Friam

great man theory

Classic

List

Threaded

102 messages Options

123456

Gillian Densmore

Re: What is Wealth for?

Marcus. what a load. Let me tell you something. I am bairly scraping by. it's only because of luck I am not on the streets or someones home. people that are retired and working, arguably, that's theft. people that still have to pay off a morgage, or rent or what ever else to actually F'n live. Do have to have money. just the reality of things. Liking other stuff? yeah that's great. But until such time as we get our collective heads of our asses and admit that burn and churn boomer level stuff of making your work your life, when now: anyone under 80 or 60 actually enjoy or want to make work their life? me either. I for one need work, so as that I for one can actually live and afford things. Its great people on this list take forgranted how god awful it is to choose between a full tank of gas and healthy eating or going out with a cute babe. I have to make that choice. It fucking sucks, it reely does. I have been hit with age-ism. Sexism, yeah, turns out a lot of places won't hire men, because they think cute girls being the face of a company meens more horny ass teens or what ever their marketing dweebs have gaslighted them into thinking. That meens they will get more people to squander money on stuff.

Sorry/not sorry. Just about every place, every article ever. says that the true cost of living most places in the use has vastly outpaced what anyone makes.

SantaFe anyone actually live here long? nope. Why: the cost of fucking living! People pile ontop of eachother, heart rending stories of people having to work 3 and 4 fucking jobs even at above slave-wage levels at underemployment. Cost of living is the corossive beating vile toxic slime at the top 10 problems.

Great that people are independently wealthy, can afford 99 cars, turn around and whine about how they don't autodrive, or what ever. I think that is fantastic! for the rest of us: I have aghettotastic jellopy. It's white anyone here seen me at wedteck? see that old ass car. yeah I have to keep it working for a while despite it's mechanicle quirks.

Greed and Malice is another side to wealth. Anyone think it's especially great we worship the wanker dweebs called CEO's wo are making 200% proffifts while an estimated 70% of americans up to 2019 were underemployed? me either.

All that is also directly tied to cost of living. I am seriusly looking to move because my 36 month long plan: get a job, get health. and with any luck meet someone very very amazing. I want her to never wory about anything I'd be a stay at home father. At least that's ideal dream! lol. Either way when that warm kind amazing special person wants to be in my life. what do you think will be in the top 10 or even 15 things to come up a lot: how do afford X, who do we talk to about y how do invest in AwesomeCompany to have a bad ass investment portfolio?

All that, to deel with the pure stupidity of cost of living. Well that and it's just a good idea to have solid investments.

Part of the costs of living is hitting americans for no good reason now to. Inusrance. why do not have a NHS like, um bassicly every other country? I don't know. but. after you get laid off because of a virus. No insurance and that's a stupidly high cost. that adds to the costs of living.

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:50 AM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

I don’t find the cost of living argument so convincing. If one can accumulate wealth and retire or work remotely, it is possible to get the benefits of a low cost of living while still having a high income. However, what’s unsaid, is that people do value other things, like being in the vicinity of their friends and family. Also in the U.S., especially, what we value is a political football. If half a million people die of COVID-19, that can be defined away in the name of jobs. Or the economy can be equated with the markets, etc. How much terror and suffering is enough to make one doubt ones definition of wealth?

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 6:44 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>; Merle Lefkoff <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is Wealth for?

Steve

If you are taking a poll...

For starters on what wealth might mean economically, it might be useful to understand the cost of living and purchasing power by country. Is 'wealthy' some factor based on a ratio of income over cost of living?

I don't know how you would measure cultural wealth and how colonialism played a part in its accumulation via subjugation. There must be other categories of wealth; spiritual wealth, artistic wealth, land ownership, public wealth, private wealth, etc.. How would native Americans and other indigenous population discuss the concept?

At the excessive levels of the ultra-rich (Besos and co), wealth is for giving away for perhaps some altruistic purpose. Cynically, some might see this as a way for making amends for all the transgressions committed on the way?

More commonly wealth is accumulated to help the next generation in one's family regardless of culture and purchasing power?

Robert C.

On 3/12/21 7:24 PM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
Can we please start with how we define "wealth." Please.

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 12:31 PM Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Tangenting off of the Great Man discussion, I would like to solicit a
discussion on "What is Wealth for". I believe we have attended to this
on the side many times (I remember a vFriam where it was declared that
"Billionaires are Assholes, but Millionaires aren't (necessarily)"?

Each of our Great (Wo)Men on the snark/not-snark list share one thing in
common, Wealth. I'd be interested to hear others riff a little more on
their taxonomies of "what is Wealth for?"

- Steve

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

--

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @merle110
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
-- 
Cirrillian 
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

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

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: What is Wealth for?

People here complain about homeless people relieving themselves in the streets. The solution seems so simple, especially in the city: Builds more public bathrooms. Duh. One small example of how unreasonably ruthless our society has become.

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Gillian Densmore
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 11:09 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is Wealth for?

Sorry/not sorry. Just about every place, every article ever. says that the true cost of living most places in the use has vastly outpaced what anyone makes.

All that, to deel with the pure stupidity of cost of living. Well that and it's just a good idea to have solid investments.

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:50 AM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

I don’t find the cost of living argument so convincing. If one can accumulate wealth and retire or work remotely, it is possible to get the benefits of a low cost of living while still having a high income. However, what’s unsaid, is that people do value other things, like being in the vicinity of their friends and family. Also in the U.S., especially, what we value is a political football. If half a million people die of COVID-19, that can be defined away in the name of jobs. Or the economy can be equated with the markets, etc. How much terror and suffering is enough to make one doubt ones definition of wealth?

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 6:44 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>; Merle Lefkoff <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is Wealth for?

Steve

If you are taking a poll...

For starters on what wealth might mean economically, it might be useful to understand the cost of living and purchasing power by country. Is 'wealthy' some factor based on a ratio of income over cost of living?

I don't know how you would measure cultural wealth and how colonialism played a part in its accumulation via subjugation. There must be other categories of wealth; spiritual wealth, artistic wealth, land ownership, public wealth, private wealth, etc.. How would native Americans and other indigenous population discuss the concept?

At the excessive levels of the ultra-rich (Besos and co), wealth is for giving away for perhaps some altruistic purpose. Cynically, some might see this as a way for making amends for all the transgressions committed on the way?

More commonly wealth is accumulated to help the next generation in one's family regardless of culture and purchasing power?

Robert C.

On 3/12/21 7:24 PM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
Can we please start with how we define "wealth." Please.

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 12:31 PM Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Tangenting off of the Great Man discussion, I would like to solicit a
discussion on "What is Wealth for". I believe we have attended to this
on the side many times (I remember a vFriam where it was declared that
"Billionaires are Assholes, but Millionaires aren't (necessarily)"?

Each of our Great (Wo)Men on the snark/not-snark list share one thing in
common, Wealth. I'd be interested to hear others riff a little more on
their taxonomies of "what is Wealth for?"

- Steve

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

--

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @merle110
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
-- 
Cirrillian 
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Gillian Densmore

Re: What is Wealth for?

