capitalism vs. individualism

[gepr]

On 11/7/19 7:30 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> PS.  I am reminded of Nick's (with Stephen/Owen/et-al support) MOTH (my way or the highway) strategy in the iterated prisoner's dilemma.   It is perhaps too simplified for application in the context of our national elections, but I suspect that the Left may be moving toward that strategy which beats the chronic defector strategy that the Right seems to prefer.

I finally found it! Sheesh my memory is garbage. Anyway, I'm not so much reminded of MOTH as I am of the following, which is why I mentioned "depth" of the judiciousness in the use of violence. But I confess that I don't remember the gist of MOTH.

Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma contains strategies that dominate any evolutionary opponent
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/05/16/1206569109.abstract

Extortion and cooperation in the Prisoner’s Dilemma
https://www.pnas.org/content/109/26/10134

--
☣ uǝlƃ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Prof David West]

Steve,

On the back of my Hermeneutic Card is the pedigree: Hermes Trismegistus, Dilthey, Heidegger, Gadamer, Derrida, and Foucault with infusions from Hesse and Jung (the alchemist more than the psychologist). This lineage is quite distinct from the "interpretation of sacred texts, e.g. the Bible) thread of hermeneutics.

"Everything is an Interpretation," a metaphorical Philosopher's Stone from this thread of Hermeneutics coupled with our late friend Hywel's favorite dictum, "Ah, but it is more complicated than that," is part of the foundation for my critique of "isms" and of the current impeachment process.

Confronted with a rich, dynamic, ambiguous, conflicting, and emerging data set; humans select data points from that set and weave together a, mostly, self-consistent story — an Interpretation. As individuals this is essential and unavoidable, to some degree, as our physical survival depends on it. (This point has been mentioned before - we perceive what is useful to survive, not what is really "out there.")

At the group level a few (one to perhaps a few hundred) "storytellers" convince an uncritical herd to accept a particular story (interpretation) and voila we have a religion, a philosophy, a science, an "ism." The foundational "story" can exist, if and only if, it repudiates, denies the existence of, or simply disregards any contrary or inconvenient data points in the original rich and complex data set.

When I said in the earlier missive that they ignored ninety-percent of that data set, I was indulging in hyperbole. But, I would asset with a great deal of assurance that the ratio of accepted to rejected data points is never less than 50:50.

in the capitalism article a number of statements / assertions are made in a simple declarative fashion, giving them the veneer of "fact" or "truth." Statements about capitalism and post-truth. From my Hermeneutic perspective, such statements are Interpretations, not facts not truths. It is more complicated than that.

The conclusion the author made, also asserted in declarative sentences of "fact," is problematic, specious, or absurd depending on the depth of a reader's alternative interpretations of overlapping or orthogonal data points with regard capitalism and post truth. (Personally, his assertions about post-truth are the unforgivable misinterpretations.)

With regard to current impeachment efforts: a small (few hundred to less than a thousand) storytellers are cherry-picking the data set, and interpreting each point so that it is consistent with the intended "moral of the story," weaving this grand interpretation narrative and selling it to a herd of tens of millions.

But, because the storytellers have suspended their disbelief to such an extent that they are no longer aware of their own Interpretations — believing that everything they say is literal, gospel, veridical TRUTH.

This would be fine, except for the fact, that by doing so, they are almost guaranteeing a political outcome that is antithetical to their expressed intent. (And, on a personal level, making me happy that I might be sitting out the consequences, mostly, from Amsterdam.)

If only Derrida could counsel them with a bit of constructive deconstruction.

davew

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019, at 4:30 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:

DaveW -

As a card carrying Hermeneutic 

"Hermeneutics is the art of understanding and of making oneself understood" - Wikipedia

From the viewpoint of someone who knows/believes/understands everything to be Interpretation, this is a silly assertion.

Interpretation of "received wisdom" conventionally.   Rhetorical presentation of "received wisdom" is not hermeneutical.

The only way you can ascribe Truth to an ism, Capitalism included, is by disregarding ninety-percent of the "data" as irrelevant and claiming the self-consistent (mostly) residue to be that Truth.

And of course each ism cherry picks the ten-percent of the data (non-overlapping sets) that supports its interpretation of fact/reality/truth and vociferously defends it as the only correct way to see things or think about things  — and then makes the fatal mistake of believing, in a fundamentalist sort of way, their own story (interpretation).

This cynical interpretation of the attempt to condense knowledge and wisdom is not unfounded, but do you contend that it is intrinsic ot "isms" that they be thus?  Is your 10% data-driven, anecdotal, or rhetorical?

That last step, believing the fictional story that you weave from your interpretation of cherry picked data, is fundamental to the idiocy of impeachment.

Do you mean *this impeachment* of *this president* at *this time*?  Or are you impugning the very idea of impeachment, of congressional oversight of the Executive and the ideal of checks and balances?

While the story being told may have substance, it has no Reality, it has no Truth, and telling (yelling) that story will have no effect except other than increasing anger and hostility between and among all those with other stories to tell.

The style of this administration (and sadly the last Republican one as well) is that of an arrogant bully, saying and doing anything to get one's way, denying any wrong-doing categorically, and then squealing "unfair!" anytime someone lands even a half-good punch on them.   Decades ago, when my sympathies were more with the Right than the Left (in some key areas) it was because I interpreted their position to be considered, thoughtful and in some sense generous.   I haven't seen that from the Right in a very long time, and have seen it more and more on the Left.   Politicians are still politicians but *some* of them truly seem motivated to be *Statesmen*, even if the game as it has (d)evolved makes that hugely difficult.

It is really rich for the (self-Righteous) Right to accuse the left of being bullies, but that is one of the clear hallmarks of a bully...  to cry foul when confronted effectively.

davew

[Personal aside: some ranchers in southern Utah gave me a "Keep America Great — Trump 2020" ball cap. I am tempted, sometimes, to wear it in solidarity with Adam Schiff and Democrats/Liberals who seem Hell bent on getting Donald re-elected. I don't do so because I am afraid of attracting violence from ultra-orthodox, fundamentalist, believers of the TrumpSatan story.]

What about the simple possibility that many will believe that you believe the story embroidered on the cap, no matter how they might react overtly?   I'm of the apprehension that while you don't seem to strictly believe that Trump has made America "Great Again" or that keeping him in office will  yield a continued or increased "Greatness", I suspect that your own version of what I call in myself "morbid fascination" has you happy enough standing around roasting marshmallows of what is left of things as he proceeds to burn it down.  I shared some of the reactionary spirit that (nearly) drove Bernie to the nomination in 2016 and did in fact drive Donald to taking the Gerrymandered Electoral College majority,  but whatever good that disruption brought is well over IMO...   it is time to call a halt to this "punctuation" and return to a new "equilibrium" if we can.

