I majored in math.

On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 8:37 PM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

The year I lived in Japan, I ate sushi so much that I lost all appetite for it for a couple of decades. But my acceptance level has returned. It is quite tasty. I especially like raw tuna. I have had Fugu and the tingling sensation on lips and tongue is incomparable to any other dish. On two occasions I ate live fish, once in a tofu soup heated at your table; the fish burrowing into the tofu cubes to avoid the heat, then you toss back the tofu. The other time was catching a small fish with your chopsticks, dipping it in a hot sauce and tossing it back. As it wiggled down your throat the hot sauce felt like burning lava, then the heat exploded and you did not even notice the rest of the fish you ate.

One of the wonders of being an anthropologist is eating exotic foods in order not to insult your hosts.

davew

On Sun, Aug 23, 2020, at 1:29 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
I would sooner eat Dog.

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2020 11:20 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] words for Nick (political-words focused)

What is so bad about Sushi? It is a bit fishy and cold, but on hot summer days it can be refreshing. I am not a fan of raw fish but good Sushi is an art.

-J.

-------- Original message --------
From: Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]>
Date: 8/23/20 18:52 (GMT+01:00)
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] words for Nick (political-words focused)

I have never eaten nor will I ever eat sushi.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 9:10 AM glen∉ℂ <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think the standard rhetoric is that the Dems limit positive freedoms, where the Reps limit negative freedoms. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/ Though I have lots of problems with this (always false) dichotomy.

There are exceptions, of course. Anti-abortion Reps want to limit your ability to get an abortion (a positive liberty), whereas Dems tend to want to limit your cloistering away from people different from you (a negative liberty) [⛧]. But it's a good enough dichotomy for most things. I tend to think of the Dems as constraint-based solvers (inverse map) and Reps as positivists (forward map). Personally, I try to be pluralist and agnostic and choose solvers that seem to have a history of working.

[⛧] I'd be happy to live somewhere without any sushi, for example. Those damned Democrats keep trying to force me to eat sushi. 8^D I have the right to live in a sushi-free zone. Don't bring your damned sushi to go plate into the local tap room or I'll be forced to shoot you in the face with my 9mm loaded with 15 hollow points that I trained for a WHOLE HOUR so I can carry it in my pocket.

On 8/22/20 5:26 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> What freedoms are Democrats trying to take away? The freedom to dump mine tailings in creeks? That's the one that I can think of.

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918

Carl Tollander

Re: words for Nick (political-words focused)

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Ah, but have you tried kusaya?

Carl

On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 8:37 PM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

The year I lived in Japan, I ate sushi so much that I lost all appetite for it for a couple of decades. But my acceptance level has returned. It is quite tasty. I especially like raw tuna. I have had Fugu and the tingling sensation on lips and tongue is incomparable to any other dish. On two occasions I ate live fish, once in a tofu soup heated at your table; the fish burrowing into the tofu cubes to avoid the heat, then you toss back the tofu. The other time was catching a small fish with your chopsticks, dipping it in a hot sauce and tossing it back. As it wiggled down your throat the hot sauce felt like burning lava, then the heat exploded and you did not even notice the rest of the fish you ate.

One of the wonders of being an anthropologist is eating exotic foods in order not to insult your hosts.

davew

On Sun, Aug 23, 2020, at 1:29 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
I would sooner eat Dog.

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2020 11:20 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] words for Nick (political-words focused)

What is so bad about Sushi? It is a bit fishy and cold, but on hot summer days it can be refreshing. I am not a fan of raw fish but good Sushi is an art.

-J.

-------- Original message --------
From: Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]>
Date: 8/23/20 18:52 (GMT+01:00)
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] words for Nick (political-words focused)

I have never eaten nor will I ever eat sushi.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 9:10 AM glen∉ℂ <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think the standard rhetoric is that the Dems limit positive freedoms, where the Reps limit negative freedoms. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/ Though I have lots of problems with this (always false) dichotomy.

There are exceptions, of course. Anti-abortion Reps want to limit your ability to get an abortion (a positive liberty), whereas Dems tend to want to limit your cloistering away from people different from you (a negative liberty) [⛧]. But it's a good enough dichotomy for most things. I tend to think of the Dems as constraint-based solvers (inverse map) and Reps as positivists (forward map). Personally, I try to be pluralist and agnostic and choose solvers that seem to have a history of working.

