Friam

WARNING: Political Argument in Progress

Classic

List

Threaded

30 messages Options

glen e. p. ropella-2

Re: WARNING: Political Argument in Progress

Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote circa 10-05-17 04:20 PM:
> This now introduces a new dimension, Ethics, I believe. The displacement of
> a rock seems clearly outside of any ethical discussion but the displacement
> of Peasants is a different matter.

I'm not so sure about that. Any action where the ultimate effects are
not considered is, at least, irresponsible if not negligent,
exploitative, or abusive. Hence, the displacement of a rock may or may
not be unethical and the displacement of peasants may or may not be
unethical. What makes an action [un]ethical is the full (attempt at a)
cost/benefit analysis, including hidden and unintended costs and benefits.

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com

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

Nick Thompson

Re: WARNING: Political Argument in Progress

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

All,

I am interested in what you Libertarians have to say about the Schelling
situation. Please, for the moment, let's stipulate to the model and its
verisimulitude. Lets further stipulate that NOBODY wants to live in a
segregated neighborhood, but EVERYBODY wants to have just a few of their
own kind around. (I am not sure what that means, either, but let's
stipulate, all the same.) Now, given Schelling, we all end up living in
segragated neighborhoods, if we are Libertarians, right?

Is that Tough S--t? Or is their a role for government in this sort of
situation.

nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe]

> [Original Message]
> From: glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]>
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
> Date: 5/17/2010 5:39:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WARNING: Political Argument in Progress
>
> Nicholas Thompson wrote circa 10-05-17 11:13 AM:
> > This sounds like a problem for complexitists and control system
theorists.

>
> Right. And although Russ A has come closest to an "evidence-based"
> proposal for CU vs. FEC, with the following two injections:
>
> Russ Abbott wrote circa 10-05-15 02:02 PM:
> > It seems to me a similar problem happens with free speech. When some
> > of the speakers get so loud that they effectively drown out the rest,
> > free speech does not work as intended.
>
> Russ Abbott wrote circa 10-05-17 03:09 PM:
> > From a complexity perspective libertarianism is aligned with favoring
> > a diversity of autonomous agents -- as in a complex system.
> >
> > It seems to me that a complex system can reasonably be characterized
> > as one in which there are many autonomous agents, and there is a
> > reasonable diversity among them with respect to how they act.
>
> I don't think that takes us far enough. A diversity of autonomous
> agents is a bit too vague, especially given the dialog about fear,
> power, corruption, selfish vs. common (obfuscated selfishness), etc.
>
> I think there is something to be gained by examining the CU vs. FEC
> decision in the context of a scale-free network of "freely" speaking

agents.

>
> I've heard effective rhetoric that claims that most businesses don't
> engage in political speech AT ALL because it's not good for business.
> Like all simplifications, this has a lot of truth to it. Go into a
> local business and ask the manager whether s/he advocates for gay
> marriage and see what type of response you get. But there's also plenty
> of anecdotal evidence that many (smaller) businesses regularly engage in
> political speech (like the doctor who put the sign in his window telling
> people who voted for Obama to find another doctor).
>
> Ultimately, I think we might design a study that sampled organizations
> (profit and non-profit), with investigations of things both inside and
> outside their specific domains, all across the spectrum, from huge
> multinational corporations down to mom-and-pop shops, to try to find out
> a little more about how "free speech" really plays out in such
> organizations.
>
> My guess is that "corporations as we the people" has little to do with
> it and the controversy is really about "organizations _designed_
> specifically _for_ rhetoric." Perhaps a good example might be the likes
> of the National Milk Producers Federation and the International Dairy
> Foods Association. The purposes of groups like these seems to be pure
> rhetoric.
>
> Again, on the one hand, the abstraction provided by professional
> persuaders like those at the NMPF is a good thing because it is
> difficult and expensive to develop rhetoric good enough to persuade
> bunches of lawyers (especially all the way up to the SCOTUS). No single
> dairy farmer, no matter how bright or wealthy, can develop that
> rhetoric. So, accumulation of resources is systemically _necessary_ to
> construct the salient rhetoric.
>
> I.e. we _must_ have organizations at this level of abstraction. It's
> the only way to do it in a byzantine rule of law system like the one we
> have. And, hence, such organizations _must_ be able to spread their
> rhetoric freely, otherwise, we'd be defeating our own purposes, working
> against the system of law we claim to facilitate.
>
> On the other hand, such accumulation of resources and the sophisticated,
> arcane, knowledge it takes to generate such rhetoric presents a risk
> that, as RussA says, can produce rhetoric so LOUD that it drowns out any
> "little guys" who may have a rhetoric-busting point to make.
>
> My conjecture would be, then, that a robust organization for "free
> speech" would target a scale-free network of rhetorical agents, many
> small quiet agents and only a few big loud agents. This is a bit more
> refined than RussA's conjecture that it might consist of a simple
> diversity of agents. I guess I'd also want to specify that the
> diversity exists in all dimensions, not just which rhetoric (political
> party), purpose (branches of gov't), size, or power.
>
> --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com
>
>
> --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Victoria Hughes

Re: WARNING: Political Argument in Progress, Beep Beep Beep

In reply to this post by Vladimyr Burachynsky

IT SEEMS to ME

Steve, Vlad and the rest of ya,

that barring an INPERSON Whiskey+Stout+Bourbon-based discussion of this,

there are assumptions running rife and leaving little hoofprints all over this conversation that need addressing. Start with-

How are you defining power?