Do YOU see a new equilibrium possible, or do you think we need to rekindle the flames if they start to die down?

- SteveS

PS.  I am reminded of Nick's (with Stephen/Owen/et-al support) MOTH (my way or the highway) strategy in the iterated prisoner's dilemma.   It is perhaps too simplified for application in the context of our national elections, but I suspect that the Left may be moving toward that strategy which beats the chronic defector strategy that the Right seems to prefer.

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

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

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

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

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

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[gepr]

On 11/8/19 7:44 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> This would be fine, except for the fact, that by doing so, they are almost guaranteeing a political outcome that is antithetical to their expressed intent.

Well, my political intent is to actualize the checks and balances on which the system was predicated. It's the duty, the job, of the House to execute the inquiry. So, it's not clear *who* you're talking about when you say "they". You're not talking about this impeachment supporter, that's for sure. If, after the inquiry, the Senate "acquits" and the electoral college re-elects Trump, so be it. We did the right thing.

But this does wrap back around into conflicting -isms. I'm sympathetic to the idea that the electoral college is obsolete. I'm also sympathetic to the idea that mob-rule is dangerous. If our system (whether a good representation of what the Founders wanted or not) doesn't integrate democracy with republic well enough, then a) do we tweak it, e.g. with rank choice voting, or b) scrap it for a new one? As much as I'd love to see a constitutional convention, my guess is too few people care enough about others (other countries, the earth, other life forms) to work authentically toward a solution. Every player would be trying to game the system for themselves (or their "tribe", whatever they think that is). So, scrapping it seems too risky. And we're left with the technical debt and the rule-rot we have.

Our Constitution and other supporting frameworks like common law are a great example of a prematurely modeled integration that we're now stuck with. Maybe there's no way out of this local optimum to a more global optimum unless we scrap it.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Glen writes:

< As much as I'd love to see a constitutional convention, my guess is too few people care enough about others (other countries, the earth, other life forms) to work authentically toward a solution. Every player would be trying to game the system for themselves (or their "tribe", whatever they think that is). So, scrapping it seems too risky. And we're left with the technical debt and the rule-rot we have. >

There's another kind of debt, which is the money kind.   That could really get out of control if revenue went down.   I wonder what it would take before I could make money shorting U.S. treasury bonds?   Could U.S. cities endure a national bankruptcy?

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Nick Thompson]

All,

 

“Everything is interpretation.”

 

Yey-AH! Duh!  What else could it possibly be?  Does God speak to you?  Presumably not.  Hopefully, not.

 

Welcome to monism.  So now what?

 

You only get five seconds to be amazed at the wisdom of monism before you have to start making distinctions between those interpretations that prove out in the end and those that don’t. 

 

Now I admit that problems arise in those situations in which some participants in the collective discussion have the power to alter the outcomes.  Presidents, bosses, and parents are all in that position, to some degree.  You hold the child in your arms and you croon, “Everything is going to be all right”.  You might do that when “there is a goblin under the bed.”  You might also do it when the plane in which are riding is hurtling toward the ground.  The fact that you do the same in both sorts of situations doesn’t change how those situations “prove out”.  Some interpretations are better than others.

 

The answer to “everything is interpretation” is not obscurantism or despair.  It’s Pragmatism. 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 8:44 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

 

Steve,

 

On the back of my Hermeneutic Card is the pedigree: Hermes Trismegistus, Dilthey, Heidegger, Gadamer, Derrida, and Foucault with infusions from Hesse and Jung (the alchemist more than the psychologist). This lineage is quite distinct from the "interpretation of sacred texts, e.g. the Bible) thread of hermeneutics.

 

"Everything is an Interpretation," a metaphorical Philosopher's Stone from this thread of Hermeneutics coupled with our late friend Hywel's favorite dictum, "Ah, but it is more complicated than that," is part of the foundation for my critique of "isms" and of the current impeachment process.

 

Confronted with a rich, dynamic, ambiguous, conflicting, and emerging data set; humans select data points from that set and weave together a, mostly, self-consistent story — an Interpretation. As individuals this is essential and unavoidable, to some degree, as our physical survival depends on it. (This point has been mentioned before - we perceive what is useful to survive, not what is really "out there.")

 

At the group level a few (one to perhaps a few hundred) "storytellers" convince an uncritical herd to accept a particular story (interpretation) and voila we have a religion, a philosophy, a science, an "ism." The foundational "story" can exist, if and only if, it repudiates, denies the existence of, or simply disregards any contrary or inconvenient data points in the original rich and complex data set.

 

When I said in the earlier missive that they ignored ninety-percent of that data set, I was indulging in hyperbole. But, I would asset with a great deal of assurance that the ratio of accepted to rejected data points is never less than 50:50.

 

in the capitalism article a number of statements / assertions are made in a simple declarative fashion, giving them the veneer of "fact" or "truth." Statements about capitalism and post-truth. From my Hermeneutic perspective, such statements are Interpretations, not facts not truths. It is more complicated than that.

 

The conclusion the author made, also asserted in declarative sentences of "fact," is problematic, specious, or absurd depending on the depth of a reader's alternative interpretations of overlapping or orthogonal data points with regard capitalism and post truth. (Personally, his assertions about post-truth are the unforgivable misinterpretations.)

 

With regard to current impeachment efforts: a small (few hundred to less than a thousand) storytellers are cherry-picking the data set, and interpreting each point so that it is consistent with the intended "moral of the story," weaving this grand interpretation narrative and selling it to a herd of tens of millions.

 

But, because the storytellers have suspended their disbelief to such an extent that they are no longer aware of their own Interpretations — believing that everything they say is literal, gospel, veridical TRUTH.

 

This would be fine, except for the fact, that by doing so, they are almost guaranteeing a political outcome that is antithetical to their expressed intent. (And, on a personal level, making me happy that I might be sitting out the consequences, mostly, from Amsterdam.)

 

If only Derrida could counsel them with a bit of constructive deconstruction.

 

davew

 

 

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019, at 4:30 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:

DaveW -

 

As a card carrying Hermeneutic 

"Hermeneutics is the art of understanding and of making oneself understood" - Wikipedia

From the viewpoint of someone who knows/believes/understands everything to be Interpretation, this is a silly assertion.