[⛧] I'd be happy to live somewhere without any sushi, for example. Those damned Democrats keep trying to force me to eat sushi. 8^D I have the right to live in a sushi-free zone. Don't bring your damned sushi to go plate into the local tap room or I'll be forced to shoot you in the face with my 9mm loaded with 15 hollow points that I trained for a WHOLE HOUR so I can carry it in my pocket.

On 8/22/20 5:26 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> What freedoms are Democrats trying to take away? The freedom to dump mine tailings in creeks? That's the one that I can think of.

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Prof David West

Re: words for Nick (political-words focused)

managed to avoid - except, I think, when it was part of another dish. I like salty, but the strong fish smell kind of put me off.

davew

On Sun, Aug 23, 2020, at 10:32 PM, Carl Tollander wrote:

Ah, but have you tried kusaya?

Carl

On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 8:37 PM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

The year I lived in Japan, I ate sushi so much that I lost all appetite for it for a couple of decades. But my acceptance level has returned. It is quite tasty. I especially like raw tuna. I have had Fugu and the tingling sensation on lips and tongue is incomparable to any other dish. On two occasions I ate live fish, once in a tofu soup heated at your table; the fish burrowing into the tofu cubes to avoid the heat, then you toss back the tofu. The other time was catching a small fish with your chopsticks, dipping it in a hot sauce and tossing it back. As it wiggled down your throat the hot sauce felt like burning lava, then the heat exploded and you did not even notice the rest of the fish you ate.

One of the wonders of being an anthropologist is eating exotic foods in order not to insult your hosts.

davew

On Sun, Aug 23, 2020, at 1:29 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
I would sooner eat Dog.

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2020 11:20 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] words for Nick (political-words focused)

What is so bad about Sushi? It is a bit fishy and cold, but on hot summer days it can be refreshing. I am not a fan of raw fish but good Sushi is an art.

-J.

-------- Original message --------
From: Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]>
Date: 8/23/20 18:52 (GMT+01:00)
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] words for Nick (political-words focused)

I have never eaten nor will I ever eat sushi.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 9:10 AM glen∉ℂ <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think the standard rhetoric is that the Dems limit positive freedoms, where the Reps limit negative freedoms. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/ Though I have lots of problems with this (always false) dichotomy.

There are exceptions, of course. Anti-abortion Reps want to limit your ability to get an abortion (a positive liberty), whereas Dems tend to want to limit your cloistering away from people different from you (a negative liberty) [⛧]. But it's a good enough dichotomy for most things. I tend to think of the Dems as constraint-based solvers (inverse map) and Reps as positivists (forward map). Personally, I try to be pluralist and agnostic and choose solvers that seem to have a history of working.

[⛧] I'd be happy to live somewhere without any sushi, for example. Those damned Democrats keep trying to force me to eat sushi. 8^D I have the right to live in a sushi-free zone. Don't bring your damned sushi to go plate into the local tap room or I'll be forced to shoot you in the face with my 9mm loaded with 15 hollow points that I trained for a WHOLE HOUR so I can carry it in my pocket.

On 8/22/20 5:26 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> What freedoms are Democrats trying to take away? The freedom to dump mine tailings in creeks? That's the one that I can think of.

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Steve Smith

Re: words for Nick (political-words focused)

In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2

Sushi lovers -

I've never been able to develop (nor really understand) the eating of fish/seafood.

I grew up completely landlocked in the Rocky Mountains where it was at the very least a significant excursion to get to a *small* lake where there *might be* a few trout stocked. The process of removing them from said waters by a hook through their lip, killing them (or more often letting them suffocate to death), and removing the unpalatable parts did not make me want to eat them more, only less. The very rare occasion my mother fixed us frozen/breaded/tartared "fish sticks" were pretty neutral for me. I think I knew the connection but the preparation style/process was pretty good at obscuring the source, including the "fishy taste".

By the time I was in my mid teens I was developing an idealism that suggested strongly to me that I should probably not eat anything that I wasn't willing to capture, kill, clean, butcher, prepare. This lead me to a *mostly* vegetarian diet well into my 30s (to which I have returned). It also lead me to watch with puzzlement as many of my peers enjoyed their meat/fowl/fish dishes while being at least "queasy" when confronted with their sources. Crab and Lobster being a few of the more disturbing examples... when the very same diners would probably recoil or at least cringe if they were approached by a spider or any insect larger than a speck. I have "forced" myself to eat a variety of foods in the spirit of Dave's "Anthropologist" posture, but generally have not found a particular *taste for* any of them, in particular seafood and insects.