:( yeah. Exactly. In that specific example. Maan I can't count the number of times when I was still in hiking shape, doing short hikes, or walking to downtown, how often in summers after drinking water along the way. I'd need to find a bathroom.Elderly, Kids, hell just about anyone with blader or just wanting to freshen up some. But as much as at confuses me. Like you say, society has some issues.

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 12:56 PM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

People here complain about homeless people relieving themselves in the streets. The solution seems so simple, especially in the city: Builds more public bathrooms. Duh. One small example of how unreasonably ruthless our society has become.

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Gillian Densmore
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 11:09 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is Wealth for?

Marcus. what a load. Let me tell you something. I am bairly scraping by. it's only because of luck I am not on the streets or someones home. people that are retired and working, arguably, that's theft. people that still have to pay off a morgage, or rent or what ever else to actually F'n live. Do have to have money. just the reality of things. Liking other stuff? yeah that's great. But until such time as we get our collective heads of our asses and admit that burn and churn boomer level stuff of making your work your life, when now: anyone under 80 or 60 actually enjoy or want to make work their life? me either. I for one need work, so as that I for one can actually live and afford things. Its great people on this list take forgranted how god awful it is to choose between a full tank of gas and healthy eating or going out with a cute babe. I have to make that choice. It fucking sucks, it reely does. I have been hit with age-ism. Sexism, yeah, turns out a lot of places won't hire men, because they think cute girls being the face of a company meens more horny ass teens or what ever their marketing dweebs have gaslighted them into thinking. That meens they will get more people to squander money on stuff.

Sorry/not sorry. Just about every place, every article ever. says that the true cost of living most places in the use has vastly outpaced what anyone makes.

SantaFe anyone actually live here long? nope. Why: the cost of fucking living! People pile ontop of eachother, heart rending stories of people having to work 3 and 4 fucking jobs even at above slave-wage levels at underemployment. Cost of living is the corossive beating vile toxic slime at the top 10 problems.

Great that people are independently wealthy, can afford 99 cars, turn around and whine about how they don't autodrive, or what ever. I think that is fantastic! for the rest of us: I have aghettotastic jellopy. It's white anyone here seen me at wedteck? see that old ass car. yeah I have to keep it working for a while despite it's mechanicle quirks.

Greed and Malice is another side to wealth. Anyone think it's especially great we worship the wanker dweebs called CEO's wo are making 200% proffifts while an estimated 70% of americans up to 2019 were underemployed? me either.

All that is also directly tied to cost of living. I am seriusly looking to move because my 36 month long plan: get a job, get health. and with any luck meet someone very very amazing. I want her to never wory about anything I'd be a stay at home father. At least that's ideal dream! lol. Either way when that warm kind amazing special person wants to be in my life. what do you think will be in the top 10 or even 15 things to come up a lot: how do afford X, who do we talk to about y how do invest in AwesomeCompany to have a bad ass investment portfolio?

All that, to deel with the pure stupidity of cost of living. Well that and it's just a good idea to have solid investments.

Part of the costs of living is hitting americans for no good reason now to. Inusrance. why do not have a NHS like, um bassicly every other country? I don't know. but. after you get laid off because of a virus. No insurance and that's a stupidly high cost. that adds to the costs of living.
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:50 AM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
I don’t find the cost of living argument so convincing. If one can accumulate wealth and retire or work remotely, it is possible to get the benefits of a low cost of living while still having a high income. However, what’s unsaid, is that people do value other things, like being in the vicinity of their friends and family. Also in the U.S., especially, what we value is a political football. If half a million people die of COVID-19, that can be defined away in the name of jobs. Or the economy can be equated with the markets, etc. How much terror and suffering is enough to make one doubt ones definition of wealth?

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 6:44 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>; Merle Lefkoff <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is Wealth for?

Steve

If you are taking a poll...

For starters on what wealth might mean economically, it might be useful to understand the cost of living and purchasing power by country. Is 'wealthy' some factor based on a ratio of income over cost of living?

I don't know how you would measure cultural wealth and how colonialism played a part in its accumulation via subjugation. There must be other categories of wealth; spiritual wealth, artistic wealth, land ownership, public wealth, private wealth, etc.. How would native Americans and other indigenous population discuss the concept?

At the excessive levels of the ultra-rich (Besos and co), wealth is for giving away for perhaps some altruistic purpose. Cynically, some might see this as a way for making amends for all the transgressions committed on the way?

More commonly wealth is accumulated to help the next generation in one's family regardless of culture and purchasing power?

Robert C.

On 3/12/21 7:24 PM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
Can we please start with how we define "wealth." Please.

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 12:31 PM Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Tangenting off of the Great Man discussion, I would like to solicit a
discussion on "What is Wealth for". I believe we have attended to this
on the side many times (I remember a vFriam where it was declared that
"Billionaires are Assholes, but Millionaires aren't (necessarily)"?

Each of our Great (Wo)Men on the snark/not-snark list share one thing in
common, Wealth. I'd be interested to hear others riff a little more on
their taxonomies of "what is Wealth for?"

- Steve

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

--

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @merle110
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
-- 
Cirrillian 
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Robert J. Cordingley

Re: What is Wealth for?

All

This is going off topic in a hurry. Sure no public bathrooms in Santa Fe has been a problem for years. Should the city use its wealth, if it has any to spare, to build some? Are we saying in principle wealth should be used to help the disadvantaged (small bladders)? Isn't the problem, what system of wealth distribution should we adopt as a society in an effort to make us 'civilized'. Do we want to be more civilized - whatever that means?

Robert C

PS Let's not get into a discussion of the differences between bathrooms, restrooms, toilets, lavatories, WCs, bogs, outhouses, pit-stops, the gents, the ladies, powder rooms, etc.) R

On 3/15/21 1:12 PM, Gillian Densmore wrote:

:( yeah. Exactly. In that specific example. Maan I can't count the number of times when I was still in hiking shape, doing short hikes, or walking to downtown, how often in summers after drinking water along the way. I'd need to find a bathroom.Elderly, Kids, hell just about anyone with blader or just wanting to freshen up some. But as much as at confuses me. Like you say, society has some issues.
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 12:56 PM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
People here complain about homeless people relieving themselves in the streets. The solution seems so simple, especially in the city: Builds more public bathrooms. Duh. One small example of how unreasonably ruthless our society has become.

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Gillian Densmore
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 11:09 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is Wealth for?

Marcus. what a load. Let me tell you something. I am bairly scraping by. it's only because of luck I am not on the streets or someones home. people that are retired and working, arguably, that's theft. people that still have to pay off a morgage, or rent or what ever else to actually F'n live. Do have to have money. just the reality of things. Liking other stuff? yeah that's great. But until such time as we get our collective heads of our asses and admit that burn and churn boomer level stuff of making your work your life, when now: anyone under 80 or 60 actually enjoy or want to make work their life? me either. I for one need work, so as that I for one can actually live and afford things. Its great people on this list take forgranted how god awful it is to choose between a full tank of gas and healthy eating or going out with a cute babe. I have to make that choice. It fucking sucks, it reely does. I have been hit with age-ism. Sexism, yeah, turns out a lot of places won't hire men, because they think cute girls being the face of a company meens more horny ass teens or what ever their marketing dweebs have gaslighted them into thinking. That meens they will get more people to squander money on stuff.