You speak of it in terms of control and fear, but not all power is used to control and force nature/others/etc.

You are using a very broad brush here. You are not balancing your particular use of the word/ concept with the others. Tautology.

That what you smart people mean to do?

There are 6 billion people on the planet, and even consigning those 6B to a few big generalized tendencies, you are extrapolating behaviours from one group onto another without much justification.

Yup, power is very often used in all the horrendous ways you both describe and we have experienced, but that is not the only way power has been used.

(This is also a variation of the architecture, barbarism and monolithic culture discussion, to which I did not chime in on though sorely tempted. It really isn't useful to use only examples that support your conclusions. The Hopis built sprawling large buildings that are still inhabited after 800 years and nary a cut-off foot in sight. Took the Spanish Catholics to do that, and they didn't even have a building nearby.)

I agree with Steve that a craving is indicative: that in many cases

the quest for power is the problem, not the power itself.

Then the issue reverts to the personality constellation seeking the power.

But not all of those seeking power want to use it for harm. "Power over" vs "power with".

The definition of power is changing as we speak: we can help or hinder.

I will leave the whole gender discussion aside for the moment, but don't think I am not watching that one.

> You might actually ask the women on this list about power, rather than announcing what we think. Extrapolation from teenage behaviour is not applicable to the sophisticated feminine intellects, interests and abilities on this list.

I vote we get Vlad down here so we can really have this conversation. Anyone who writes

'The displacement of a rock seems clearly outside of any ethical discussion but the displacement of Peasants is a different matter' should be thoroughly assimilated at the Cowgirl.

Just read Glen R's comment about rock-moving as irresponsible, and agree with the basic point: that actions are better done with awareness and deliberation.

NO, I am not saying an abusive act done with deliberation is better than a non-abusive act done without thought. Can we not agree that there are people who aim to benefit others, and do so with power and deliberation?

Just reading about the Turkish/Greek population exchange of 1923, as one in a line of horrific thoughtless acts by people with power over others....

I am not at all saying it doesn't happen.

I am saying that a fear of power prevents it from ever being used for good, which it is occasionally. But the desire for it persists, and if we try to prevent it, the desire is amplified. Humans. Lizards and lemurs.

The Dalai Lama 'controls' between ten and twenty million people, (Wiki.) but he is not using an army of ten+ million to infiltrate and force out the Chinese from the land they invaded. Don't say 'well his religion prevents him' because that is pointless reasoning: by your standards the choice he has is to use power for good or ill. The source of the power was his choice to embrace (and by the way did you know that he was always predicted to be the last Dalai Lama? The traditions all said that the 14th would be the end of the lineage. He knew that from the beginning.

And whatever you may think of Bill Gates, his money gives him enormous power, but he has not taken over the military of small countries and waged war on anyone, much to the contrary.

There are lots of ways to be human.

There are lots of ways to wield power.

Tory

On May 17, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote:

Steve,
Thanks for the response,
I note two things have shifted in the discussion,

First that now you have placed greater weight on the fact that Power over
others is corruption and
Second that one of my previous arguments has returned to bite me in the ass.
Namely I advocated that corruption is any process that subverts the original
intention of a system. So having previously made that argument I have to
admit that power over others is fundamentally Corruption (but I previously
argued that corruption is neither bad or good).

Looking closer at our arguments there may exist a dividing line.
Power over others is power over another complex system which is by both our
arguments a corruption.

"Power over nature" is arguably not a coherent interactive system at least
the rock and lever are not complex systems. So does that imply that power
over nature is Not Corrupt (but something else entirely)?. The key element
being whether or not the Entity is a complex system.

This now introduces a new dimension, Ethics, I believe. The displacement of
a rock seems clearly outside of any ethical discussion but the displacement
of Peasants is a different matter. Perhaps I just turned your argument
inside out and presented as my own?

I'll give the Irish whiskey a fair test next time I have the opportunity.

Dr.Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky
Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology)

120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd.
Winnipeg, Manitoba
CANADA R2J 3R2
(204) 2548321 Phone/Fax
[hidden email]

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Steve Smith
Sent: May 17, 2010 4:15 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WARNING: Political Argument in Progress

Vladimyr -

I appreciate your $.02 Canadian as well as the uniquely Russian
perspective you seem to have, especially on the application of political
power/might/will against the individual. I also appreciate your taste
for Irish Stout... I have no idea what it might do for the digestion of
food, but I myself find it aids in the digestion of exotic opinions and
differing ideas. I find, however, that Irish Whiskey works even better
for this purpose.   I also appreciate your eloquence here... while I
appreciate those here who are brief and to the point, I often feel
conspicuous in my own elaborations... and it is good to have what I
consider somewhat of a kindred spirit in your willingness and ability to
write large volumes on the topics you choose to engage in.
Power is not actually a corruption since it has deep coupling with basic
biology, it is not a degenerate form of some other behavior but more of an
elaboration or grotesque of something relatively innocuous even
beneficial.