Interpretation of "received wisdom" conventionally.   Rhetorical presentation of "received wisdom" is not hermeneutical.

 

The only way you can ascribe Truth to an ism, Capitalism included, is by disregarding ninety-percent of the "data" as irrelevant and claiming the self-consistent (mostly) residue to be that Truth.

And of course each ism cherry picks the ten-percent of the data (non-overlapping sets) that supports its interpretation of fact/reality/truth and vociferously defends it as the only correct way to see things or think about things  — and then makes the fatal mistake of believing, in a fundamentalist sort of way, their own story (interpretation).

This cynical interpretation of the attempt to condense knowledge and wisdom is not unfounded, but do you contend that it is intrinsic ot "isms" that they be thus?  Is your 10% data-driven, anecdotal, or rhetorical?

 

That last step, believing the fictional story that you weave from your interpretation of cherry picked data, is fundamental to the idiocy of impeachment.

Do you mean *this impeachment* of *this president* at *this time*?  Or are you impugning the very idea of impeachment, of congressional oversight of the Executive and the ideal of checks and balances?

 

While the story being told may have substance, it has no Reality, it has no Truth, and telling (yelling) that story will have no effect except other than increasing anger and hostility between and among all those with other stories to tell.

The style of this administration (and sadly the last Republican one as well) is that of an arrogant bully, saying and doing anything to get one's way, denying any wrong-doing categorically, and then squealing "unfair!" anytime someone lands even a half-good punch on them.   Decades ago, when my sympathies were more with the Right than the Left (in some key areas) it was because I interpreted their position to be considered, thoughtful and in some sense generous.   I haven't seen that from the Right in a very long time, and have seen it more and more on the Left.   Politicians are still politicians but *some* of them truly seem motivated to be *Statesmen*, even if the game as it has (d)evolved makes that hugely difficult.

It is really rich for the (self-Righteous) Right to accuse the left of being bullies, but that is one of the clear hallmarks of a bully...  to cry foul when confronted effectively.

davew

[Personal aside: some ranchers in southern Utah gave me a "Keep America Great — Trump 2020" ball cap. I am tempted, sometimes, to wear it in solidarity with Adam Schiff and Democrats/Liberals who seem Hell bent on getting Donald re-elected. I don't do so because I am afraid of attracting violence from ultra-orthodox, fundamentalist, believers of the TrumpSatan story.]

What about the simple possibility that many will believe that you believe the story embroidered on the cap, no matter how they might react overtly?   I'm of the apprehension that while you don't seem to strictly believe that Trump has made America "Great Again" or that keeping him in office will  yield a continued or increased "Greatness", I suspect that your own version of what I call in myself "morbid fascination" has you happy enough standing around roasting marshmallows of what is left of things as he proceeds to burn it down.  I shared some of the reactionary spirit that (nearly) drove Bernie to the nomination in 2016 and did in fact drive Donald to taking the Gerrymandered Electoral College majority,  but whatever good that disruption brought is well over IMO...   it is time to call a halt to this "punctuation" and return to a new "equilibrium" if we can.

Do YOU see a new equilibrium possible, or do you think we need to rekindle the flames if they start to die down?

- SteveS

PS.  I am reminded of Nick's (with Stephen/Owen/et-al support) MOTH (my way or the highway) strategy in the iterated prisoner's dilemma.   It is perhaps too simplified for application in the context of our national elections, but I suspect that the Left may be moving toward that strategy which beats the chronic defector strategy that the Right seems to prefer.

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

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

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

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

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

 

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Steve Smith]

 

The answer to “everything is interpretation” is not obscurantism or despair.  It’s Pragmatism. 

Well said Nick.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Nick Thompson]

Please note the capital P.

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 12:45 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

 

 

The answer to “everything is interpretation” is not obscurantism or despair.  It’s Pragmatism. 

Well said Nick.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Be fair Nick, what about capital O, Obscurantism?

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Date: Friday, November 8, 2019 at 11:46 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

 

Please note the capital P.

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 12:45 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

 

 

The answer to “everything is interpretation” is not obscurantism or despair.  It’s Pragmatism. 

Well said Nick.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Nick Thompson]

Well, I agree that there are some obscurantist Pragmatists.  Rorty drives me bonkers.

 

But is there an Obscurantist movement?  For that matter, are their Despair-ists? 

 

Watching Boris Johnson manoeuver is a wonderful  lesson concerning the degree to which people and power can (and cannot) actually alter truth.

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 12:51 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

 

Be fair Nick, what about capital O, Obscurantism?

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Date: Friday, November 8, 2019 at 11:46 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

 

Please note the capital P.

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

 

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 12:45 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

 

 

The answer to “everything is interpretation” is not obscurantism or despair.  It’s Pragmatism. 

Well said Nick.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Prof David West]

God has not spoken to me recently, but I have had some wonderful conversations with the Universe.

There are alternatives to Pragmatism other than despair or obscurantism.

BTW —  Pragmat "ISM!"   Mon "ISM!"  Just more fictional stories?

My interpretation of the Hermeneutics (lineage as described earlier) suggests a "So Now What" of two parts:

1- evaluate and act based on ALL the information.

2- strive for practical omniscience to assure that you have ALL the information necessary to evaluate and act.

davew

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019, at 8:36 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

All,

 

“Everything is interpretation.”

 

Yey-AH! Duh!  What else could it possibly be?  Does God speak to you?  Presumably not.  Hopefully, not.

 

Welcome to monism.  So now what?

 

You only get five seconds to be amazed at the wisdom of monism before you have to start making distinctions between those interpretations that prove out in the end and those that don’t. 

 

Now I admit that problems arise in those situations in which some participants in the collective discussion have the power to alter the outcomes.  Presidents, bosses, and parents are all in that position, to some degree.  You hold the child in your arms and you croon, “Everything is going to be all right”.  You might do that when “there is a goblin under the bed.”  You might also do it when the plane in which are riding is hurtling toward the ground.  The fact that you do the same in both sorts of situations doesn’t change how those situations “prove out”.  Some interpretations are better than others.

 

The answer to “everything is interpretation” is not obscurantism or despair.  It’s Pragmatism. 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 8:44 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

 

Steve,

 

On the back of my Hermeneutic Card is the pedigree: Hermes Trismegistus, Dilthey, Heidegger, Gadamer, Derrida, and Foucault with infusions from Hesse and Jung (the alchemist more than the psychologist). This lineage is quite distinct from the "interpretation of sacred texts, e.g. the Bible) thread of hermeneutics.