Sorry/not sorry. Just about every place, every article ever. says that the true cost of living most places in the use has vastly outpaced what anyone makes.

SantaFe anyone actually live here long? nope. Why: the cost of fucking living! People pile ontop of eachother, heart rending stories of people having to work 3 and 4 fucking jobs even at above slave-wage levels at underemployment. Cost of living is the corossive beating vile toxic slime at the top 10 problems.

Great that people are independently wealthy, can afford 99 cars, turn around and whine about how they don't autodrive, or what ever. I think that is fantastic! for the rest of us: I have aghettotastic jellopy. It's white anyone here seen me at wedteck? see that old ass car. yeah I have to keep it working for a while despite it's mechanicle quirks.

Greed and Malice is another side to wealth. Anyone think it's especially great we worship the wanker dweebs called CEO's wo are making 200% proffifts while an estimated 70% of americans up to 2019 were underemployed? me either.

All that is also directly tied to cost of living. I am seriusly looking to move because my 36 month long plan: get a job, get health. and with any luck meet someone very very amazing. I want her to never wory about anything I'd be a stay at home father. At least that's ideal dream! lol. Either way when that warm kind amazing special person wants to be in my life. what do you think will be in the top 10 or even 15 things to come up a lot: how do afford X, who do we talk to about y how do invest in AwesomeCompany to have a bad ass investment portfolio?

All that, to deel with the pure stupidity of cost of living. Well that and it's just a good idea to have solid investments.

Part of the costs of living is hitting americans for no good reason now to. Inusrance. why do not have a NHS like, um bassicly every other country? I don't know. but. after you get laid off because of a virus. No insurance and that's a stupidly high cost. that adds to the costs of living.
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:50 AM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
I don’t find the cost of living argument so convincing. If one can accumulate wealth and retire or work remotely, it is possible to get the benefits of a low cost of living while still having a high income. However, what’s unsaid, is that people do value other things, like being in the vicinity of their friends and family. Also in the U.S., especially, what we value is a political football. If half a million people die of COVID-19, that can be defined away in the name of jobs. Or the economy can be equated with the markets, etc. How much terror and suffering is enough to make one doubt ones definition of wealth?

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 6:44 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>; Merle Lefkoff <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is Wealth for?

Steve

If you are taking a poll...

For starters on what wealth might mean economically, it might be useful to understand the cost of living and purchasing power by country. Is 'wealthy' some factor based on a ratio of income over cost of living?

I don't know how you would measure cultural wealth and how colonialism played a part in its accumulation via subjugation. There must be other categories of wealth; spiritual wealth, artistic wealth, land ownership, public wealth, private wealth, etc.. How would native Americans and other indigenous population discuss the concept?

At the excessive levels of the ultra-rich (Besos and co), wealth is for giving away for perhaps some altruistic purpose. Cynically, some might see this as a way for making amends for all the transgressions committed on the way?

More commonly wealth is accumulated to help the next generation in one's family regardless of culture and purchasing power?

Robert C.

On 3/12/21 7:24 PM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
Can we please start with how we define "wealth." Please.

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 12:31 PM Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Tangenting off of the Great Man discussion, I would like to solicit a
discussion on "What is Wealth for". I believe we have attended to this
on the side many times (I remember a vFriam where it was declared that
"Billionaires are Assholes, but Millionaires aren't (necessarily)"?

Each of our Great (Wo)Men on the snark/not-snark list share one thing in
common, Wealth. I'd be interested to hear others riff a little more on
their taxonomies of "what is Wealth for?"

- Steve

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

--

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @merle110
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
-- 
Cirrillian 
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

-- 
Cirrillian 
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: What is Wealth for?

I was speaking of San Francisco, where homeless people are known to #2 on sidewalks, between cars, etc.

If actually providing low cost housing isn’t feasible, it ought to be possible to fix the obnoxious but obvious outcome of people not having a way to go to the bathroom. That problem impacts everyone. (In fairness the city has made progress.)

My sense is that once people are completely humiliated, they just stop keeping up appearances.

Public libraries are one way the problem is addressed. They have bathrooms and shelter. Even Santa Fe’s main public library is repellant enough that I wouldn’t want to hang out there. For bathrooms, the homeless use the public gyms.

There was the N.Y. / Giuliani approach of actually putting homeless people on buses upstate or even sending them out of the country. Like electronic waste barges headed for China. Is that who we are?

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 1:06 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>; Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is Wealth for?

All

Robert C

PS Let's not get into a discussion of the differences between bathrooms, restrooms, toilets, lavatories, WCs, bogs, outhouses, pit-stops, the gents, the ladies, powder rooms, etc.) R

On 3/15/21 1:12 PM, Gillian Densmore wrote:

:( yeah. Exactly. In that specific example. Maan I can't count the number of times when I was still in hiking shape, doing short hikes, or walking to downtown, how often in summers after drinking water along the way. I'd need to find a bathroom.Elderly, Kids, hell just about anyone with blader or just wanting to freshen up some. But as much as at confuses me. Like you say, society has some issues.
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 12:56 PM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
People here complain about homeless people relieving themselves in the streets. The solution seems so simple, especially in the city: Builds more public bathrooms. Duh. One small example of how unreasonably ruthless our society has become.

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Gillian Densmore
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 11:09 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is Wealth for?

Marcus. what a load. Let me tell you something. I am bairly scraping by. it's only because of luck I am not on the streets or someones home. people that are retired and working, arguably, that's theft. people that still have to pay off a morgage, or rent or what ever else to actually F'n live. Do have to have money. just the reality of things. Liking other stuff? yeah that's great. But until such time as we get our collective heads of our asses and admit that burn and churn boomer level stuff of making your work your life, when now: anyone under 80 or 60 actually enjoy or want to make work their life? me either. I for one need work, so as that I for one can actually live and afford things. Its great people on this list take forgranted how god awful it is to choose between a full tank of gas and healthy eating or going out with a cute babe. I have to make that choice. It fucking sucks, it reely does. I have been hit with age-ism. Sexism, yeah, turns out a lot of places won't hire men, because they think cute girls being the face of a company meens more horny ass teens or what ever their marketing dweebs have gaslighted them into thinking. That meens they will get more people to squander money on stuff.

Sorry/not sorry. Just about every place, every article ever. says that the true cost of living most places in the use has vastly outpaced what anyone makes.

SantaFe anyone actually live here long? nope. Why: the cost of fucking living! People pile ontop of eachother, heart rending stories of people having to work 3 and 4 fucking jobs even at above slave-wage levels at underemployment. Cost of living is the corossive beating vile toxic slime at the top 10 problems.