I will admit to being deliberately provocative in my claim that "power
is corruption", however I do hold that this is literally true and that
what seem like counter-examples are degenerate cases where the level of
"corruption" is below some threshold. It is also inevitable, I believe
that to be intentional is to be corrupted... any intentional act is an
assertion of control over the world outside of oneself, possibly other
people... what we have been calling power.   The mere lifting of a
lever, placing it over a fulcrum and moving something with it is
"corrupt" by my extreme definition.   There are unintended consequences
to be had at each turn.   The lever can damage the fulcrum or the thing
being moved and the thing being moved can fall or roll somewhere not
quite planned. This does not mean that we should not act, just that we
should not to act with perfect righteousness.   The "original sin" of
the bible (and other origin myths) would seem to me to be willfulness.
I have struggled with the various interpretations individuals place on
power
and how frequently Power / Control are coupled as ideas. There was an
interesting note I ran into discussing the differences between male and
female interpretations of Control. Most females believe control implies
controlling the behavior of other human beings or animals, Males think
more
frequently that control is about understanding and manipulating the world
of
things to achieve a goal.

I find this to be a common gender alignment as well.   Without skirting
too close to the line of misogyny (I hope), I often find myself
suspecting that some of the greater abuses of power are linked to the
female psyche.   This is not to say that women are common overt
perpetrators of the abuse of power (for the sake of control?) but rather
a corollary to "behind every great man is a great woman". I suspect
that women, in their often circumstance of limited direct control/power
are lead to arrange for power/control to be exercised on their behalf.
As a youth, I remember it to be common for the young women to covertly
enjoy the fights started by jealousy among their suitors while all the
while admonishing them for their violence. I fear our more adult
selves, even in the context of national and international politics are
guilty of similar acts of power/control mediated or moderated by fear
and a tendency to use proxies for our power... to incite others (law
making bodies, corporations, law enforcement bodies, etc...) to act on
our behalf in ways that we might never act personally. I believe that
women (and others in relatively limited power/control situations) are
more prone to indirect and proxy means (for what should be obvious reasons).
Oddly both are coupled with fear. A belief is established in the brain
that
fear can be assuaged with power or control. The appearance of control in a
situation seems to diminish fear.
Yes, this is of which I speak above... I suspect (again, courting
accusations of gender bias) that women are prone to a qualitatively
different kind of fear than men, leading to qualitatively different ways
of asserting control.   I believe that asserting control over others is,
in fact, a specific type of power as opposed to asserting control over
the material world.   Men and women are capable and have interests in
both, but there does seem to be a bias there, either explaining or
illuminated by the relative number of women participating in the social
sciences vs men participating in the natural sciences.
This belief results in some extraordinary
absurd behavior. Like striking up a choir to sing God fearing songs during
an aerial bombardment or a sinking ship. We used to call it displacement
behavior in the old days. Like shaving and putting on a tie before facing
an
execution squad. Demanding and getting a last cigarette from the
executioner.

My favorite absurdist lyric from a song perhaps is the _They Might Be
Giants_ ditty named appropriately _Whistling in the Dark_.
The current state of affairs is not about who has more power or where is
it
being transferred, but rather who has the greatest need to quell the fears
in their hearts.
I think this position has some merit, however, I also think that the
coupling between fear, power, control is circular.   When we feel
fearful (as you point out), we seek more (real or apparent) control.
We may seek that by trying to control others behaviour (charisma,
intimidation, persuasion) or we may seek that by trying to control the
physical world around us (patch our roof, dig a well, cut some
firewood).   If we seek to control others (assert power) we are likely
to also seek to establish a power-relationship that ensures that we can
control others more easily in the future. We also might seek to control
others en-masse, by establishing persuasive, intimidating or charismatic
rhetoric that supports our control over groups of people.   One
technique for establishing this type of control is the stimulation of
the very fear we are trying to assuage in ourselves but in others. By
convincing others they have something to fear (those scary, horrible,
awful immigrants or those *men* or those *women* or this or that
*disease*!) we establish an opportunity to convince them that *we* can
help them reduce that fear (pass a law, sell a product, etc.).
Particularly if they sign over their power to us, if they pledge their
allegiance to us (our party or our gov't or our flag or our manifesto or
our product or our logo). Or similarly, if they invest their capital in
our enterprise, they will feel safer (their economic future will be more
sound).
Look at the situation from the perspective of fear and it stars to fall
into
place. Power is a psychological drug addiction that suppresses fear as may
brandy vodka or heroin.
I wish to re-assert my original position that "power is corruption".
Addiction may be part of the mechanism through which this happens, but
for the purpose of my argument I will claim once again, that the instant
one begins to execute power over others, corruption has entered the house.

Our current disturbing socio-political climate has much to do with Mass
media pumping fear scenarios into the global community for the sake of
audience ratings. The consequence is a small profit for share holders and
a
global citizenry prepared to die or kill for ridiculous causes.

I think the demonized mass-media are complicit, but they do not act
alone. Those in power seek to maintain and grow that power while those
not in power seek to gain more power and the best leverage for gaining
power over others as you so eloquently explain above, is through the
promise to assuage fear.   So what if the very people who promise to
reduce your fear are the very ones who just tweaked it up?

And we are complicit. We feed on our own fears... we love a good
conspiracy theory, we love a good threat from "the other" to feed our
xenophobic instincts.

Fear makes people behave like animals, We each sit upon our own time bombs
of basic fears but in spite of that terminal reality we still can discuss,
argue drink beer and joke a bit with eachother. Perhaps the most notable
value in this dialogue is that we suppress some small amount of fear
without
struggling for imaginary power.

I think we are both endorsing Nick's original thesis here... that it is
important, even valuable to argue... even if I split some hairs toward
calling argument strictly a device of rhetoric.   The ability to
disagree openly and to use a wide range of methods to persuade each
other is important "practice" for the times when the decisions have to
be made quickly, sometimes unilaterally and often under the pressure of
many differing opinions.
Every significant work of literature concludes that the pursuit of power
is
self destructive and that good generals must control that compulsion in
their subordinates. Machiavelli, Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, Russell have wrote
extensively on the quest for power and its absolutely ruinous
consequences.

And I (re) submit that there is not a magic threshold above which power
becomes corruption... I appreciate that in it's most degenerate forms,
power (over others) can seem benign... it *seems to be* that the desire
or quest for power is the problem, not the power itself.   Using your
analogy from earlier, that power is addictive... power is the gateway
drug to Power.

- Steve

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

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

-----------------------------------

glen e. p. ropella-2

Re: WARNING: Political Argument in Progress

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Nicholas Thompson wrote circa 10-05-17 05:01 PM:
> I am interested in what you Libertarians have to say about the Schelling
> situation. Please, for the moment, let's stipulate to the model and its
> verisimulitude. Lets further stipulate that NOBODY wants to live in a
> segregated neighborhood, but EVERYBODY wants to have just a few of their
> own kind around. (I am not sure what that means, either, but let's
> stipulate, all the same.) Now, given Schelling, we all end up living in
> segragated neighborhoods, if we are Libertarians, right?

No, I don't think that's an inevitable conclusion. As a libertarian, I
would say that the Schelling setup, by definition, eliminates the
possibility of libertarianism by eliminating any chance of heterogeneous
preferences. (Heterogeneous preferences is the very heart of
libertarianism.) For example, a libertarian would want to allow for
agents that preferred to be surrounded by other types. You can't be
libertarian and force everyone to have the same preference, however
small it may be. I.e. libertarianism is an ideal and, as an ideal, it
is easy for it to be definitionally incompatible with other ideals (like
Schelling's setup).

But this doesn't really answer your question, I suppose.

> Is that Tough S--t? Or is their a role for government in this sort of
> situation.

The (again, ideal) role of government in libertarianism is the Hobbesian
3rd party to help negotiate between parties in conflict. So, here's
another way to show Schelling's model is incompatible with
libertarianism, by definition, because there are no explicit contracts
and hence no conflicts in the interpretation of contracts and
transactions in Schelling's setup.

But a more practical comment would be that if we added to the setup you
posit above, an implied contract (rule) between neighbors that, say, if
there are >= X type A's in the neighborhood, then no more type A's can
move in. And/or perhaps, if there are <= Y type A's in the
neighborhood, then no more type B's can move in. But we need another
rule that if an incoming agent (type A in the former, type B in the
latter) wants to move in anyway, it would appeal to the government to
make an exception to the rule.

Add that to the model, and then, yes, there is a legitimate role for
government in that situation, namely government is just an extra bit of
logic invoked in the context of conflict.

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com

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

Chris Feola

Re: WARNING: Political Argument in Progress

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Hi Steve,

Good points, all. But I'm afraid it's a pick your poison situation-each set
up has trade-offs, and one is not necessarily better than the other. For a
real world example, please take a look at Israel. The Knesset has 120
seats; proportional representation means that there are a zillion little
parties that can only capture a seat or two. In our system that would make
them powerless; in Israel, it makes them king makers. Because one party
rarely captures 61 seats on its own, these little parties can demand -- and
get -- pretty much anything in return for putting a major party into power.