 

"Everything is an Interpretation," a metaphorical Philosopher's Stone from this thread of Hermeneutics coupled with our late friend Hywel's favorite dictum, "Ah, but it is more complicated than that," is part of the foundation for my critique of "isms" and of the current impeachment process.

 

Confronted with a rich, dynamic, ambiguous, conflicting, and emerging data set; humans select data points from that set and weave together a, mostly, self-consistent story — an Interpretation. As individuals this is essential and unavoidable, to some degree, as our physical survival depends on it. (This point has been mentioned before - we perceive what is useful to survive, not what is really "out there.")

 

At the group level a few (one to perhaps a few hundred) "storytellers" convince an uncritical herd to accept a particular story (interpretation) and voila we have a religion, a philosophy, a science, an "ism." The foundational "story" can exist, if and only if, it repudiates, denies the existence of, or simply disregards any contrary or inconvenient data points in the original rich and complex data set.

 

When I said in the earlier missive that they ignored ninety-percent of that data set, I was indulging in hyperbole. But, I would asset with a great deal of assurance that the ratio of accepted to rejected data points is never less than 50:50.

 

in the capitalism article a number of statements / assertions are made in a simple declarative fashion, giving them the veneer of "fact" or "truth." Statements about capitalism and post-truth. From my Hermeneutic perspective, such statements are Interpretations, not facts not truths. It is more complicated than that.

 

The conclusion the author made, also asserted in declarative sentences of "fact," is problematic, specious, or absurd depending on the depth of a reader's alternative interpretations of overlapping or orthogonal data points with regard capitalism and post truth. (Personally, his assertions about post-truth are the unforgivable misinterpretations.)

 

With regard to current impeachment efforts: a small (few hundred to less than a thousand) storytellers are cherry-picking the data set, and interpreting each point so that it is consistent with the intended "moral of the story," weaving this grand interpretation narrative and selling it to a herd of tens of millions.

 

But, because the storytellers have suspended their disbelief to such an extent that they are no longer aware of their own Interpretations — believing that everything they say is literal, gospel, veridical TRUTH.

 

This would be fine, except for the fact, that by doing so, they are almost guaranteeing a political outcome that is antithetical to their expressed intent. (And, on a personal level, making me happy that I might be sitting out the consequences, mostly, from Amsterdam.)

 

If only Derrida could counsel them with a bit of constructive deconstruction.

 

davew

 

 

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019, at 4:30 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:

DaveW -

 

As a card carrying Hermeneutic 

"Hermeneutics is the art of understanding and of making oneself understood" - Wikipedia

From the viewpoint of someone who knows/believes/understands everything to be Interpretation, this is a silly assertion.

Interpretation of "received wisdom" conventionally.   Rhetorical presentation of "received wisdom" is not hermeneutical.

 

The only way you can ascribe Truth to an ism, Capitalism included, is by disregarding ninety-percent of the "data" as irrelevant and claiming the self-consistent (mostly) residue to be that Truth.

And of course each ism cherry picks the ten-percent of the data (non-overlapping sets) that supports its interpretation of fact/reality/truth and vociferously defends it as the only correct way to see things or think about things  — and then makes the fatal mistake of believing, in a fundamentalist sort of way, their own story (interpretation).

This cynical interpretation of the attempt to condense knowledge and wisdom is not unfounded, but do you contend that it is intrinsic ot "isms" that they be thus?  Is your 10% data-driven, anecdotal, or rhetorical?

 

That last step, believing the fictional story that you weave from your interpretation of cherry picked data, is fundamental to the idiocy of impeachment.

Do you mean *this impeachment* of *this president* at *this time*?  Or are you impugning the very idea of impeachment, of congressional oversight of the Executive and the ideal of checks and balances?

 

While the story being told may have substance, it has no Reality, it has no Truth, and telling (yelling) that story will have no effect except other than increasing anger and hostility between and among all those with other stories to tell.

The style of this administration (and sadly the last Republican one as well) is that of an arrogant bully, saying and doing anything to get one's way, denying any wrong-doing categorically, and then squealing "unfair!" anytime someone lands even a half-good punch on them.   Decades ago, when my sympathies were more with the Right than the Left (in some key areas) it was because I interpreted their position to be considered, thoughtful and in some sense generous.   I haven't seen that from the Right in a very long time, and have seen it more and more on the Left.   Politicians are still politicians but *some* of them truly seem motivated to be *Statesmen*, even if the game as it has (d)evolved makes that hugely difficult.

It is really rich for the (self-Righteous) Right to accuse the left of being bullies, but that is one of the clear hallmarks of a bully...  to cry foul when confronted effectively.

davew

[Personal aside: some ranchers in southern Utah gave me a "Keep America Great — Trump 2020" ball cap. I am tempted, sometimes, to wear it in solidarity with Adam Schiff and Democrats/Liberals who seem Hell bent on getting Donald re-elected. I don't do so because I am afraid of attracting violence from ultra-orthodox, fundamentalist, believers of the TrumpSatan story.]

What about the simple possibility that many will believe that you believe the story embroidered on the cap, no matter how they might react overtly?   I'm of the apprehension that while you don't seem to strictly believe that Trump has made America "Great Again" or that keeping him in office will  yield a continued or increased "Greatness", I suspect that your own version of what I call in myself "morbid fascination" has you happy enough standing around roasting marshmallows of what is left of things as he proceeds to burn it down.  I shared some of the reactionary spirit that (nearly) drove Bernie to the nomination in 2016 and did in fact drive Donald to taking the Gerrymandered Electoral College majority,  but whatever good that disruption brought is well over IMO...   it is time to call a halt to this "punctuation" and return to a new "equilibrium" if we can.

Do YOU see a new equilibrium possible, or do you think we need to rekindle the flames if they start to die down?

- SteveS

PS.  I am reminded of Nick's (with Stephen/Owen/et-al support) MOTH (my way or the highway) strategy in the iterated prisoner's dilemma.   It is perhaps too simplified for application in the context of our national elections, but I suspect that the Left may be moving toward that strategy which beats the chronic defector strategy that the Right seems to prefer.

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

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

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

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

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

 

 

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

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

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

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

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

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Prof David West]

Glen,

"They" is a very small number of individuals who directly control/influence the existing impeachment effort — Schiff and 50+ percent of House Members, Hillary and her closest cohort, a finite number of columnists, pundits, and commentators.

In my opinion, both the Clinton and the Trump impeachment efforts were not motivated by, and did not actualize, a very necessary system of checks and balances. Both were motivated by personal and partisan animosity.