When my older daughter graduated from her undergrad in Santa Cruz, CA, I hosted a dinner for her at her chosen restaurant. Surprise! It was a seafood restaurant and the entire contingent of 20-30 friends and family were excited. Few if any were used to getting "good, fresh seafood". In the spirit of supporting my daughter and the other guests, I allowed many of them to offer me their favorite delicacy... "MmmmmMMMMM!" they would say and I would take a bite and say "hmmmmm???...." I have no idea what all I tasted that night. I have a pretty good ability to abstract myself from visceral things when I need/choose to, so I *can* look a king crab in the eyestalk while I suck the flesh from his antennae, but that doesn't mean I *enjoy* it. A few hours later, after returning to the friends home we were staying with, I began to violently and involuntarily empty my entire GI tract of everything I'd eaten through every available orifice. This continued for roughly 2 days. My best guess is that I, in fact, am allergic to *some* type of seafood, and was left with the belief that said allergy may well be part of what informs my lack of interest and/or distaste for "fishy" flavors. I've continued to sample "this and that" since then, but much more carefully. The most famous of seafood allergies, I believe, includes scallops which I distinctly remember at least one person thrusting into my mouth and telling me how much I would "enjoy" them.... "MMMMMMMmmMMM!". I didn't notice them to go down one way or the other (tasty or repugnant) beyond my over-arching distate for "things that taste fishy", which *everything* did that evening. I have declined "MMMMMmmMMMMMmmm!" scallops a few times since then...

I have a small outdoor pond which I sometimes have to (re)stock with goldfish. Their role is primarily mosquito (larvae) control. When I go to the pet store, I buy their "feeder fish" stocked to feed other animals, paying $.15-$.30 each. I'm not sure what pets eat these fish (bigger fish? frogs? turtles? snakes?)... the aquarium person and/or the clerk almost always asks me "what do you feed these to?" which often elicits a smart-ass-coy response of "my old Fraternity is getting together for a reunion"... to which I relent after a second of their "shock" and say... "I feed these to raccoons"... and then relent with ... "they eat mosquito larva in my outdoor pool, and over time, the raccoons often visit and fish them out".

If I were in a situation where fish-protein was the most obvious source of food, I am sure I could come to appreciate it... but I don't imagine I will ever find pleasure in eating raw fish nor live fish in what I'd call "normal circumstances". More power to all you sushi lovers, even those landlocked 1000 miles from the source? 'mmmmMMMmmmmm!!!!".

- Steve

On 8/23/20 10:17 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

I'm glad I majored in math.

On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 8:37 PM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

The year I lived in Japan, I ate sushi so much that I lost all appetite for it for a couple of decades. But my acceptance level has returned. It is quite tasty. I especially like raw tuna. I have had Fugu and the tingling sensation on lips and tongue is incomparable to any other dish. On two occasions I ate live fish, once in a tofu soup heated at your table; the fish burrowing into the tofu cubes to avoid the heat, then you toss back the tofu. The other time was catching a small fish with your chopsticks, dipping it in a hot sauce and tossing it back. As it wiggled down your throat the hot sauce felt like burning lava, then the heat exploded and you did not even notice the rest of the fish you ate.

One of the wonders of being an anthropologist is eating exotic foods in order not to insult your hosts.

davew

On Sun, Aug 23, 2020, at 1:29 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

I would sooner eat Dog.

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm

Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2020 11:20 AM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] words for Nick (political-words focused)

What is so bad about Sushi? It is a bit fishy and cold, but on hot summer days it can be refreshing. I am not a fan of raw fish but good Sushi is an art.

-J.

-------- Original message --------

From: Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]>

Date: 8/23/20 18:52 (GMT+01:00)

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] words for Nick (political-words focused)

I have never eaten nor will I ever eat sushi.

---

Frank C. Wimberly

140 Calle Ojo Feliz,

Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918

Santa Fe, NM

On Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 9:10 AM glen∉ℂ <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think the standard rhetoric is that the Dems limit positive freedoms, where the Reps limit negative freedoms. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/ Though I have lots of problems with this (always false) dichotomy.