>From Wikipedia: Golda Meir, a former Israeli Prime Minister, joked that "in
Israel, there are 3 million prime ministers". Because of the proportional
representation system, there is a large number of political parties, many
with very specialized platforms, often advocating the tenets of particular
interest groups. The prevalent balance between the largest parties means
that the smaller parties can have disproportionately strong influence to
their size. Due to their ability to act as tie breakers, they often use this
status to block legislation or promote their own agenda, even contrary to
the manifesto of the larger party in office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Israel

cjf

Christopher J. Feola
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/cjfeola

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Steve Smith
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 4:46 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WARNING: Political Argument in Progress

Chris -
> This is why libertarians believe in divided government. The donkeys and
> elephants both steal and abuse power, but they have somewhat different
> constituencies. Keeping the government at least partly divided between
them
> guarantees the honesty of thieves.
> That's why I'm hoping our president will
> soon be blessed with a worthy opponent, the way Clinton had Gingrich and
> Reagan had Tip O'Neil. And I think Bush -- and all of us -- would have
been
> much better off if Pelosi had taken the Speaker's gavel in 02.
>
And I would like more division, not simple (bi)polarity. I want
Libertarian and Green and ??? candidates on the ballot and in the
offices. I want the Dems to spin off a Progressive branch and the Pubs
to spin off a Hard-Core Conservative branch. And I want our election
rules to support this, not suppress it. I want run-off elections so we
can vote for OUR favorite candidate first, then vote for OUR lesser evil
candidate second, making it obvious when there is no "mandate", when
there is strong opposition to the lesser of evils when finally
installed, etc.

I'm not that up on other forms of election rules in the world and how
well they work, but I have to believe there is a better mode than ours
which seems to guarantee wild oscillations between polar opposites (or
worse yet, the illusion of this while the opposites are merely
brightly-differently colored variants of the same damn thing).

- Steve

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

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

Steve Smith

Re: WARNING: Political Argument in Progress

In reply to this post by Vladimyr Burachynsky

Vladimyr
> Thanks for the response,
> I note two things have shifted in the discussion,
>
> First that now you have placed greater weight on the fact that Power over
> others is corruption
Yes, in response to your distinction and emphasis and in deference to
the original posting sense of the term, I am speaking more to the "power
over other people" sense of the term. I do not, however, accede that
Power over the "natural world" is not suspect in a qualitatively similar
way, though there are many obvious differences. That discussion is
more about the hazards of "will" in general.
> and
> Second that one of my previous arguments has returned to bite me in the ass.
> Namely I advocated that corruption is any process that subverts the original
> intention of a system. So having previously made that argument I have to
> admit that power over others is fundamentally Corruption (but I previously
> argued that corruption is neither bad or good).
>
I think that your definition is perhaps a good one... though in some
cases, I'm not sure quite where we find the "original intender".... I'll
think on it.
>
> Looking closer at our arguments there may exist a dividing line.
> Power over others is power over another complex system which is by both our
> arguments a corruption.
>
I think I agree with this.
> "Power over nature" is arguably not a coherent interactive system at least
> the rock and lever are not complex systems. So does that imply that power
> over nature is Not Corrupt (but something else entirely)?. The key element
> being whether or not the Entity is a complex system.
>
The lever and fulcrum and prime mover and the moved might very well be a
complex system... thus the "unintended consequences". If I accept that
they are *not* a complex system, in the sense that we know when we wield
our lever with absolute uncertainty, precisely everything that will come
of that wielding, then I think i agree that there is no corruption.

This of course tends to beg the question and puts me in my own corner
(biting my own ass, as it were) as I think this general definition
defines *all* action by sentient beings which leads me full circle back
to wanting to suppose that *all* willful acts are corruption. Which
admittedly is somewhat uninteresting (or maybe not?).
> This now introduces a new dimension, Ethics, I believe. The displacement of
> a rock seems clearly outside of any ethical discussion but the displacement
> of Peasants is a different matter. Perhaps I just turned your argument
> inside out and presented as my own?
>
I agree that this is the domain of Ethics, and I suppose that as long as
the rock exists in isolation and no (other) sentient beings will become
involved in it's disposition, then no Ethics are involved. In many
cases, this may be a fair simplification. BP, on the other hand, might
claim that the oil leak in the Gulf was merely an act involving rocks
and levers with a little surprise along the way. The people flipping
out over it probably even accepted (eagerly) BP's claim that what they
were up to in the gulf was merely a rock-lever game (convenient to all
of us who have our various uses for petroleum products and byproducts)
until, of course, the fulcrum broke and the lever bent and the rock went
flying off over the horizon to smack us in the back of the head.
> I'll give the Irish whiskey a fair test next time I have the opportunity.
>
I just passed up a chance to douse my strawberries and shortcake with a
shot of the Irish Whiskey... reading this I might just go downstairs and
remedy that.

Cheers!
- Steve

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

Chris Feola

Re: WARNING: Political Argument in Progress

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Hi Nick,

Let me tell you a story that I hope will find cheerful. A few years ago my
beautiful oldest daughter was putting together a project for her high school
AP history class. She decided to cover Brown v. Board of Education as sort
of a performance art piece, segregating the class and giving all the
resources to the white kids.

I picked her up from school on the big day. She was furious. "How did it go,
sweetie?" I asked her. "Daddy, it was HORRIBLE. NOBODY knew what they were."