And, in the case of Trump, motivated by deeply bruised egos.

"They" cannot believe that 49% of the electorate and most of the  populace outside of the northeast, west coast, and enclaves like Santa Fe, could possibly disagree with them. Therefore, Trump supporters are certifiably: racists, deplorables, and/or uneducated fools. And Trump has to be illegitimate, and must be removed from office for no other reason than he is a symbol of "Their" failures.

Impeachment is the wrong tool, wielded by the wrong people, for the wrong reasons, at the wrong time.

Its inevitable failure will almost guarantee "four more years" and, far more importantly, devalue an essential check & balance tool to the point that future Houses will shy from its use and open the door to "really bad things."

There are so many other ways that the country could have been protected from Trump and his re-election made impossible. But those alternatives would require reason, effort, and, most importantly for "They," some "agonizing reappraisal." (Mao)

davew


On Fri, Nov 8, 2019, at 7:16 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:

> On 11/8/19 7:44 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> > This would be fine, except for the fact, that by doing so, they are almost guaranteeing a political outcome that is antithetical to their expressed intent.
>
> Well, my political intent is to actualize the checks and balances on
> which the system was predicated. It's the duty, the job, of the House
> to execute the inquiry. So, it's not clear *who* you're talking about
> when you say "they". You're not talking about this impeachment
> supporter, that's for sure. If, after the inquiry, the Senate "acquits"
> and the electoral college re-elects Trump, so be it. We did the right
> thing.
>
> But this does wrap back around into conflicting -isms. I'm sympathetic
> to the idea that the electoral college is obsolete. I'm also
> sympathetic to the idea that mob-rule is dangerous. If our system
> (whether a good representation of what the Founders wanted or not)
> doesn't integrate democracy with republic well enough, then a) do we
> tweak it, e.g. with rank choice voting, or b) scrap it for a new one?
> As much as I'd love to see a constitutional convention, my guess is too
> few people care enough about others (other countries, the earth, other
> life forms) to work authentically toward a solution. Every player would
> be trying to game the system for themselves (or their "tribe", whatever
> they think that is). So, scrapping it seems too risky. And we're left
> with the technical debt and the rule-rot we have.
>
> Our Constitution and other supporting frameworks like common law are a
> great example of a prematurely modeled integration that we're now stuck
> with. Maybe there's no way out of this local optimum to a more global
> optimum unless we scrap it.
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[gepr]

While I agree that your *narrative* is plausible, I'm always skeptical of such narratives. The system is more complex than these stories we tell ourselves. I didn't confidently support impeachment until Trump released his readout of the Ukraine call. And most of my more conservative friends didn't support impeachment until the whistleblower came forward. Those who've been shouting for Trump's impeachment for years were not in control of the process.

More importantly, I think Obama should have been impeached, as well. To me, his drone strikes were very close to crimes against humanity ... but, of course, crimes against humanity may not be crimes against our country... I don't know. But the larger point is that communities are responsible for policing themselves. Everyone should *welcome* challenges to their narrative. So, Obama should have welcomed impeachment inquiries into his actions. Trump should welcome the impeachment inquiry *and* that into Russian interference. All rational people should welcome challenges to their words and actions.

Think of impeachment like your friend telling you there's spinach in your teeth.

On 11/9/19 12:05 AM, Prof David West wrote:

> "They" is a very small number of individuals who directly control/influence the existing impeachment effort — Schiff and 50+ percent of House Members, Hillary and her closest cohort, a finite number of columnists, pundits, and commentators.
>
> In my opinion, both the Clinton and the Trump impeachment efforts were not motivated by, and did not actualize, a very necessary system of checks and balances. Both were motivated by personal and partisan animosity.
>
> And, in the case of Trump, motivated by deeply bruised egos.
>
> "They" cannot believe that 49% of the electorate and most of the  populace outside of the northeast, west coast, and enclaves like Santa Fe, could possibly disagree with them. Therefore, Trump supporters are certifiably: racists, deplorables, and/or uneducated fools. And Trump has to be illegitimate, and must be removed from office for no other reason than he is a symbol of "Their" failures.
>
> Impeachment is the wrong tool, wielded by the wrong people, for the wrong reasons, at the wrong time.
>
> Its inevitable failure will almost guarantee "four more years" and, far more importantly, devalue an essential check & balance tool to the point that future Houses will shy from its use and open the door to "really bad things."
>
> There are so many other ways that the country could have been protected from Trump and his re-election made impossible. But those alternatives would require reason, effort, and, most importantly for "They," some "agonizing reappraisal." (Mao)
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Dave writes:

   "And, in the case of Trump, motivated by deeply bruised egos."

It is just not so.   Sure, I was disappointed when George W was elected.   I was disappointed by what I saw was a preference too many people had for a good 'old boy rather than a person with ideas for governance.   When 9/11 happened, I was supportive of the use of violence.  I remember his State of the Union address and being amazed I supported this guy -- the loyal opposition.   But this is what had to be done. That carried over to Obama with the drone strikes too.   Ugly measures are sometimes needed for the greater good, or at least our good.

I see the red hat folks in much the same way I see militant Islamists.   People with a backward way of thinking that need constant oversight.  A danger to themselves and others.   They are cultural regressions waiting to happen, and both of them did.  It really doesn't have anything to do with Hillary and Donald.

Marcus

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Prof David West]

Glen,

Your "larger point is that communities are
> responsible for policing themselves. Everyone should *welcome*
> challenges to their narrative. So, Obama should have welcomed
> impeachment inquiries into his actions. Trump should welcome the
> impeachment inquiry *and* that into Russian interference. All rational
> people should welcome challenges to their words and actions."

is dead on, with a minor caveat: ... rational people should welcome rational challenges ...

What Schiff, and the 500-1000 people I am including in "They" is not rational - it is emotional and ego-driven.