Great that people are independently wealthy, can afford 99 cars, turn around and whine about how they don't autodrive, or what ever. I think that is fantastic! for the rest of us: I have aghettotastic jellopy. It's white anyone here seen me at wedteck? see that old ass car. yeah I have to keep it working for a while despite it's mechanicle quirks.

Greed and Malice is another side to wealth. Anyone think it's especially great we worship the wanker dweebs called CEO's wo are making 200% proffifts while an estimated 70% of americans up to 2019 were underemployed? me either.

All that is also directly tied to cost of living. I am seriusly looking to move because my 36 month long plan: get a job, get health. and with any luck meet someone very very amazing. I want her to never wory about anything I'd be a stay at home father. At least that's ideal dream! lol. Either way when that warm kind amazing special person wants to be in my life. what do you think will be in the top 10 or even 15 things to come up a lot: how do afford X, who do we talk to about y how do invest in AwesomeCompany to have a bad ass investment portfolio?

All that, to deel with the pure stupidity of cost of living. Well that and it's just a good idea to have solid investments.

Part of the costs of living is hitting americans for no good reason now to. Inusrance. why do not have a NHS like, um bassicly every other country? I don't know. but. after you get laid off because of a virus. No insurance and that's a stupidly high cost. that adds to the costs of living.
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:50 AM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
I don’t find the cost of living argument so convincing. If one can accumulate wealth and retire or work remotely, it is possible to get the benefits of a low cost of living while still having a high income. However, what’s unsaid, is that people do value other things, like being in the vicinity of their friends and family. Also in the U.S., especially, what we value is a political football. If half a million people die of COVID-19, that can be defined away in the name of jobs. Or the economy can be equated with the markets, etc. How much terror and suffering is enough to make one doubt ones definition of wealth?

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 6:44 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>; Merle Lefkoff <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is Wealth for?

Steve

If you are taking a poll...

For starters on what wealth might mean economically, it might be useful to understand the cost of living and purchasing power by country. Is 'wealthy' some factor based on a ratio of income over cost of living?

I don't know how you would measure cultural wealth and how colonialism played a part in its accumulation via subjugation. There must be other categories of wealth; spiritual wealth, artistic wealth, land ownership, public wealth, private wealth, etc.. How would native Americans and other indigenous population discuss the concept?

At the excessive levels of the ultra-rich (Besos and co), wealth is for giving away for perhaps some altruistic purpose. Cynically, some might see this as a way for making amends for all the transgressions committed on the way?

More commonly wealth is accumulated to help the next generation in one's family regardless of culture and purchasing power?

Robert C.

On 3/12/21 7:24 PM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
Can we please start with how we define "wealth." Please.

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 12:31 PM Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Tangenting off of the Great Man discussion, I would like to solicit a
discussion on "What is Wealth for". I believe we have attended to this
on the side many times (I remember a vFriam where it was declared that
"Billionaires are Assholes, but Millionaires aren't (necessarily)"?

Each of our Great (Wo)Men on the snark/not-snark list share one thing in
common, Wealth. I'd be interested to hear others riff a little more on
their taxonomies of "what is Wealth for?"

- Steve

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

--

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @merle110
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
-- 
Cirrillian 
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

--

Cirrillian

Web Design & Development

Santa Fe, NM

http://cirrillian.com

281-989-6272 (cell)

gepr

Re: What is Wealth for?

The recent episode of Computing Up had a good conversation about externalities:

https://computingup.com/glum-about-technology-45th-conversation

On 3/15/21 1:31 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> There was the N.Y. / Giuliani approach of actually putting homeless people on buses upstate or even sending them out of the country. Like electronic waste barges headed for China. Is that who we are?

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

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

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: What is Wealth for?

Only a person who loves games can come up with a notion like Infinite Games. Life is finite, so games are finite.
So long it is a game, players will defect. And they should.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 1:54 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is Wealth for?

The recent episode of Computing Up had a good conversation about externalities:

https://computingup.com/glum-about-technology-45th-conversation

On 3/15/21 1:31 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> There was the N.Y. / Giuliani approach of actually putting homeless people on buses upstate or even sending them out of the country. Like electronic waste barges headed for China. Is that who we are?

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

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

gepr

Re: What is Wealth for?

IKR! I keep coming back to my raw doubt in actual infinity. But I think some of us (maybe Ackley's one of 'em) don't mean actual infinity when we say the word "infinite". We mean finite but infinitely extensible. And as long as no boundary is hit during the lifetime of the extensions, it may as well be infinite.

Plus, there are other ways to understand what someone might mean by "infinite games":

http://pi.math.cornell.edu/~mec/2006-2007/Games/hypergame.html

I think the win-win people argue that way a lot, even if they don't use those words. The accusation of "thinks he's playing checkers" is tossed around a lot. But I tend to think everyone either misunderstands whatever game we're all playing, or each of us is playing our own private game so nobody's playing the same game. 8 billion is finite, but large enough for most to consider it infinite. Or maybe it's a mix of both ... some of us playing N games simultaneously, some of which are the same game as being played by a clique, some of which are private, etc.

On 3/15/21 3:27 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

> Only a person who loves games can come up with a notion like Infinite Games. Life is finite, so games are finite.
> So long it is a game, players will defect. And they should.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 1:54 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is Wealth for?
>
> The recent episode of Computing Up had a good conversation about externalities:
>
> https://computingup.com/glum-about-technology-45th-conversation
>
> On 3/15/21 1:31 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> There was the N.Y. / Giuliani approach of actually putting homeless people on buses upstate or even sending them out of the country. Like electronic waste barges headed for China. Is that who we are?

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

jon zingale

Re: What is Wealth for?

This post was updated on .

In reply to this post by gepr

"Computing Up" is such a good podcast. I keep forgetting that it exists. I
love what Dave Ackley is saying here about generalization, it repeats to a
strong extent what Deleuze is mining for in *Difference and Repetition*, a
pathological (though at times wonderful) obsession with the general (as a
psychological modality) when even at the expense of the particular.
Recently, I have been attempting to make my way through both *Difference and
Repetition* as well as Deleuze's *Bergsonism* in an attempt to better
understand the ramifications of the general-particular/substitution-repetition
distinction. Bergson at one point explicitly calls Einstein's relativity
"metaphysics posing as science", Einstein and Russell, misunderstanding Bergson's
respect for metaphysics, all but pushed Bergson's writings into extinction.