It seems the entire project had collapsed at the point of segregation
because ... hardly any of the kids could figure out where they "belonged."
Our town is listed in the education guides as just a few percentage points
minority, because minority is defined only as African American or Hispanic.
In actuality, we live in a technorati enclave that is largely Asian and
Middle Eastern. We're Filipino. The folks next door are Chinese, and across
the street Indian. My son's best friends are Vietnamese and Persian. And so
forth.

So how does this answer your question regarding Schelling? In several ways.
First, to assume that "own kind" refers to race is facile in this day and
age. In our case, "own kind" refers to the fact that the dads drop their
kids for band and then hang around to gossip about the latest Ruby on Rails
distro. Second, even if the government could and should do something about
this situation, by the time they study it, define it, debate it and issue
some regulations....Something Else will be happening.

cjf

Christopher J. Feola

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Nicholas Thompson
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 7:02 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WARNING: Political Argument in Progress

All,

I am interested in what you Libertarians have to say about the Schelling
situation. Please, for the moment, let's stipulate to the model and its
verisimulitude. Lets further stipulate that NOBODY wants to live in a
segregated neighborhood, but EVERYBODY wants to have just a few of their
own kind around. (I am not sure what that means, either, but let's
stipulate, all the same.) Now, given Schelling, we all end up living in
segragated neighborhoods, if we are Libertarians, right?

Is that Tough S--t? Or is their a role for government in this sort of
situation.

nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe]

> [Original Message]
> From: glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]>
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
> Date: 5/17/2010 5:39:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WARNING: Political Argument in Progress
>
> Nicholas Thompson wrote circa 10-05-17 11:13 AM:
> > This sounds like a problem for complexitists and control system
theorists.

agents.

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

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

Steve Smith

Re: WARNING: Political Argument in Progress, Beep Beep Beep

In reply to this post by Victoria Hughes

Victoria / Tory -

IT SEEMS to ME
Steve, Vlad and the rest of ya,

that barring an INPERSON Whiskey+Stout+Bourbon-based discussion of this,

there are assumptions running rife and leaving little hoofprints all over this conversation that need addressing. Start with-

We did try pretty hard to get our assumptions above the table. I realize we might have come up short.

How are you defining power?

I am defining power as the capacity to have an effect on something outside of yourself. For the most part, in this discussion, it has been used to talk about power over other people. I would invoke, in (mostly) descending order of crudeness, Physical Control (pick someone up, throw them over your shoulder and carry them somewhere), Physical Intimidation (strike them and threaten to continue to strike them if they do not do what you insist upon), Emotional Intimidation (similar to the above without necessarily and striking, but possibly the literal or implied threat of it it), Persuasion (Begging, Charming, etc.), Promises, Seduction (a bit of the combination of Promises and Charm perhaps)...

You speak of it in terms of control and fear, but not all power is used to control and force nature/others/etc.

I'm open to other definitions of power that *cannot* be used for such, but I think that might not be possible. On the other hand, I complete agree that we use our power with the *intention* of doing great and wonderful things, and when asked will insist that we have no intention to force or harm or ... but I also contend that this might be a self-deluding trick. You and I have had conversations many years ago about "Will" that touched on this and I think we did not converge then... I think you believed that willfulness could be positive while I feel that it cannot (except insomuch as it is part of a larger equation which balances out to positive, but the willful actions themselves, I submit are corruption).

You are using a very broad brush here. You are not balancing your particular use of the word/ concept with the others. Tautology.

That what you smart people mean to do?

I'm not sure what you mean here. I agree that the brush is broad and that there may be some loose ends that we are not attending to... can you help us pin them down (or pull them up) a little more? I also believe that some of my definitions do come dangerously close to tautological, but I'm not sure that is what you are pointing to.

There are 6 billion people on the planet, and even consigning those 6B to a few big generalized tendencies, you are extrapolating behaviours from one group onto another without much justification.

I (think) I am talking more about definitions of terms and the logical consequences of the application of those definitions than I am about the intentions of people (any/all of the 6B). I know it sounds like I'm (maybe)

Yup, power is very often used in all the horrendous ways you both describe and we have experienced, but that is not the only way power has been used.

I question this. I agree that Power has been claimed to be used otherwise, promised to be used otherwise, and especially *intended* to be used otherwise. I'm just not sure it ever turns out that way (or that it can). I often find myself aspiring to various forms of power and I almost always imagine that I am aspiring to it, so that I can wield goodness with it... but I deeply, fundamentally question that this is even possible.

We may not have our definitions of Power aligned well enough... you may very well have a contrasting definition of Power that I'm not clear on that makes sense in this context.

I agree with Steve that a craving is indicative: that in many cases

the quest for power is the problem, not the power itself.

Then the issue reverts to the personality constellation seeking the power.

I still hold that the power itself is where it starts, where the "potential evil" resides and that it is the channeling of it via a willful action that channels it into "kinetic evil".