Based on her questioning of several Trump admin witnesses, Ocasio-Cortez should be leading the impeachment effort  - quiet, informed, questions that clearly demonstrate the errors of the other side — rational challenges absent all the ad hominen rhetoric. It would quickly be obvious to the majority of the population why Trump should be removed. And, in the short run, it would give the Republicans the grounds for actually supporting impeachment and convicting — something that will never happen with  the toxic-partisan Schiff-led efforts.

davew


On Sat, Nov 9, 2019, at 3:49 PM, glen∈ℂ wrote:

> While I agree that your *narrative* is plausible, I'm always skeptical
> of such narratives. The system is more complex than these stories we
> tell ourselves. I didn't confidently support impeachment until Trump
> released his readout of the Ukraine call. And most of my more
> conservative friends didn't support impeachment until the whistleblower
> came forward. Those who've been shouting for Trump's impeachment for
> years were not in control of the process.
>
> More importantly, I think Obama should have been impeached, as well. To
> me, his drone strikes were very close to crimes against humanity ...
> but, of course, crimes against humanity may not be crimes against our
> country... I don't know. But the larger point is that communities are
> responsible for policing themselves. Everyone should *welcome*
> challenges to their narrative. So, Obama should have welcomed
> impeachment inquiries into his actions. Trump should welcome the
> impeachment inquiry *and* that into Russian interference. All rational
> people should welcome challenges to their words and actions.
>
> Think of impeachment like your friend telling you there's spinach in your teeth.
>
> On 11/9/19 12:05 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> > "They" is a very small number of individuals who directly control/influence the existing impeachment effort — Schiff and 50+ percent of House Members, Hillary and her closest cohort, a finite number of columnists, pundits, and commentators.
> >
> > In my opinion, both the Clinton and the Trump impeachment efforts were not motivated by, and did not actualize, a very necessary system of checks and balances. Both were motivated by personal and partisan animosity.
> >
> > And, in the case of Trump, motivated by deeply bruised egos.
> >
> > "They" cannot believe that 49% of the electorate and most of the  populace outside of the northeast, west coast, and enclaves like Santa Fe, could possibly disagree with them. Therefore, Trump supporters are certifiably: racists, deplorables, and/or uneducated fools. And Trump has to be illegitimate, and must be removed from office for no other reason than he is a symbol of "Their" failures.
> >
> > Impeachment is the wrong tool, wielded by the wrong people, for the wrong reasons, at the wrong time.
> >
> > Its inevitable failure will almost guarantee "four more years" and, far more importantly, devalue an essential check & balance tool to the point that future Houses will shy from its use and open the door to "really bad things."
> >
> > There are so many other ways that the country could have been protected from Trump and his re-election made impossible. But those alternatives would require reason, effort, and, most importantly for "They," some "agonizing reappraisal." (Mao)
> >
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Prof David West]

Marcus,

There was no implication that your ego was bruised, nor anyone else's outside of the very small number (500-1000) that I included in my definition of "They."

I hope that when you talk about the "red hat folks," you are also speaking of a small, very small actually, percentage of those supporting Trump. The vast majority of Trump supporters are NOT "People with a backward way of thinking that need constant oversight.   A danger to themselves and others."

One tiny example: I was in the US the month of October and talking with a large number of ranchers. The conversations were about conservation and climate change. These people know far more about conservation and far more about how cattle contribute to green-house gasses than (almost) anyone in the government bureaucracy charged with writing rules and regulations.

The ranchers (and I am excluding the large corporate ranches, but there are fewer of them than there are of corporate farms) are constantly seeking and applying knowledge to enhance conservation and to ameliorate adverse affects on climate. They justifiably take umbrage at the imposition of uninformed/misinformed regulations that frequently make things worse.

They dismiss ideas, like solving the cow flatulence problem by banning meat and making everyone a vegetarian/vegan, as nonsense, not because they deny the climate effect, but because they are working on a better way to address the problem - and they know it is better because they have the data and a forward way of thinking about that data.

And most of them are wearing red hats (actually the favored re-election hat is black with a flag motif on half the brim).

davew


On Sat, Nov 9, 2019, at 7:56 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

> Dave writes:
>
>    "And, in the case of Trump, motivated by deeply bruised egos."
>
> It is just not so.   Sure, I was disappointed when George W was
> elected.   I was disappointed by what I saw was a preference too many
> people had for a good 'old boy rather than a person with ideas for
> governance.   When 9/11 happened, I was supportive of the use of
> violence.  I remember his State of the Union address and being amazed I
> supported this guy -- the loyal opposition.   But this is what had to
> be done. That carried over to Obama with the drone strikes too.   Ugly
> measures are sometimes needed for the greater good, or at least our
> good.
>
> I see the red hat folks in much the same way I see militant Islamists.  
>  People with a backward way of thinking that need constant oversight.  
> A danger to themselves and others.   They are cultural regressions
> waiting to happen, and both of them did.  It really doesn't have
> anything to do with Hillary and Donald.
>
> Marcus
>
>  
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[gepr]

I guess we don't disagree nearly as much as I inferred from your earlier post. But I also worry about the narratives surrounding Schiff. I agree that AOC is more rational. But many of the right-wing sites are claiming Pelosi is as questionable as Schiff. And I disagree completely. Pelosi is partisan. But everything I've seen her do seems completely above board. So, if there are credible complaints against Schiff, those making them should, themselves, be rational -- specific and particular -- rather than painting all Democrats with the same brush. If you're serious about your 500-1000 particular people, it helps to name a few inside that set and name a few outside that set. If you did that, you could come up with a better name for that set than "they".

It's the over the top rhetoric that's causing the problem. E.g. when you say things like:

On 11/10/19 1:26 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> They dismiss ideas, like solving the cow flatulence problem by banning meat and making everyone a vegetarian/vegan, as nonsense,  ...

You're installing that straw man, that anyone's seriously suggested banning meat and forcing everyone to be veg, into your rhetoric. And those little rhetorical injections color/weaken the whole argument. The farmers and ranchers I've talked to are *also* committed to conservation, including exploring ideas like no-till and organic pest control. The same's true of sport hunters and fishermen, who often side with environmentalists against things like motorcycles and atvs in the woods.

So why inject the silly straw man? Why not try to construct your best representation of the "other side"? E.g. it's clear that *reducing* meat in the 1st world diet would help a little with climate change. But removing meat altogether presents lots of problems, problems we could work on if people would quit their bad faith characterizations of the other side.

On 11/10/19 12:59 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> is dead on, with a minor caveat: ... rational people should welcome rational challenges ...
>
> What Schiff, and the 500-1000 people I am including in "They" is not rational - it is emotional and ego-driven.
>
> Based on her questioning of several Trump admin witnesses, Ocasio-Cortez should be leading the impeachment effort  - quiet, informed, questions that clearly demonstrate the errors of the other side — rational challenges absent all the ad hominen rhetoric. It would quickly be obvious to the majority of the population why Trump should be removed. And, in the short run, it would give the Republicans the grounds for actually supporting impeachment and convicting — something that will never happen with  the toxic-partisan Schiff-led efforts.


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Nick Thompson]

Gosh, Dave.  What is the solution they are entertaining?  As a guilty meat-eater, I want to know.