What Ackley discusses here as *independence* and *uniformity* is not unlike the
Einsteinian-Noetherian conception of the *homogeneity* of space and time.
There appears a lot to mine from understanding the relationship between
symmetry and substitution, substitution the mark of the general. There is
also quite a bit in Ackley's monologue that synergizes well with Heidegger's
"The Point of Reference":

"""
All distances in time and space are shrinking. Places that a person
previously reached after weeks and months on the road are now reached by
airplane overnight. What a person previously received news of only after
years, if at all, is now experienced hourly over the radio in no time. The
germination and flourishing of plants that remained concealed through the
seasons, film now exhibits publicly in a single minute...Everything washes
together into the uniformly distanceless. How? Is not this moving together
into the distanceless even more uncanny than everything being out of place?
The human is transfixed by what could come about with the explosion of the
atomic bomb. The human does not see what for a long time now has already
arrived and even is occurring, and for which the atomic bomb and its
explosion are merely the latest emission...What is this clueless anxiety
waiting for, if the horrible has already occurred.
"""

All of these questions of substitution, homogeneity, scale, coverings, and
compactness have very much been on my mind recently. I cannot help but
wonder if a science of the particular, built upon Deleuze's work, is not far
off. For context, here is the relevant section of the Ackley monologue:

"""
One of the ways that we describe reality a lot is in terms of here is a
situation and we imagine that this situation has some extent, it is my
house, it is my city, it is my room and it has some properties and I
describe it and I tell a story in that situation and there is an implicit
sense in which this situation can be likened to other situations
elsewhere, it's generalizable. It may not apply to everything, but from
first-look, you could try to put someone else's room, and someone else's
city, and someone else's country, and see how it applies to them and
it's supposed to be useful in some way. But that very act of saying that
this is a limited situation, that's supposed to be moveable, that this
description is supposed to apply in multiple places, carries with it some
sort of assumption of independence, or some sort of assumption of
uniformity (homogeneity?) of the places it can go...There is a sort of
first principles assumption that a description here should be a
description there and my problem with it is that once the descriptions
get really big like people on Facebook or people using the internet,
there isn't really a place to move it. *It's everything*. The length of
the (finite?) description *covers all of the stuff* (compactness?) we can
imagine it covering. We can say, "Well we need Facebook on mars, we need
the internet on Pluto", but that's not happening anytime soon, and what
it means is that this assumption of independence, this assumption that
there is a sink, where consequences can go, the assumption that there is
something outside of the room where food can come in and waste can go
out or power can come in or heat can go out and I can view this room as
an isolated system that couples to this thing I don't have to care about
...Once the system becomes really big, like the entire planet, it isn't
clear I can really do that, it's all of the internal properties that
really matter, but people keep talking about it as if there is an
infinite world outside.
"""

gepr

Re: What is Wealth for?

Right. But what I think this misses is the point of the hypergame (or my extension of the idea, maybe). I guess some call them "wicked", where the playing of the game defines the game. It's this circularity that the discussions *I've* seen about externalities lack. They discuss that in the podcast as well, where "organically grown" systems have organisms eating the waste of other organisms and the only "wasteland" is informationless heat. Ackley was also present at the open ended evolution meetings. So I know he's at least sometimes thinking hypergames. To *flatten* that rich, circular structure into a singular game, to project everything to the Almighty Dollar or some other low-dimensional measure like distance, seems odd. It reminds me of the incessant chattering we do about directed acyclic graphs, which encourage us to clump cycles into a single node and forget there are cycles lurking therein.

On 3/15/21 4:08 PM, jon zingale wrote:

> All of these questions of substitution, homogeneity, scale, coverings, and
> compactness have very much been on my mind recently. I cannot help but
> wonder if a science of the particular, built upon Deleuze's work, is not far
> off. For context, here is the relevant section of the Ackley monologue:
>
> """
> One of the ways that we describe reality a lot is in terms of here is a
> situation and we imagine that this situation has some extent, it is my
> house, it is my city, it is my room and it has some properties and I
> describe it and I tell a story in that situation and there is an implicit
> sense in which this situation can be likened to other situations
> elsewhere, it's generalizable. It may not apply to everything, but from
> first-look, you could try to put someone else's room, and someone else's
> city, and someone else's country, and see how it applies to them and
> it's supposed to be useful in some way. But that very act of saying that
> this is a limited situation, that's supposed to be moveable, that this
> description is supposed to apply in multiple places, carries with it some
> sort of assumption of independence, or some sort of assumption of
> uniformity (homogeneity?) of the places it can go...There is a sort of
> first principles assumption that a description here should be a
> description there and my problem with it is that once the descriptions
> get really big like people on Facebook or people using the internet,
> there isn't really a place to move it. *It's everything*. The length of
> the (finite?) description *covers all of the stuff* (compactness?) we can
> imagine it covering. We can say, "Well we need Facebook on mars, we need
> the internet on Pluto", but that's not happening anytime soon, and what
> it means is that this assumption of independence, this assumption that
> there is a sink, where consequences can go, the assumption that there is
> something outside of the room where food can come in and waste can go
> out or power can come in or heat can go out and I can view this room as
> an isolated system that couples to this thing I don't have to care about
> ...Once the system becomes really big, like the entire planet, it isn't
> clear I can really do that, it's all of the internal properties that
> really matter, but people keep talking about it as if there is an
> infinite world outside.
> """

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Prof David West

Re: What is Wealth for?

In reply to this post by jon zingale

Many years back, at UNM, I was teaching a graduate seminar in the philosophical roots of computer science. At one point the discussion was around aesthetics and art, and one particular thread on computer programming as performance art. I asked students who if they would pay to watch a performer write code the same way as they would to if playing a piano. The spontaneous and consensus answer was, David Ackley. I later had a small opportunity to pair program with him, and they were right.

Totally different item: I sure would like to take some of you (especially you glen) the places I have been where I intellectually, viscerally, emotionally, somatically, and kinesthetically experienced and understood really cool things like infinity.

davew

On Mon, Mar 15, 2021, at 5:08 PM, jon zingale wrote:

> "Computing Up" is such a good podcast. I keep forgetting that it exists. I
> love what Dave Ackley is saying here about generalization, it repeats to a
> strong extent what Deleuze is mining for in *Difference and Repetition*, a
> pathological (though at times wonderful) obsession with the general (as a
> psychological modality) when even at the expense of the particular.
> Recently, I have been attempting to make my way through both *Difference and
> Repetition* as well as Deleuze's *Bergsonism* in an attempt to better
> understand the ramifications of the
> general-particular/substitution-repetition distinction. Bergson at one point
> explicitly calls Einstein's relativity "metaphysics posing as science",
> Einstein and Russell, misunderstanding Bergson's respect for metaphysics,
> all but pushed Bergson's writings into extinction. What Ackley discusses
> here as *independence* and *uniformity* is not unlike the
> Einsteinian-Noetherian conception of the *homogeneity* of space and time.
> There appears a lot to mine from understanding the relationship between
> symmetry and substitution, substitution the mark of the general. There is
> also quite a bit in Ackley's monologue that synergizes well with Heidegger's
> "The Point of Reference":
>
> """
> All distances in time and space are shrinking. Places that a person
> previously reached after weeks and months on the road are now reached by
> airplane overnight. What a person previously received news of only after
> years, if at all, is now experienced hourly over the radio in no time. The
> germination and flourishing of plants that remained concealed through the
> seasons, film now exhibits publicly in a single minute...Everything washes
> together into the uniformly distanceless. How? Is not this moving together
> into the distanceless even more uncanny than everything being out of place?
> The human is transfixed by what could come about with the explosion of the
> atomic bomb. The human does not see what for a long time now has already
> arrived and even is occurring, and for which the atomic bomb and its
> explosion are merely the latest emission...What is this clueless anxiety
> waiting for, if the horrible has already occurred.
> """
>
> All of these questions of substitution, homogeneity, scale, coverings, and
> compactness have very much been on my mind recently. I cannot help but
> wonder if a science of the particular, built upon Deleuze's work, is not far
> off. For context, here is the relevant section of the Ackley monologue:
>
> """
> One of the ways that we describe reality a lot is in terms of here is a
> situation and we imagine that this situation has some extent, it is my
> house, it is my city, it is my room and it has some properties and I
> describe it and I tell a story in that situation and there is an implicit
> sense in which this situation can be likened to other situations
> elsewhere, it's generalizable. It may not apply to everything, but from
> first-look, you could try to put someone else's room, and someone else's
> city, and someone else's country, and see how it applies to them and
> it's supposed to be useful in some way. But that very act of saying that
> this is a limited situation, that's supposed to be moveable, that this
> description is supposed to apply in multiple places, carries with it some
> sort of assumption of independence, or some sort of assumption of
> uniformity (homogeneity?) of the places it can go...There is a sort of
> first principles assumption that a description here should be a
> description there and my problem with it is that once the descriptions
> get really big like people on Facebook or people using the internet,
> there isn't really a place to move it. *It's everything*. The length of
> the (finite?) description *covers all of the stuff* (compactness?) we can
> imagine it covering. We can say, "Well we need Facebook on mars, we need
> the internet on Pluto", but that's not happening anytime soon, and what
> it means is that this assumption of independence, this assumption that
> there is a sink, where consequences can go, the assumption that there is
> something outside of the room where food can come in and waste can go
> out or power can come in or heat can go out and I can view this room as
> an isolated system that couples to this thing I don't have to care about
> ...Once the system becomes really big, like the entire planet, it isn't
> clear I can really do that, it's all of the internal properties that
> really matter, but people keep talking about it as if there is an
> infinite world outside.
> """
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>

gepr

Re: What is Wealth for?

Well, going back to the topic SteveS tried to discuss, I reject the semantic pedantry around settling on a crisp definition of "wealth" before being able to have a discussion. The dictionary definition is fine. But 1 component of being affluent or having a hoard of valuable artifacts is, as Gillian makes clear, the breadth of one's repertoire. Being poor is very difficult and time consuming. The specious Puritan rhetoric that even if you're poor, all you need do is spend all your free time working, forgets that you tire out (in short-) and burn out (in long-term), physically, mentally, emotionally.

And the primary detriment to that exhaustion is that the curiosity and energy you pour into various parts of your repertoire is drastically limited. Nobody's going to, say, read Ulysses after the night shift of their third job, especially if they have a kid, or have to pay bills with money they don't have.

So all these ways of knowing infinity sound like toys for wealthy people to me. Getting psilocybin into the hands of *public health* psychiatry would be fantastic. But the core problems won't be solved as long as we're living under individualist neoliberal capitalism. A basic income, public health, and reliable infrastructure will do more to help your everyday yahoo know infinity better than a few one-off indulgences by a few already wealthy dudes.

As Nick and Robert suggest, having the time and energy to explore and expand one's repertoire. That's what wealth allows, even if it seems like most of the celebrities squander it.

On 3/15/21 9:15 PM, Prof David West wrote:
> Totally different item: I sure would like to take some of you (especially you glen) the places I have been where I intellectually, viscerally, emotionally, somatically, and kinesthetically experienced and understood really cool things like infinity.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

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

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

jon zingale

Re: What is Wealth for?

I would add that while having wealth allows one to expand one's repertoire,
not having wealth fails to be a simple negation. Not having wealth, like
burn-out, is to be in conditions that make one less likely to expand
repertoire in the future, to be compulsively agreeable for instance. Wage
slavery comes with many externalities to be explored, and only the wealthy
can truly afford to be nice.

At some point a few years ago, I decided on a flat tipping rate when
partaking in services where one's wage is dependent on tipping. It is a
small thing, but as an individual, I want to decouple the quality of service
from the right to make a living. At the very least, I do not wish to be part
of the punishment-reward cycle, it's inappropriate. Still, others may see it
as voting. That I am abstaining means that others will have more say in the
molding of wage slaves.

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

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

Prof David West

Re: What is Wealth for?

In reply to this post by gepr

From Glen:

"Being poor is very difficult and time consuming. The specious Puritan rhetoric that even if you're poor, all you need do is spend all your free time working, forgets that you tire out (in short-) and burn out (in long-term), physically, mentally, emotionally."

There are numerous studies that suggest hunter-gatherer societies were more 'affluent" than contemporary [pleabes | proles | serfs | working classes] in that the former spent like 15 hours a week to obtain basic food, housing, shelter, progeny than the latter.

That suggest to me that any discussion about wealth or poverty needs to be in context.

Move those hunter-gatherers into a new context, one where they are suddenly aware that They lack the obscure rock band T-shirts that Others have and suddenly what was not poverty becomes so.

davew

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021, at 9:22 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:

> Well, going back to the topic SteveS tried to discuss, I reject the

> semantic pedantry around settling on a crisp definition of "wealth"

> before being able to have a discussion. The dictionary definition is

> fine. But 1 component of being affluent or having a hoard of valuable

> artifacts is, as Gillian makes clear, the breadth of one's repertoire.

> Being poor is very difficult and time consuming. The specious Puritan

> rhetoric that even if you're poor, all you need do is spend all your

> free time working, forgets that you tire out (in short-) and burn out

> (in long-term), physically, mentally, emotionally.

> And the primary detriment to that exhaustion is that the curiosity and

> energy you pour into various parts of your repertoire is drastically

> limited. Nobody's going to, say, read Ulysses after the night shift of

> their third job, especially if they have a kid, or have to pay bills

> with money they don't have.

> So all these ways of knowing infinity sound like toys for wealthy

> people to me. Getting psilocybin into the hands of *public health*

> psychiatry would be fantastic. But the core problems won't be solved as

> long as we're living under individualist neoliberal capitalism. A basic

> income, public health, and reliable infrastructure will do more to help

> your everyday yahoo know infinity better than a few one-off indulgences

> by a few already wealthy dudes.

> As Nick and Robert suggest, having the time and energy to explore and

> expand one's repertoire. That's what wealth allows, even if it seems

> like most of the celebrities squander it.

> On 3/15/21 9:15 PM, Prof David West wrote:

> > Totally different item: I sure would like to take some of you (especially you glen) the places I have been where I intellectually, viscerally, emotionally, somatically, and kinesthetically experienced and understood really cool things like infinity.

> --

> ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

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

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

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

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

jon zingale

Re: What is Wealth for?

This post was updated on .

In reply to this post by gepr

Right. I am not claiming to speak to the hyper-game, but rather something
closer to the pooh-rabbit discussion. I feel that I am witnessing
sciency-minded analytic types groping around for what other modalities
exist, still with one foot on the "If there were a different kind of
rigorous thinking, well then it would be science, and therefore inside of my
science" boat. I am suggesting at the very least the work of Deleuze on
"Difference and Repetition" as a starting point. Much of developed
scientific thought, to its praise and its folly, is extensional thought.
OTOH, there are many beginnings toward a science of the intensional, though
much of it remains in wait as philosophy. It seems most often encountered in
the "softer" sciences: biology, evolutionary theory, psychology. For
instance, riffing off of my discussion with EricC last Friday, the American
naturalists[1] seek a non-representational science of mind, that is, one
that is not amenable to substitutions and symmetry claims. Rather, there is
something agent-based in its explanation. For instance, when SteveG makes
the leap to Feynman's integrals and duality arguments, he loses Nick, and
not just because SteveG is using sexier science, but because SteveG leaves
the project of American Naturalism. This is all to say, that when we look
inside even the node of Science, we see irreconcilable structure as it ought
to be.

To some extent, the emphasis on the low dimensional nature of distance in
Heidegger misses the point. The end of the frontier and the reality of our
compact environment confers a radical change in psychological kind, and a
change in topology is no trivial matter. Anyway, back to wealth.

[1] Radical Embodied Cognitive Science, pg 28

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

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

gepr

Re: What is Wealth for?

Does it, though? I can see why you're abstracting up from distance to topology. But the text you quoted doesn't do that. It uses distance to make the larger points, much like one might use money to make a larger point about poverty. Money is too simple to express poverty. This sort of reductionism is the right target for criticism. Focusing on that inappropriate reduction *is* the point. The reduction is lossy. There's not enough information in the low dimensional concept of distance to express the change in topology, much less flesh out the change in psychological kind.

Dave's point about wealth being discussed in context is along the same lines of my initial salvo at this thread, that wealth has to be understood in the context of private property and ownership.

On 3/16/21 9:18 AM, jon zingale wrote:
> To some extent, the emphasis on the low dimensional nature of distance in
> Heidegger misses the point. The end of the frontier and the reality of our
> compact environment confers a radical change in psychological kind, and a
> change in topology is no trivial matter.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

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

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

jon zingale

Re: What is Wealth for?

"Focusing on that inappropriate reduction *is* the point"

Is exactly the point. One could begin to describe the world synthetically by
reaching for some tools like distance, or one can analyze by factoring the
world into a tool like distance. Both are available as interpretations.
Heidegger is concerned with compactness and he is describing it in terms of
the end of distance, the end of near and far. I don't believe he is simply
saying that all is factored into distance. Interpretation, though, is
constrained by habit.

By contrast, from today's NYT:

"""
While there are degrees of opposition to vaccination for the coronavirus
among a number of groups, including African-Americans and antivaccine
activists, polling suggests that opinions, in this case, are breaking
substantially along partisan lines.
"""

The rhetoric expressed here is clearly quantity-centric. The article makes
claims about the *degrees* of opposition among a *number* of groups. It is
suggested that, via polling, that the degree of breaking (substantially) is
along the singular dimension of party. The underlying assumption for this
kind of rhetoric is that space is a universal metaphor. This is very
different, to my mind, than what one must bring to reading Heidegger, the
Frankfurt school, and (quite explicitly) to Bergson.

To make things a little more muddled, now that AZ is getting some much
blowback for the blood clots and brain hemorrhages, should we push harder to
cancel those that warn of the dangers of operation warp-speed?

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

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

gepr

Re: What is Wealth for?

Well, first, I don't think "party" is a singular dimension. I think it's at least 2D. And 2D is ε-better than 1D as in money or distance, if the "breaking" is stable in the long-term. But I don't buy it, any more than I buy the 2D political compass. The ε is so small, here, compared to the effective number of dimensions that 2D = 1D, for practical purposes.

Dreyfus makes a Heideggerian case against the representationalism and the extended mind based on space, as well. So, it seems completely reasonable to accuse that of Heidegger's use of "distance". But all that filosifickle hooey is largely irrelevant to this discussion of the individual and societal purposes of wealth.

We use the word "wealth" sometimes synonymize with and sometimes to distinguish from "rich". But the distinction is, largely, one of accretion. There's a scaling difference between high income vs wealthy, exhibited well (I think) by *inheritance*. I found this article during my insomnia this morning:

https://evonomics.com/to-tackle-inequality-we-need-to-start-talking-about-where-wealth-comes-from/

And it fleshes out from the reduced measure of money enough to link in our delusion of meritocracy. And that, again, points back to private property and ownership. If by "operation warp-speed", you mean choosing corporate *ownership* over public domain, then we should not cancel those canaries but amplify their voices. Especially for those of us outside large institutions with subscriptions to Elsevier journals, we should argue *for*, not against, open access:

https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/uc-publisher-relationships/uc-and-elsevier/

But if that's not what you mean by "those who warn of the dangers of operation warp-speed", then I don't know what you mean and have no idea who you're suggesting we cancel.

On 3/16/21 12:37 PM, jon zingale wrote:

> "Focusing on that inappropriate reduction *is* the point"
>
> Is exactly the point. One could begin to describe the world synthetically by
> reaching for some tools like distance, or one can analyze by factoring the
> world into a tool like distance. Both are available as interpretations.
> Heidegger is concerned with compactness and he is describing it in terms of
> the end of distance, the end of near and far. I don't believe he is simply
> saying that all is factored into distance. Interpretation, though, is
> constrained by habit.
>
> By contrast, from today's NYT:
>
> """
> While there are degrees of opposition to vaccination for the coronavirus
> among a number of groups, including African-Americans and antivaccine
> activists, polling suggests that opinions, in this case, are breaking
> substantially along partisan lines.
> """
>
> The rhetoric expressed here is clearly quantity-centric. The article makes
> claims about the *degrees* of opposition among a *number* of groups. It is
> suggested that, via polling, that the degree of breaking (substantially) is
> along the singular dimension of party. The underlying assumption for this
> kind of rhetoric is that space is a universal metaphor. This is very
> different, to my mind, than what one must bring to reading Heidegger, the
> Frankfurt school, and (quite explicitly) to Bergson.
>
> To make things a little more muddled, now that AZ is getting some much
> blowback for the blood clots and brain hemorrhages, should we push harder to
> cancel those that warn of the dangers of operation warp-speed?

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: What is Wealth for?

Nuclear waste comes to mind: There are these things that we don't want to talk about, and so if we just make them impossible to dispose of, maybe people will stop making them. The same applies to Styrofoam or pressure-treated wood here in Berkeley. If many cities start these mandates then eventually manufacturers will start to pay attention. Is there some point at which people will stop making more people, if there is not directly or indirectly inherited wealth?

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 8:20 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is Wealth for?

Well, first, I don't think "party" is a singular dimension. I think it's at least 2D. And 2D is ε-better than 1D as in money or distance, if the "breaking" is stable in the long-term. But I don't buy it, any more than I buy the 2D political compass. The ε is so small, here, compared to the effective number of dimensions that 2D = 1D, for practical purposes.

Dreyfus makes a Heideggerian case against the representationalism and the extended mind based on space, as well. So, it seems completely reasonable to accuse that of Heidegger's use of "distance". But all that filosifickle hooey is largely irrelevant to this discussion of the individual and societal purposes of wealth.

We use the word "wealth" sometimes synonymize with and sometimes to distinguish from "rich". But the distinction is, largely, one of accretion. There's a scaling difference between high income vs wealthy, exhibited well (I think) by *inheritance*. I found this article during my insomnia this morning:

https://evonomics.com/to-tackle-inequality-we-need-to-start-talking-about-where-wealth-comes-from/

And it fleshes out from the reduced measure of money enough to link in our delusion of meritocracy. And that, again, points back to private property and ownership. If by "operation warp-speed", you mean choosing corporate *ownership* over public domain, then we should not cancel those canaries but amplify their voices. Especially for those of us outside large institutions with subscriptions to Elsevier journals, we should argue *for*, not against, open access:

https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/uc-publisher-relationships/uc-and-elsevier/

But if that's not what you mean by "those who warn of the dangers of operation warp-speed", then I don't know what you mean and have no idea who you're suggesting we cancel.

On 3/16/21 12:37 PM, jon zingale wrote:

> "Focusing on that inappropriate reduction *is* the point"
>
> Is exactly the point. One could begin to describe the world
> synthetically by reaching for some tools like distance, or one can
> analyze by factoring the world into a tool like distance. Both are available as interpretations.
> Heidegger is concerned with compactness and he is describing it in
> terms of the end of distance, the end of near and far. I don't believe
> he is simply saying that all is factored into distance.
> Interpretation, though, is constrained by habit.
>
> By contrast, from today's NYT:
>
> """
> While there are degrees of opposition to vaccination for the
> coronavirus among a number of groups, including African-Americans and
> antivaccine activists, polling suggests that opinions, in this case,
> are breaking substantially along partisan lines.
> """
>
> The rhetoric expressed here is clearly quantity-centric. The article
> makes claims about the *degrees* of opposition among a *number* of
> groups. It is suggested that, via polling, that the degree of breaking
> (substantially) is along the singular dimension of party. The
> underlying assumption for this kind of rhetoric is that space is a
> universal metaphor. This is very different, to my mind, than what one
> must bring to reading Heidegger, the Frankfurt school, and (quite explicitly) to Bergson.
>
> To make things a little more muddled, now that AZ is getting some much
> blowback for the blood clots and brain hemorrhages, should we push
> harder to cancel those that warn of the dangers of operation warp-speed?

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

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

Prof David West

Re: What is Wealth for? — Defining Wealth

In reply to this post by gepr

I really suck at visualization (and math and ... ) but

A graph:
Horizontal axis a set of labelled points for different types of "assets" ranging from basic needs (food, shelter) to semi-abstract (energy, love) to abstract (cash on hand or cash flow, stocks). Start with something like Maslow's hierarchy and flesh it out to include a point for everything we might think belongs on the line. Don't forget books! Whatever is put on the line must be quantifiable, directly or indirectly.

Vertical axis marks a set of bands: nearest to zero is "dangerously inadequate," then, in order, "inadequate," "adequate," "comfortable," "surplus," "excess," "toxic excess;" or some such. We can have fun deciding how to define/measure these things for each line on the horizontal access. Toxic money might be defined by differential from average, or sole purpose is control of others.

The 2D graph could be used to measure a single individual's profile.

Add an orthogonal dimension and mark it with population percentiles. The vertical measure would then be some kind of average, mean, median.

Now you have a surface that shows the state of the population for whatever segment of the world (entire, region, country, state, ...) the graph was chosen to focus on.

Somehow, I feel that such a visualization would be useful as a reference point for this thread???

davew

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021, at 9:19 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:

> Well, first, I don't think "party" is a singular dimension. I think
> it's at least 2D. And 2D is ε-better than 1D as in money or distance,
> if the "breaking" is stable in the long-term. But I don't buy it, any
> more than I buy the 2D political compass. The ε is so small, here,
> compared to the effective number of dimensions that 2D = 1D, for
> practical purposes.
>
> Dreyfus makes a Heideggerian case against the representationalism and
> the extended mind based on space, as well. So, it seems completely
> reasonable to accuse that of Heidegger's use of "distance". But all
> that filosifickle hooey is largely irrelevant to this discussion of the
> individual and societal purposes of wealth.
>
> We use the word "wealth" sometimes synonymize with and sometimes to
> distinguish from "rich". But the distinction is, largely, one of
> accretion. There's a scaling difference between high income vs wealthy,
> exhibited well (I think) by *inheritance*. I found this article during
> my insomnia this morning:
>
> https://evonomics.com/to-tackle-inequality-we-need-to-start-talking-about-where-wealth-comes-from/
>
> And it fleshes out from the reduced measure of money enough to link in
> our delusion of meritocracy. And that, again, points back to private
> property and ownership. If by "operation warp-speed", you mean choosing
> corporate *ownership* over public domain, then we should not cancel
> those canaries but amplify their voices. Especially for those of us
> outside large institutions with subscriptions to Elsevier journals, we
> should argue *for*, not against, open access:
>
> https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/uc-publisher-relationships/uc-and-elsevier/
>
> But if that's not what you mean by "those who warn of the dangers of
> operation warp-speed", then I don't know what you mean and have no idea
> who you're suggesting we cancel.
>
> On 3/16/21 12:37 PM, jon zingale wrote:
> > "Focusing on that inappropriate reduction *is* the point"
> >
> > Is exactly the point. One could begin to describe the world synthetically by
> > reaching for some tools like distance, or one can analyze by factoring the
> > world into a tool like distance. Both are available as interpretations.
> > Heidegger is concerned with compactness and he is describing it in terms of
> > the end of distance, the end of near and far. I don't believe he is simply
> > saying that all is factored into distance. Interpretation, though, is
> > constrained by habit.
> >
> > By contrast, from today's NYT:
> >
> > """
> > While there are degrees of opposition to vaccination for the coronavirus
> > among a number of groups, including African-Americans and antivaccine
> > activists, polling suggests that opinions, in this case, are breaking
> > substantially along partisan lines.
> > """
> >
> > The rhetoric expressed here is clearly quantity-centric. The article makes
> > claims about the *degrees* of opposition among a *number* of groups. It is
> > suggested that, via polling, that the degree of breaking (substantially) is
> > along the singular dimension of party. The underlying assumption for this
> > kind of rhetoric is that space is a universal metaphor. This is very
> > different, to my mind, than what one must bring to reading Heidegger, the
> > Frankfurt school, and (quite explicitly) to Bergson.
> >
> > To make things a little more muddled, now that AZ is getting some much
> > blowback for the blood clots and brain hemorrhages, should we push harder to
> > cancel those that warn of the dangers of operation warp-speed?
>
>
> --
> ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>

123456