But not all of those seeking power want to use it for harm. "Power over" vs "power with".
The definition of power is changing as we speak: we can help or hinder.

I do not disagree that often (most often?) our quest for power is motivated by some higher desire (at least consciously) to "do good". What I question is if this is actually possible. My personal experience, if viewed with enough wishful thinking, suggests that I in fact do good with some of the power I have managed to obtain over the world and over others. I don't know if it it ever actually works out that way in fact... I have plenty of wishful thinking to maintain me in my pursuit of rightous application of power. I know this sounds rather negative, but that alone is not enough reason for me to discount it.

I will leave the whole gender discussion aside for the moment, but don't think I am not watching that one.

> You might actually ask the women on this list about power, rather than announcing what we think. Extrapolation from teenage behaviour is not applicable to the sophisticated feminine intellects, interests and abilities on this list.

I assume that the women on this list will weigh in (as you are doing here) with their own ideas and opinions. I acknowledge that my statements in this regard are sweeping generalizations and even if they have some merit (though they may not) do not likely apply well to any given individual.

Let me then convolve my generalization into a specific question (actually a whole stream of them). Do you, as a woman, believe that you (and perhaps by extrapolation, many women) generally consider, experience and exercise power (which we do not have a shared definition of yet) differently than men? Are you as likely to use direct physical control as a mode of power as men are? Are you as likely to have that form of power exercised over you? Are you as likely to use various forms of persuasion as men are? Do you feel that you have any power over men or women based on the (presumed by my statement here) differences in men's and women's sexual natures? Do you ever use that knowingly (or unknowingly upon careful reflection) to assert power over men (or women)? Do you feel that you have a "right" to use any powers that are unique to yourself individually, as a member of a gender, of a class over others who are of a (presumed) class, gender or personal circumstance that gives *them* potential or exercised power over you?

I vote we get Vlad down here so we can really have this conversation. Anyone who writes

'The displacement of a rock seems clearly outside of any ethical discussion but the displacement of Peasants is a different matter' should be thoroughly assimilated at the Cowgirl.

Or at least doused liberally with various libations assigned to be Irish in origin.

Just read Glen R's comment about rock-moving as irresponsible, and agree with the basic point: that actions are better done with awareness and deliberation.

He asserts (in my paraphrasing) that the key is careful deliberation over consequences. I think it is important, but I suggest that it may not be enough.

NO, I am not saying an abusive act done with deliberation is better than a non-abusive act done without thought. Can we not agree that there are people who aim to benefit others, and do so with power and deliberation?

Absolutely. And I hope we can even agree that there are people with amazing capacity for framing their selfish and abusive acts as acts of generosity and kindness. The question (for myself) is where the threshold of awareness goes from willful ignorance to rightous, aware, intention.

Just reading about the Turkish/Greek population exchange of 1923, as one in a line of horrific thoughtless acts by people with power over others....

I am not at all saying it doesn't happen.

I never doubted that. I don't think anyone here would say that (but I could ask them).

I am saying that a fear of power prevents it from ever being used for good, which it is occasionally. But the desire for it persists, and if we try to prevent it, the desire is amplified. Humans. Lizards and lemurs.

I think that a healthy respect for power and it's consequences (intended or otherwise) is paramount. I don't know that it has to be fear. If we are to act willfully at all, then we must either believe the exercise of power *can* yield goodness, or that we are willing to accept the risk of bad consequences. My willful actions are moving from the former catagory to the latter.

The Dalai Lama 'controls' between ten and twenty million people, (Wiki.) but he is not using an army of ten+ million to infiltrate and force out the Chinese from the land they invaded.

I think this is a very good extreme example. My appraisal of the Dalai Lama and his "power" is that there is little if any power that he wields beyond persuasion, and I think he uses that with the utmost care.   I have found that very little of his talk is of the persuasive kind, meaning that his intention is not (directly) to persuade. I believe his intention is to bring clarity to the ideas and experiences he is talking about and trusts that the individuals receiving them will assimilate them the best they can and take action in their own lives accordingly. I would claim that he is walking a very fine line where he might not wield any of what I am calling power.

When he came to Santa Fe around 1990, he impressed me in many ways. During the Q&A after his talk, someone asked him if he came to the US to ask the US Gov't to place economic or political sanctions against the Chinese who were occupying his country and oppressing his people. He said roughly, "economic and political sanctions are forms of violence and I do not promote any form of violence for any reason".   I would say that he was declining to use his "power" in a situation where most, if not all of us would feel almost completely righteous in using our power to right a wrong.   He was also asked if he was going up to LANL to urge the leaders of the lab to disarm. He (roughly) said "The Laboratory's mission is to create weapons of unthinkable destruction, I have nothing to talk with them about".   And when asked "But what about the peace of 40+ years that has been kept by Mutual Assured Destruction", he said (roughly) "if you come across two men grasping eachothers' collars with their fists drawn back to strike but have not yet struck the other, would you call that peace?".

My point of relevance to this discussion is that while his words were very illuminating, I did not find them to be "persuasive" in the most literal sense of the term.   In all both cases, he was declining to use the "power" the questioners presumed him to have (and encouraging him to use).

Don't say 'well his religion prevents him' because that is pointless reasoning: by your standards the choice he has is to use power for good or ill.

Or to decline to use his power.

If one includes in their definition of Power, his spiritual and intellectual acuity that allows him to split the finest of hairs in ways that allow him (and us, if we use his example) to avoid any willful acts of power, then we have another kind of power...

Is this the difference between my use of "power" and yours?

The source of the power was his choice to embrace (and by the way did you know that he was always predicted to be the last Dalai Lama? The traditions all said that the 14th would be the end of the lineage. He knew that from the beginning.

I did not know that he was predicted to be the last of the Dalai Lamas. I'm not sure how this is a source of power for him?

And whatever you may think of Bill Gates, his money gives him enormous power, but he has not taken over the military of small countries and waged war on anyone, much to the contrary.

Not to my knowledge. But we do not know what (all) he does with his money or other forms of his influence. The "evil" often ascribed to him fits mostly in the catagory of unintended consequences fading into willful ignorance. He might not understand the implications of the dominance of his products in the world, or he might feel that the negative side effects of this are balanced by the presumed "good" that his products bring the world (better documents, better spreadsheets, better e-mail (no, scratch that one), better web browsing (scratch that one too)... better STUFF!), or he might not care, and might believe that the success in the "free" market proves the goodness of his products.

There are lots of ways to be human.

Absolutely... wonderfully true... a cause for great celebration.

There are lots of ways to wield power.

Also absolutely true and a glorious and horrible thing it is. Perhaps we cannot separate the glory from the horror. Perhaps that is the crux of my arguement... no amount of glory in our wielding of power will be free of the taint of the horror, and perhaps by symmetry, even the most horrific acts of power might have some smidgen of glory in them.

It is a good question to ponder.

Thanks for weighing in. I hope my response helps us to converge or at least understand where we are not. We may have moved from Irish Whiskey to Kentucky Bourbon territory...

- Steve

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

Vladimyr Burachynsky

Re: WARNING: Political Argument in Progress, Beep Beep Beep

Steve , Vicki, and Honorable Lurkers,

I have tried to respond and seem to have entered an existential fog. Steve’s reply is almost identical to one I was preparing but trashed.

I pulled out a copy of Bertrand Russell’s POWER and started poking around again. We apparently have repeated much of his work with slight exceptions.

He looks at Power (over others) as if it is real and I still feel that it is imaginary having looked at a long list of once powerful historical personalities that just vanished from popular imagination. There was no evidence that power was transferred any where to anyone. It just vanished even before the being expired. He does use the term Power over Matter but glances over it for the most part. I think that form of Power was easier to understand and required less work. Power over others is very complex, but neverthe less I still stand by my position that such power is illusionary .

I think much of the Power we attribute to individuals and organizations is exactly the same as the adoration of movie stars. It comes and it goes. The leaders are simply a reflection of the peasant mind state. Certainly the new peasant enjoys designer fashions and Cancun Holidays but they are with us at all times. They are superstitious and cruel and concerned with their own appetites and not much else except on Sundays when they dress up and try and impress one another.

I suspect that my interest is more to do with the way power is created, and there I still maintain it is in the minds of the audience and is some mixture of fear jealosy envy lust etc. What happens after the population attaches it to an individual or organization is probably just as Russell describes accommodating for time. Siszek talks about the hidden psychology of followers and how they each have slightly different imaginings of the power structure and its personal benefits to the follower.

That horrible kind of power we so fear is probably the offspring of fear. It has many ways of manifesting itself but generally we as a society give so much credence to fear that we literally allow people to escape justice because they claimed to fear for their lives. Fear is a most powerful legal defense. Even better than I was following orders. I feared I would lose my job, I feared that I would be late for the baby sitter, I feared I would lose my place in line. I feared I was going to be raped, I feared I was going to be accused of rape. I feared someone would find out I was pregnant. I fear that there was something wrong with my child. I feared that they would find out I was gay. I feared they would find out that I had a Jewish /Black/ Hispanic / Native mother. I feared he would hurt me. I feared he would talk about me. I feared the moon would stop spinning and fall into my kitchen. I feared that the world was coming to an end. I feared God would find out I ate meat on a Friday. I feared so much I just could not remember what happened.

I was so fearful of terrorists I voted for Rush Limbaugh.

I feared ….and I expect sympathy and to be exonerated from the charges.

Too bad about the Dalai Lama he seemed like a decent guy but I doubt he ever had enough power to fix even a flat bicycle tire. He is quite a character but while the leaders of the world are generally very polite to him they would not stick their necks out for his cause.

Dr.Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky

Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology)

120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd.

Winnipeg, Manitoba

CANADA R2J 3R2

(204) 2548321 Phone/Fax

[hidden email]

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: May 18, 2010 12:19 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WARNING: Political Argument in Progress, Beep Beep Beep