I was musing the other day on the amount of food waste between harvest and eating and wondering vaguely if meat isn't a more efficient way to bring plants to table than we give it credit for.  In the same way that I wonder about these claims that my lightbulbs are saving energy when they give off less heat ...during the winter?  Aren't those nice warm incandescent lightbulbs helping to heat my house?  

I don't share your more general implication that government should leave off thinking about this stuff and leave the cattlemen to solve it on their own.  That leads back to our conversation ofn Grapes of Wrath.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2019 2:27 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

Marcus,

There was no implication that your ego was bruised, nor anyone else's outside of the very small number (500-1000) that I included in my definition of "They."

I hope that when you talk about the "red hat folks," you are also speaking of a small, very small actually, percentage of those supporting Trump. The vast majority of Trump supporters are NOT "People with a backward way of thinking that need constant oversight.   A danger to themselves and others."

One tiny example: I was in the US the month of October and talking with a large number of ranchers. The conversations were about conservation and climate change. These people know far more about conservation and far more about how cattle contribute to green-house gasses than (almost) anyone in the government bureaucracy charged with writing rules and regulations.

The ranchers (and I am excluding the large corporate ranches, but there are fewer of them than there are of corporate farms) are constantly seeking and applying knowledge to enhance conservation and to ameliorate adverse affects on climate. They justifiably take umbrage at the imposition of uninformed/misinformed regulations that frequently make things worse.

They dismiss ideas, like solving the cow flatulence problem by banning meat and making everyone a vegetarian/vegan, as nonsense, not because they deny the climate effect, but because they are working on a better way to address the problem - and they know it is better because they have the data and a forward way of thinking about that data.

And most of them are wearing red hats (actually the favored re-election hat is black with a flag motif on half the brim).

davew


On Sat, Nov 9, 2019, at 7:56 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

> Dave writes:
>
>    "And, in the case of Trump, motivated by deeply bruised egos."
>
> It is just not so.   Sure, I was disappointed when George W was
> elected.   I was disappointed by what I saw was a preference too many
> people had for a good 'old boy rather than a person with ideas for
> governance.   When 9/11 happened, I was supportive of the use of
> violence.  I remember his State of the Union address and being amazed I
> supported this guy -- the loyal opposition.   But this is what had to
> be done. That carried over to Obama with the drone strikes too.   Ugly
> measures are sometimes needed for the greater good, or at least our
> good.
>
> I see the red hat folks in much the same way I see militant Islamists.  
>  People with a backward way of thinking that need constant oversight.  
> A danger to themselves and others.   They are cultural regressions
> waiting to happen, and both of them did.  It really doesn't have
> anything to do with Hillary and Donald.
>
> Marcus
>
>  
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe
> at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Nick Thompson]

Dave,

Funny.  I don't read Schiff that way.  I don't watch any TV, and get all my news from text or podcasts, so I may be missing a lot of nonverbals.  But I thought his "It's not OK that ..." speech of a year or so back was terrific. I read him as a prosecutor.  His job is to present the case.

I do agree about A.O.C.  But she was playing a different role.  What was splendid about her questioning was the disciplined manner in which she stayed within the bounds of the role she was playing.  She let the case present itself.  

Nick





Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2019 2:00 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

Glen,

Your "larger point is that communities are
> responsible for policing themselves. Everyone should *welcome*
> challenges to their narrative. So, Obama should have welcomed
> impeachment inquiries into his actions. Trump should welcome the
> impeachment inquiry *and* that into Russian interference. All rational
> people should welcome challenges to their words and actions."

is dead on, with a minor caveat: ... rational people should welcome rational challenges ...

What Schiff, and the 500-1000 people I am including in "They" is not rational - it is emotional and ego-driven.

Based on her questioning of several Trump admin witnesses, Ocasio-Cortez should be leading the impeachment effort  - quiet, informed, questions that clearly demonstrate the errors of the other side — rational challenges absent all the ad hominen rhetoric. It would quickly be obvious to the majority of the population why Trump should be removed. And, in the short run, it would give the Republicans the grounds for actually supporting impeachment and convicting — something that will never happen with  the toxic-partisan Schiff-led efforts.

davew


On Sat, Nov 9, 2019, at 3:49 PM, glen∈ℂ wrote:

> While I agree that your *narrative* is plausible, I'm always skeptical
> of such narratives. The system is more complex than these stories we
> tell ourselves. I didn't confidently support impeachment until Trump
> released his readout of the Ukraine call. And most of my more
> conservative friends didn't support impeachment until the
> whistleblower came forward. Those who've been shouting for Trump's
> impeachment for years were not in control of the process.
>
> More importantly, I think Obama should have been impeached, as well.
> To me, his drone strikes were very close to crimes against humanity ...
> but, of course, crimes against humanity may not be crimes against our
> country... I don't know. But the larger point is that communities are
> responsible for policing themselves. Everyone should *welcome*
> challenges to their narrative. So, Obama should have welcomed
> impeachment inquiries into his actions. Trump should welcome the
> impeachment inquiry *and* that into Russian interference. All rational
> people should welcome challenges to their words and actions.
>
> Think of impeachment like your friend telling you there's spinach in your teeth.
>
> On 11/9/19 12:05 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> > "They" is a very small number of individuals who directly control/influence the existing impeachment effort — Schiff and 50+ percent of House Members, Hillary and her closest cohort, a finite number of columnists, pundits, and commentators.
> >
> > In my opinion, both the Clinton and the Trump impeachment efforts were not motivated by, and did not actualize, a very necessary system of checks and balances. Both were motivated by personal and partisan animosity.
> >
> > And, in the case of Trump, motivated by deeply bruised egos.
> >
> > "They" cannot believe that 49% of the electorate and most of the  populace outside of the northeast, west coast, and enclaves like Santa Fe, could possibly disagree with them. Therefore, Trump supporters are certifiably: racists, deplorables, and/or uneducated fools. And Trump has to be illegitimate, and must be removed from office for no other reason than he is a symbol of "Their" failures.
> >
> > Impeachment is the wrong tool, wielded by the wrong people, for the wrong reasons, at the wrong time.
> >
> > Its inevitable failure will almost guarantee "four more years" and, far more importantly, devalue an essential check & balance tool to the point that future Houses will shy from its use and open the door to "really bad things."
> >
> > There are so many other ways that the country could have been
> > protected from Trump and his re-election made impossible. But those
> > alternatives would require reason, effort, and, most importantly for
> > "They," some "agonizing reappraisal." (Mao)
> >
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe
> at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[gepr]

Well, during my chemotherapy and years of maintenance doses of obinutuzumab, red meat was the only thing that sated me. Prior to my diagnosis and after I stopped taking the drug, I do well on a mostly plant diet, eating meat once or twice per week. That personal experience convinced me of what nutritionists have been telling us for years, that meat *is* an efficient way to deliver some nutrients. The (arguably few) ranchers I've talked to through Utah State Univ. and through the locals who buy whole cows and pigs every year, tend to talk about land use efficiency more than nutritional density. And, again, I believe fairly strongly in the idea that distributed systems can solve some problems better and faster than centralized systems. So, the ranchers probably *can* solve some of the problems better than the State or Federal governments (leaving out counties and cities). But arguing that *all* government is bad/inefficient is just more stupid rhetoric.