There are exceptions, of course. Anti-abortion Reps want to limit your ability to get an abortion (a positive liberty), whereas Dems tend to want to limit your cloistering away from people different from you (a negative liberty) [⛧]. But it's a good enough dichotomy for most things. I tend to think of the Dems as constraint-based solvers (inverse map) and Reps as positivists (forward map). Personally, I try to be pluralist and agnostic and choose solvers that seem to have a history of working.

[⛧] I'd be happy to live somewhere without any sushi, for example. Those damned Democrats keep trying to force me to eat sushi. 8^D I have the right to live in a sushi-free zone. Don't bring your damned sushi to go plate into the local tap room or I'll be forced to shoot you in the face with my 9mm loaded with 15 hollow points that I trained for a WHOLE HOUR so I can carry it in my pocket.

On 8/22/20 5:26 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

> What freedoms are Democrats trying to take away? The freedom to dump mine tailings in creeks? That's the one that I can think of.

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

--

Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

jon zingale

Re: words for Nick (political-words focused)

For most of my life, my father has lived two blocks from Lake Erie, and like
any Great Lakes raised rust-belter, I was raised with a healthy fear of
large bodies of water (and the alien lifeforms beneath the surface). This
fear was only exacerbated when at the age of 3 or 4 my mother and stepfather
thought it would be funny to have me bathe with the lobster we would cook
for dinner that night. To this day, I still have a very difficult time
entering a lake or river. Then in 2006, while living between New Orleans and
Houma Lousiana, my feeling began to change. In the week leading up to Mardi
Gras, small barrooms offer pots of gumbo and jambalaya, and eventually,
Louisiana cooking swayed my palette (and psyche) to the fish-side. Shortly
after, I found myself hitchhiking and camping around the country with the
money I had saved from a medical secretary job a year before. At a 7-11
outside of Steamboat Springs, I flagged a ride that landed me in Portland
Oregon, where I immediately found work dishwashing at a Sushi restaurant on
Gladstone. With a bottomless miso bowl full of hot sake above the dish pit,
I developed a taste for sushi by grifting the remains left by wealthy
Portland patrons. While sushi isn't my favorite food, I can appreciate it.
Surprisingly, over the last few days, I have had an overwhelming hankering
for lobster.

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Steve Smith

Re: words for Nick (political-words focused)

Jon -

Thanks for the antidotal anecdote to my own anecdote.

Mary is a more strict vegetarian than I, up to fish... she eats fish
but does not expect me to procure or prepare them for her.   I have seen
crayfish in the ponding areas on the Rio Grande near my home...   I
sometimes consider capturing a few to live in my pond, but they probably
won't make it into a Jambalaya (nor crawfish pie, me oh my oh).

- Steve

On 8/24/20 1:24 PM, jon zingale wrote:

> For most of my life, my father has lived two blocks from Lake Erie, and like
> any Great Lakes raised rust-belter, I was raised with a healthy fear of
> large bodies of water (and the alien lifeforms beneath the surface). This
> fear was only exacerbated when at the age of 3 or 4 my mother and stepfather
> thought it would be funny to have me bathe with the lobster we would cook
> for dinner that night. To this day, I still have a very difficult time
> entering a lake or river. Then in 2006, while living between New Orleans and
> Houma Lousiana, my feeling began to change. In the week leading up to Mardi
> Gras, small barrooms offer pots of gumbo and jambalaya, and eventually,
> Louisiana cooking swayed my palette (and psyche) to the fish-side. Shortly
> after, I found myself hitchhiking and camping around the country with the
> money I had saved from a medical secretary job a year before. At a 7-11
> outside of Steamboat Springs, I flagged a ride that landed me in Portland
> Oregon, where I immediately found work dishwashing at a Sushi restaurant on
> Gladstone. With a bottomless miso bowl full of hot sake above the dish pit,
> I developed a taste for sushi by grifting the remains left by wealthy
> Portland patrons. While sushi isn't my favorite food, I can appreciate it.
> Surprisingly, over the last few days, I have had an overwhelming hankering
> for lobster.
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

jon zingale

Re: words for Nick (political-words focused)

...but son of a gun, you'll have big fun on the rio...

My buddy, JP, has a big crawfish boil every year down in La Cienega. I'm
pretty sure they fly the crawfish in though.

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/