As for the light bulbs, the purpose of the *machine* is to control the flow of energy. The heat from your bulbs is *lost* energy, even if you manage to harvest some fraction of that loss, it's still a worse design for a machine. Now, if you designed your house as a living ecosystem, with a "circle of life/energy", then I might buy the idea that the bulb is one organelle in a larger organism. ... But that's a high hurdle to get over.

On 11/10/19 8:57 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> I was musing the other day on the amount of food waste between harvest and eating and wondering vaguely if meat isn't a more efficient way to bring plants to table than we give it credit for.  In the same way that I wonder about these claims that my lightbulbs are saving energy when they give off less heat ...during the winter?  Aren't those nice warm incandescent lightbulbs helping to heat my house?
>
> I don't share your more general implication that government should leave off thinking about this stuff and leave the cattlemen to solve it on their own.  That leads back to our conversation ofn Grapes of Wrath.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Dave writes:

< "They" is a very small number of individuals who directly control/influence the existing impeachment effort — Schiff and 50+ percent of House Members, Hillary and her closest cohort, a finite number of columnists, pundits, and commentators. >

< There was no implication that your ego was bruised, nor anyone else's outside of the very small number (500-1000) that I included in my definition of "They." >

I regularly get surveys from my representatives and from the national funding organizations associated with the Democratic party.   On these surveys, are one or more "fight Trump" options, amongst other priorities like gun control and healthcare.   I check them, above the others.    I don't care who controls/influences the mechanics of the impeachment, provided they are capable.  Adam Schiff is pretty capable.   I don't care if it inflames the culture war.   The culture war needs to be inflamed because the other side is just wrong.

< One tiny example: I was in the US the month of October and talking with a large number of ranchers. The conversations were about conservation and climate change. These people know far more about conservation and far more about how cattle contribute to green-house gasses than (almost) anyone in the government bureaucracy charged with writing rules and regulations. >

< They dismiss ideas, like solving the cow flatulence problem by banning meat and making everyone a vegetarian/vegan, as nonsense, not because they deny the climate effect, but because they are working on a better way to address the problem - and they know it is better because they have the data and a forward way of thinking about that data. >

Ruminants are inefficient at converting energy into tissue, that's the biological bottom line.   If ranchers really wanted to reduce to reduce the massive land and water waste to raising beef, and additional energy expenditures, they'd reworking their businesses toward producing ingredients for taste-compatible beef replacements or cultured meat.   It is often possible now even in small restaurants to buy an Impossible Burger or a Beyond Meat burger.   The best cars today are electric cars, and likewise through engineering food can be improved too.  

Humans are also to blame for greenhouse gases.   A large population is positively related to a big GDP.  A sane leader would see that the two are compatible, and encourage integration of immigrants into our population.   A sane government would discourage reproduction and encourage adoption using tax incentives.  But no, Trump and the so-called conservatives carry on with their unsustainable nativist madness.

< I hope that when you talk about the "red hat folks," you are also speaking of a small, very small actually, percentage of those supporting Trump. The vast majority of Trump supporters are NOT "People with a backward way of thinking that need constant oversight.   A danger to themselves and others." >

The man is a demagogue, a narcissist, a racist, a pathological liar, and a reactive and impulsive person.  He is corrupt.   He is the antithesis of a leader.   Handing the keys to someone like that is bad enough, but wanting to it to continue in light of the accumulation of evidence we've seen over the last three years (or on any one day) is unforgivable.    Anyone that supports Trump should be ashamed of themselves.  

Marcus

---

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Prof David West <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2019 2:26 AM
To: [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

 

Marcus,

There was no implication that your ego was bruised, nor anyone else's outside of the very small number (500-1000) that I included in my definition of "They."

I hope that when you talk about the "red hat folks," you are also speaking of a small, very small actually, percentage of those supporting Trump. The vast majority of Trump supporters are NOT "People with a backward way of thinking that need constant oversight.   A danger to themselves and others."

One tiny example: I was in the US the month of October and talking with a large number of ranchers. The conversations were about conservation and climate change. These people know far more about conservation and far more about how cattle contribute to green-house gasses than (almost) anyone in the government bureaucracy charged with writing rules and regulations.

The ranchers (and I am excluding the large corporate ranches, but there are fewer of them than there are of corporate farms) are constantly seeking and applying knowledge to enhance conservation and to ameliorate adverse affects on climate. They justifiably take umbrage at the imposition of uninformed/misinformed regulations that frequently make things worse.

They dismiss ideas, like solving the cow flatulence problem by banning meat and making everyone a vegetarian/vegan, as nonsense, not because they deny the climate effect, but because they are working on a better way to address the problem - and they know it is better because they have the data and a forward way of thinking about that data.

And most of them are wearing red hats (actually the favored re-election hat is black with a flag motif on half the brim).

davew


On Sat, Nov 9, 2019, at 7:56 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Dave writes:
>
>    "And, in the case of Trump, motivated by deeply bruised egos."
>
> It is just not so.   Sure, I was disappointed when George W was
> elected.   I was disappointed by what I saw was a preference too many
> people had for a good 'old boy rather than a person with ideas for
> governance.   When 9/11 happened, I was supportive of the use of
> violence.  I remember his State of the Union address and being amazed I
> supported this guy -- the loyal opposition.   But this is what had to
> be done. That carried over to Obama with the drone strikes too.   Ugly
> measures are sometimes needed for the greater good, or at least our
> good.
>
> I see the red hat folks in much the same way I see militant Islamists. 
>  People with a backward way of thinking that need constant oversight. 
> A danger to themselves and others.   They are cultural regressions
> waiting to happen, and both of them did.  It really doesn't have
> anything to do with Hillary and Donald.
>
> Marcus
>
> 
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove