Friam

great man theory

Classic

List

Threaded

102 messages Options

1234 ... 6

Prof David West

great man theory

Nothing serious, just something that reminded me of topics in threads and, I think, glen's acerbic comments about "great men / geniuses." Jessica Wildfire's list (not so ironically making herself exactly what she is decrying - absent billions of dollars of personal wealth)

5 most overated persons:

Steve Jobs:
Steve Jobs didn’t invent the computer. Steve Wozniak did. He also didn’t invent smartphones or touch screens. These technologies already existed. In fact, Jobs almost stopped Apple from releasing the first iPhone. A covert team developed it in complete secrecy from him, in order to avoid his caustic skepticism. So you might say the iPhone happened despite Jobs, not because of him.

Elon Musk:
Elon Musk has been promising us an affordable electric car for over a decade now. He’s used that promise to win billions of dollars in tax breaks and seed money, while actively undermining any green projects he sees as a threat to his own enterprise. Basically, he’s the biggest example of corporate freeloading you could imagine. What the world admires about Elon Musk isn’t his intelligence, or his environmental conscience. It’s his ego, plain and simple.

Jeff Bezos
Bezos conducts a masterful public relations campaign that allows customers to believe Amazon isn’t completely destroying the environment, or working its employees literally to death. In fact, it is. Despite Amazon’s recent pledges to save the world, its carbon footprint has grown 15 percent since the pandemic began. At best, the billions that Bezos spends will partly undo the damage he’s caused. If that weren’t enough, Bezos and his company use every underhanded tactic known to civilization in order to cheapen its labor costs and avoid taxes. They’ve literally been caught stealing tips. Bezos himself pays almost nothing in state income tax, while the rest of us are forced to make up the difference. He cuts health insurance from his employees, then has the audacity to say in public that he has no idea how to spend his immense wealth, other than moving to Mars or cloning himself.

Oprah Winfrey
Oprah isn’t a hard-hitting journalist. She isn’t profound. She caters to the lowest common denominator, the suburban housewives of America, who need to feel special and important because nobody else treats them with any respect. Oprah figured this out early on in her career. They’ve been her core audience from the start. Oprah rode to fame on satanic panics and woo-woo spirituality. She’s a chief architect of the magical thinking that now fuels QAnon-style conspiracy theories and anti-vaccine movements. Oprah has spent a lifetime coddling intellectual fragility, while manufacturing controversy and outrage for profit.

Tony Robbins
The more you learn about Tony Robbins, the more you find out his real secret. He only knows how to succeed if you’re a big, good-looking white guy like him. Otherwise, his advice doesn’t work. Of course, the worst thing about Tony Robbins is that he apparently spent most of his career telling people to stand up for themselves, while preying on women and bullying them.

What these people have in common:
So, apparently these are the five most successful people in the world. They have the most money. They have the most influence. They’re kind of awful. If we’re honest with ourselves, we can see how we’ve created a mythology around these individuals. We tell stories about them that never really happened. We ascribe pithy quotes to them they didn’t really say. We turn them into mirrors of our own personal desires. In case you missed the last few thousand years of western civilization, the most powerful people in the world aren’t nice. They’re not fair. They don’t play by the rules. They’re brutal. They cheat. Often, they’re simply in the right place at the right time — and they exploit that to their advantage, often at everyone’s expense.

for entertainment purposes only.

davew

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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: great man theory

Fantastic rundown! Thanks. I had intended to post a rant on the abuse of the word "analog" in contrast to "digital", given the news about the antikythera <https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/mar/12/scientists-move-closer-to-solving-mystery-of-antikythera-mechanism>. Now I feel that rant would be way too lame and couldn't follow this.

EricC suggested I watch "Leaving Neverland", which was interesting. But I also watched the Oprah interview afterward. Up to that point, I hadn't realized what a self-aggrandizing know-it-all she is. I'm now glad I haven't spent much time watching her shows or consuming her products. I suspect, however, she's evolved, like all of us ... like Michael Jackson, even. Maybe at one point, her contribution was of a higher quality. I won't know one way or another.

On 3/12/21 8:18 AM, Prof David West wrote:

> Nothing serious, just something that reminded me of topics in threads and, I think, glen's acerbic comments about "great men / geniuses." Jessica Wildfire's list (not so ironically making herself exactly what she is decrying - absent billions of dollars of personal wealth)
>
> 5 most overated persons:
>
> Steve Jobs:
> Steve Jobs didn’t invent the computer. Steve Wozniak did. He also didn’t invent smartphones or touch screens. These technologies already existed. In fact, Jobs almost stopped Apple from releasing the first iPhone. A covert team developed it in complete secrecy from him, in order to avoid his caustic skepticism. So you might say the iPhone happened despite Jobs, not because of him.
>
> Elon Musk:
> Elon Musk has been promising us an affordable electric car for over a decade now. He’s used that promise to win billions of dollars in tax breaks and seed money, while actively undermining any green projects he sees as a threat to his own enterprise. Basically, he’s the biggest example of corporate freeloading you could imagine. What the world admires about Elon Musk isn’t his intelligence, or his environmental conscience. It’s his ego, plain and simple.
>
> Jeff Bezos
> Bezos conducts a masterful public relations campaign that allows customers to believe Amazon isn’t completely destroying the environment, or working its employees literally to death. In fact, it is. Despite Amazon’s recent pledges to save the world, its carbon footprint has grown 15 percent since the pandemic began. At best, the billions that Bezos spends will partly undo the damage he’s caused. If that weren’t enough, Bezos and his company use every underhanded tactic known to civilization in order to cheapen its labor costs and avoid taxes. They’ve literally been caught stealing tips. Bezos himself pays almost nothing in state income tax, while the rest of us are forced to make up the difference. He cuts health insurance from his employees, then has the audacity to say in public that he has no idea how to spend his immense wealth, other than moving to Mars or cloning himself.
>
> Oprah Winfrey
> Oprah isn’t a hard-hitting journalist. She isn’t profound. She caters to the lowest common denominator, the suburban housewives of America, who need to feel special and important because nobody else treats them with any respect. Oprah figured this out early on in her career. They’ve been her core audience from the start. Oprah rode to fame on satanic panics and woo-woo spirituality. She’s a chief architect of the magical thinking that now fuels QAnon-style conspiracy theories and anti-vaccine movements. Oprah has spent a lifetime coddling intellectual fragility, while manufacturing controversy and outrage for profit.
>
> Tony Robbins
> The more you learn about Tony Robbins, the more you find out his real secret. He only knows how to succeed if you’re a big, good-looking white guy like him. Otherwise, his advice doesn’t work. Of course, the worst thing about Tony Robbins is that he apparently spent most of his career telling people to stand up for themselves, while preying on women and bullying them.
>
> What these people have in common:
> So, apparently these are the five most successful people in the world. They have the most money. They have the most influence. They’re kind of awful. If we’re honest with ourselves, we can see how we’ve created a mythology around these individuals. We tell stories about them that never really happened. We ascribe pithy quotes to them they didn’t really say. We turn them into mirrors of our own personal desires. In case you missed the last few thousand years of western civilization, the most powerful people in the world aren’t nice. They’re not fair. They don’t play by the rules. They’re brutal. They cheat. Often, they’re simply in the right place at the right time — and they exploit that to their advantage, often at everyone’s expense.
>
> for entertainment purposes only.
>
> davew

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: great man theory

There's always the socialism approach..

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/maf_ei_revision.pdf

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 8:49 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] great man theory

Fantastic rundown! Thanks. I had intended to post a rant on the abuse of the word "analog" in contrast to "digital", given the news about the antikythera <https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/mar/12/scientists-move-closer-to-solving-mystery-of-antikythera-mechanism>. Now I feel that rant would be way too lame and couldn't follow this.

EricC suggested I watch "Leaving Neverland", which was interesting. But I also watched the Oprah interview afterward. Up to that point, I hadn't realized what a self-aggrandizing know-it-all she is. I'm now glad I haven't spent much time watching her shows or consuming her products. I suspect, however, she's evolved, like all of us ... like Michael Jackson, even. Maybe at one point, her contribution was of a higher quality. I won't know one way or another.

On 3/12/21 8:18 AM, Prof David West wrote:

> Nothing serious, just something that reminded me of topics in threads
> and, I think, glen's acerbic comments about "great men / geniuses."
> Jessica Wildfire's list (not so ironically making herself exactly what
> she is decrying - absent billions of dollars of personal wealth)
>
> 5 most overated persons:
>
> Steve Jobs:
> Steve Jobs didn’t invent the computer. Steve Wozniak did. He also didn’t invent smartphones or touch screens. These technologies already existed. In fact, Jobs almost stopped Apple from releasing the first iPhone. A covert team developed it in complete secrecy from him, in order to avoid his caustic skepticism. So you might say the iPhone happened despite Jobs, not because of him.
>
> Elon Musk:
> Elon Musk has been promising us an affordable electric car for over a decade now. He’s used that promise to win billions of dollars in tax breaks and seed money, while actively undermining any green projects he sees as a threat to his own enterprise. Basically, he’s the biggest example of corporate freeloading you could imagine. What the world admires about Elon Musk isn’t his intelligence, or his environmental conscience. It’s his ego, plain and simple.
>
> Jeff Bezos
> Bezos conducts a masterful public relations campaign that allows customers to believe Amazon isn’t completely destroying the environment, or working its employees literally to death. In fact, it is. Despite Amazon’s recent pledges to save the world, its carbon footprint has grown 15 percent since the pandemic began. At best, the billions that Bezos spends will partly undo the damage he’s caused. If that weren’t enough, Bezos and his company use every underhanded tactic known to civilization in order to cheapen its labor costs and avoid taxes. They’ve literally been caught stealing tips. Bezos himself pays almost nothing in state income tax, while the rest of us are forced to make up the difference. He cuts health insurance from his employees, then has the audacity to say in public that he has no idea how to spend his immense wealth, other than moving to Mars or cloning himself.
>
> Oprah Winfrey
> Oprah isn’t a hard-hitting journalist. She isn’t profound. She caters to the lowest common denominator, the suburban housewives of America, who need to feel special and important because nobody else treats them with any respect. Oprah figured this out early on in her career. They’ve been her core audience from the start. Oprah rode to fame on satanic panics and woo-woo spirituality. She’s a chief architect of the magical thinking that now fuels QAnon-style conspiracy theories and anti-vaccine movements. Oprah has spent a lifetime coddling intellectual fragility, while manufacturing controversy and outrage for profit.
>
> Tony Robbins
> The more you learn about Tony Robbins, the more you find out his real secret. He only knows how to succeed if you’re a big, good-looking white guy like him. Otherwise, his advice doesn’t work. Of course, the worst thing about Tony Robbins is that he apparently spent most of his career telling people to stand up for themselves, while preying on women and bullying them.
>
> What these people have in common:
> So, apparently these are the five most successful people in the world. They have the most money. They have the most influence. They’re kind of awful. If we’re honest with ourselves, we can see how we’ve created a mythology around these individuals. We tell stories about them that never really happened. We ascribe pithy quotes to them they didn’t really say. We turn them into mirrors of our own personal desires. In case you missed the last few thousand years of western civilization, the most powerful people in the world aren’t nice. They’re not fair. They don’t play by the rules. They’re brutal. They cheat. Often, they’re simply in the right place at the right time — and they exploit that to their advantage, often at everyone’s expense.
>
> for entertainment purposes only.
>
> davew

--
↙↙↙ 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/

Steve Smith

Antikythera

In reply to this post by gepr

Is the antikythera anything "more than" a highly elaborated Orrery ?
I suppose the most egregious conflation for me is between map/model and
"computer" in the sense of a device capable of universal computation.
Orreries are elaborate maps (in the cartographic sense) of the grosser
features of the solar system.   The mechanical-engineering aspects of
the antikythera is certainly impressive but to call it a "computer" or
even "calculator" misses the point I think.

Analog(ue) vs Digital is it's own abuse of terms of course.   The former
alludes to the one-to-one-correspondence nature of the elements of the
model and a reduced description/apprehension of the parts of the system
it models... an "analogy".   The latter is grounded in "counting on your
fingers (and toes?)" which is abstracted in things like an abacus which
"models" the components and aspects of a system as whole numbers (or
fancier things like real or complex or even hypercomplex) numbers.
IMO, until we started using "digital" computers to model abstract
mathematical concepts beyond (possibly quite complex) arithmetic, they
were nothing more than really fast, really complicated abacii?

I suppose the term "computer" doesn't connote this form well, and I
suppose there is a more apt term of art that people who philosophize
more regularly about "computing" than I might use?

On 3/12/21 9:48 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:

> Fantastic rundown! Thanks. I had intended to post a rant on the abuse of the word "analog" in contrast to "digital", given the news about the antikythera <https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/mar/12/scientists-move-closer-to-solving-mystery-of-antikythera-mechanism>. Now I feel that rant would be way too lame and couldn't follow this.
>
> EricC suggested I watch "Leaving Neverland", which was interesting. But I also watched the Oprah interview afterward. Up to that point, I hadn't realized what a self-aggrandizing know-it-all she is. I'm now glad I haven't spent much time watching her shows or consuming her products. I suspect, however, she's evolved, like all of us ... like Michael Jackson, even. Maybe at one point, her contribution was of a higher quality. I won't know one way or another.
>
> On 3/12/21 8:18 AM, Prof David West wrote:
>> Nothing serious, just something that reminded me of topics in threads and, I think, glen's acerbic comments about "great men / geniuses." Jessica Wildfire's list (not so ironically making herself exactly what she is decrying - absent billions of dollars of personal wealth)
>>
>> 5 most overated persons:
>>
>> Steve Jobs:
>> Steve Jobs didn’t invent the computer. Steve Wozniak did. He also didn’t invent smartphones or touch screens. These technologies already existed. In fact, Jobs almost stopped Apple from releasing the first iPhone. A covert team developed it in complete secrecy from him, in order to avoid his caustic skepticism. So you might say the iPhone happened despite Jobs, not because of him.
>>
>> Elon Musk:
>> Elon Musk has been promising us an affordable electric car for over a decade now. He’s used that promise to win billions of dollars in tax breaks and seed money, while actively undermining any green projects he sees as a threat to his own enterprise. Basically, he’s the biggest example of corporate freeloading you could imagine. What the world admires about Elon Musk isn’t his intelligence, or his environmental conscience. It’s his ego, plain and simple.
>>
>> Jeff Bezos
>> Bezos conducts a masterful public relations campaign that allows customers to believe Amazon isn’t completely destroying the environment, or working its employees literally to death. In fact, it is. Despite Amazon’s recent pledges to save the world, its carbon footprint has grown 15 percent since the pandemic began. At best, the billions that Bezos spends will partly undo the damage he’s caused. If that weren’t enough, Bezos and his company use every underhanded tactic known to civilization in order to cheapen its labor costs and avoid taxes. They’ve literally been caught stealing tips. Bezos himself pays almost nothing in state income tax, while the rest of us are forced to make up the difference. He cuts health insurance from his employees, then has the audacity to say in public that he has no idea how to spend his immense wealth, other than moving to Mars or cloning himself.
>>
>> Oprah Winfrey
>> Oprah isn’t a hard-hitting journalist. She isn’t profound. She caters to the lowest common denominator, the suburban housewives of America, who need to feel special and important because nobody else treats them with any respect. Oprah figured this out early on in her career. They’ve been her core audience from the start. Oprah rode to fame on satanic panics and woo-woo spirituality. She’s a chief architect of the magical thinking that now fuels QAnon-style conspiracy theories and anti-vaccine movements. Oprah has spent a lifetime coddling intellectual fragility, while manufacturing controversy and outrage for profit.
>>
>> Tony Robbins
>> The more you learn about Tony Robbins, the more you find out his real secret. He only knows how to succeed if you’re a big, good-looking white guy like him. Otherwise, his advice doesn’t work. Of course, the worst thing about Tony Robbins is that he apparently spent most of his career telling people to stand up for themselves, while preying on women and bullying them.
>>
>> What these people have in common:
>> So, apparently these are the five most successful people in the world. They have the most money. They have the most influence. They’re kind of awful. If we’re honest with ourselves, we can see how we’ve created a mythology around these individuals. We tell stories about them that never really happened. We ascribe pithy quotes to them they didn’t really say. We turn them into mirrors of our own personal desires. In case you missed the last few thousand years of western civilization, the most powerful people in the world aren’t nice. They’re not fair. They don’t play by the rules. They’re brutal. They cheat. Often, they’re simply in the right place at the right time — and they exploit that to their advantage, often at everyone’s expense.
>>
>> for entertainment purposes only.
>>
>> davew

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Antikythera

DRAM rates are remarkably low, even without error correction. Like 1 in a trillion per hour.
https://tezzaron.com/media/soft_errors_1_1_secure.pdf
At some point the analog device becomes a good-enough digital device.
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 9:08 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [FRIAM] Antikythera

Is the antikythera anything "more than" a highly elaborated Orrery ? I suppose the most egregious conflation for me is between map/model and "computer" in the sense of a device capable of universal computation. Orreries are elaborate maps (in the cartographic sense) of the grosser features of the solar system. The mechanical-engineering aspects of the antikythera is certainly impressive but to call it a "computer" or even "calculator" misses the point I think.

Analog(ue) vs Digital is it's own abuse of terms of course. The former alludes to the one-to-one-correspondence nature of the elements of the model and a reduced description/apprehension of the parts of the system it models... an "analogy". The latter is grounded in "counting on your fingers (and toes?)" which is abstracted in things like an abacus which "models" the components and aspects of a system as whole numbers (or fancier things like real or complex or even hypercomplex) numbers. IMO, until we started using "digital" computers to model abstract mathematical concepts beyond (possibly quite complex) arithmetic, they were nothing more than really fast, really complicated abacii?

I suppose the term "computer" doesn't connote this form well, and I suppose there is a more apt term of art that people who philosophize more regularly about "computing" than I might use?

On 3/12/21 9:48 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:

> Fantastic rundown! Thanks. I had intended to post a rant on the abuse of the word "analog" in contrast to "digital", given the news about the antikythera <https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/mar/12/scientists-move-closer-to-solving-mystery-of-antikythera-mechanism>. Now I feel that rant would be way too lame and couldn't follow this.
>
> EricC suggested I watch "Leaving Neverland", which was interesting. But I also watched the Oprah interview afterward. Up to that point, I hadn't realized what a self-aggrandizing know-it-all she is. I'm now glad I haven't spent much time watching her shows or consuming her products. I suspect, however, she's evolved, like all of us ... like Michael Jackson, even. Maybe at one point, her contribution was of a higher quality. I won't know one way or another.
>
> On 3/12/21 8:18 AM, Prof David West wrote:
>> Nothing serious, just something that reminded me of topics in threads
>> and, I think, glen's acerbic comments about "great men / geniuses."
>> Jessica Wildfire's list (not so ironically making herself exactly
>> what she is decrying - absent billions of dollars of personal wealth)
>>
>> 5 most overated persons:
>>
>> Steve Jobs:
>> Steve Jobs didn’t invent the computer. Steve Wozniak did. He also didn’t invent smartphones or touch screens. These technologies already existed. In fact, Jobs almost stopped Apple from releasing the first iPhone. A covert team developed it in complete secrecy from him, in order to avoid his caustic skepticism. So you might say the iPhone happened despite Jobs, not because of him.
>>
>> Elon Musk:
>> Elon Musk has been promising us an affordable electric car for over a decade now. He’s used that promise to win billions of dollars in tax breaks and seed money, while actively undermining any green projects he sees as a threat to his own enterprise. Basically, he’s the biggest example of corporate freeloading you could imagine. What the world admires about Elon Musk isn’t his intelligence, or his environmental conscience. It’s his ego, plain and simple.
>>
>> Jeff Bezos
>> Bezos conducts a masterful public relations campaign that allows customers to believe Amazon isn’t completely destroying the environment, or working its employees literally to death. In fact, it is. Despite Amazon’s recent pledges to save the world, its carbon footprint has grown 15 percent since the pandemic began. At best, the billions that Bezos spends will partly undo the damage he’s caused. If that weren’t enough, Bezos and his company use every underhanded tactic known to civilization in order to cheapen its labor costs and avoid taxes. They’ve literally been caught stealing tips. Bezos himself pays almost nothing in state income tax, while the rest of us are forced to make up the difference. He cuts health insurance from his employees, then has the audacity to say in public that he has no idea how to spend his immense wealth, other than moving to Mars or cloning himself.
>>
>> Oprah Winfrey
>> Oprah isn’t a hard-hitting journalist. She isn’t profound. She caters to the lowest common denominator, the suburban housewives of America, who need to feel special and important because nobody else treats them with any respect. Oprah figured this out early on in her career. They’ve been her core audience from the start. Oprah rode to fame on satanic panics and woo-woo spirituality. She’s a chief architect of the magical thinking that now fuels QAnon-style conspiracy theories and anti-vaccine movements. Oprah has spent a lifetime coddling intellectual fragility, while manufacturing controversy and outrage for profit.
>>
>> Tony Robbins
>> The more you learn about Tony Robbins, the more you find out his real secret. He only knows how to succeed if you’re a big, good-looking white guy like him. Otherwise, his advice doesn’t work. Of course, the worst thing about Tony Robbins is that he apparently spent most of his career telling people to stand up for themselves, while preying on women and bullying them.
>>
>> What these people have in common:
>> So, apparently these are the five most successful people in the world. They have the most money. They have the most influence. They’re kind of awful. If we’re honest with ourselves, we can see how we’ve created a mythology around these individuals. We tell stories about them that never really happened. We ascribe pithy quotes to them they didn’t really say. We turn them into mirrors of our own personal desires. In case you missed the last few thousand years of western civilization, the most powerful people in the world aren’t nice. They’re not fair. They don’t play by the rules. They’re brutal. They cheat. Often, they’re simply in the right place at the right time — and they exploit that to their advantage, often at everyone’s expense.
>>
>> for entertainment purposes only.
>>
>> davew

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/

jon zingale

Re: great man theory

In reply to this post by Prof David West

"We turn them into mirrors of our own personal desires"

Ah, charisma. Lately, I am toying with the idea that one's degree of
charisma is something like the quality of a Rorschach image, some images
make for better sources of pareidolia than others. Why?

As far as I can reason, charisma in this sense depends on grace, openness to
what's possible, to the virtual.

--
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: Antikythera

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

I have no idea what Marcus' intention was with that comment/link. But it does highlight that the abstraction/idealization of "digits" and "computer" is a dangerous delusion. So I disagree completely with Steve. Calling the antikythera (or an orrery) a computer is the *correct* use of the term "computer" or "calculator" and calling an abstraction like a Turing machine or ascribing ontological status to √-1 is an abuse of the term.

We all know that computers are actual things out in the world, regardless of whether they crisp things down to discrete or exploit the full parallelism of the world. So, to me, it's the silly abuse of "analog" and "digital" in place of "continuous" vs. "discrete" that's most annoying.

The dangerous tendency of humans to idealize and reify their own brain farts (e.g. Turing machines) is a separate issue entirely.

On 3/12/21 9:26 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

> DRAM rates are remarkably low, even without error correction. Like 1 in a trillion per hour.
> https://tezzaron.com/media/soft_errors_1_1_secure.pdf
> At some point the analog device becomes a good-enough digital device.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Steve Smith
> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 9:08 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: [FRIAM] Antikythera
>
> Is the antikythera anything "more than" a highly elaborated Orrery ? I suppose the most egregious conflation for me is between map/model and "computer" in the sense of a device capable of universal computation. Orreries are elaborate maps (in the cartographic sense) of the grosser features of the solar system. The mechanical-engineering aspects of the antikythera is certainly impressive but to call it a "computer" or even "calculator" misses the point I think.
>
> Analog(ue) vs Digital is it's own abuse of terms of course. The former alludes to the one-to-one-correspondence nature of the elements of the model and a reduced description/apprehension of the parts of the system it models... an "analogy". The latter is grounded in "counting on your fingers (and toes?)" which is abstracted in things like an abacus which "models" the components and aspects of a system as whole numbers (or fancier things like real or complex or even hypercomplex) numbers. IMO, until we started using "digital" computers to model abstract mathematical concepts beyond (possibly quite complex) arithmetic, they were nothing more than really fast, really complicated abacii?
>
> I suppose the term "computer" doesn't connote this form well, and I suppose there is a more apt term of art that people who philosophize more regularly about "computing" than I might use?

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Steve Smith

Re: great man theory

In reply to this post by gepr

While I find the great (wo)man theory fundamentally problematic, I don't
think criticisms like this list which reduce those who might be held up
as such to diminished caricatures of themselves much more than snark.

There is a big (overwhelming) component of ego involved in these
people's success and each of our own tiny egos is threatened by any
other ego finding success (especially spectacular success).   But *we*
are the ones who build the foundations on which giant towers of ego are
built.   *We* (the peoples) are the ones who project our own ego-needs
out in such a way that the various measures of success and opportunities
for accumulation of power (e.g. wealth, influence) end up building the
scaffolding to elevate these people whom we so much love to hate.

I suspect what makes these "great (wo)men" figures such good targets for
resentment is that we see our own tiny egos reflected in their inflated
(by attention/fame/wealth) egos?

I "grew up" with Michael Jackson in perhaps a different way than
others.   I ran a night-time Pop-Rock show at my local AM station during
his rise to fame. He was one year younger than me.   The Rock Stars
(Stones, Beatles, etc ad nauseum) of the time were already young
adults... in many cases a decade or more older than I, and I could defer
to their fame more easily.   Michael Jackson had just hit it big with
his single - "Ben" which some of you may remember as being the theme
song to a hollywood movie about a Rat named "Ben".   The movie was
sweet, the song was sweet, etc.   I liked the tune and I had a guarded
respect for someone "my age" being so capable vocally.   I was also
tapped into the industry chatter about "young stars" and Jackson was a
unique phenomena in many ways, coming up out of the shadow of his
brothers' Jackson 5 to eclipse them.   The stories of the family dynamic
that seems to have ultimately crushed him into the caricature of a pop
star he became (whilst still churning out good work) were already afoot,
alongside the other rising (and oft dysfunctional) pop phenomena of that
time (Carpenters, Donnie&Marie, Cap'n&Tenille, etc.) Many 60's rockers
were already (dissolved, self-destructed, OD'd, but this younger cohort
of wholesome(ish) pop/folk/rock singers were growing up with their older
siblings/mentors as cautionary tales, or perhaps in a more extreme
crucible with the exploding budget of boomer teens/young-adults for
their music.   I mildly resented Michael's (and many of the others)
success, but I also had a hint of his pain and knew I wouldn't trade his
rising fame for the dysfunction that drove/shaped it.   Karen
Carpenter's death-by-Anorexia and other events of that genre/era attuned
me to the price many (all?) of these people were paying.

There might be a notable exception in Linda Ronstadt who was a few years
older than me but from the nearby city of Tucson and struggling/fumbling
*her* way through the same waters.   I really didn't appreciate it until
after she had lost her voice to Parkinson's a decade ago and I saw a
documentary on the arc of her life, how dedicated to her art she was,
and how much of that transcended the pop-rock I knew her (most well)
for.   It might be acutely notable that while she had some fairly
high-profile relationships (e.g. Gov. Jerry Brown, Steve Martin, Jim
Carrey, Mick Jagger, Bill Murray, Aaron Neville, George Lucas, etc...)
she managed to not let any of those famous men eclipse or deflect her
from her own professional arc, though I am sure they all influenced her
arc in some way.

I'm sure someone could give Ronstadt the same snark-treatment if I held
her up as "a Great Woman", and maybe it is equally fair to note that few
probably hold her up in that way beyond simply appreciating the great
work she has done along the way.   I also believe to support a "Great
Woman Narrative" that she was highly influential among her peers and
younger musicians (especially women) and in the domain of modern
(80s-90s?) country-rock (with a dash of mexican-hillbilly ranchera)
thrown in.

<shaking my tiny fist>

- Steve

On 3/12/21 9:48 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:

gepr

Re: great man theory

What is the quote "Methinks the lady doth protest too much"? >8^D

Dave's post held zero resentment, as far as I can tell. Maybe Steve resents. I don't and I don't think Dave does. What's at work, here, isn't resentment. It's an attempt to point out a fundamental flaw in our highly connected world ... watching as GroupThink churns from one celebrity to the next, from celebrity like Trump to the more sedate celebrity of Biden ... from the celebrity of AI to the more sedate celebrity of ML.

If we replaced the people in Dave's list with technologies, we'd see the SAME pattern.

And Dave explicitly said, and Jon remarked on, the fact that *we* make these celebrities. They're the victims. And if we want to come to terms with our highly connected world, we need to look hard in the mirror.

On 3/12/21 9:45 AM, Steve Smith wrote:

> While I find the great (wo)man theory fundamentally problematic, I don't
> think criticisms like this list which reduce those who might be held up
> as such to diminished caricatures of themselves much more than snark.
>
> There is a big (overwhelming) component of ego involved in these
> people's success and each of our own tiny egos is threatened by any
> other ego finding success (especially spectacular success).   But *we*
> are the ones who build the foundations on which giant towers of ego are
> built.   *We* (the peoples) are the ones who project our own ego-needs
> out in such a way that the various measures of success and opportunities
> for accumulation of power (e.g. wealth, influence) end up building the
> scaffolding to elevate these people whom we so much love to hate.
>
> I suspect what makes these "great (wo)men" figures such good targets for
> resentment is that we see our own tiny egos reflected in their inflated
> (by attention/fame/wealth) egos?
>
> I "grew up" with Michael Jackson in perhaps a different way than
> others.   I ran a night-time Pop-Rock show at my local AM station during
> his rise to fame. He was one year younger than me.   The Rock Stars
> (Stones, Beatles, etc ad nauseum) of the time were already young
> adults... in many cases a decade or more older than I, and I could defer
> to their fame more easily.   Michael Jackson had just hit it big with
> his single - "Ben" which some of you may remember as being the theme
> song to a hollywood movie about a Rat named "Ben".   The movie was
> sweet, the song was sweet, etc.   I liked the tune and I had a guarded
> respect for someone "my age" being so capable vocally.   I was also
> tapped into the industry chatter about "young stars" and Jackson was a
> unique phenomena in many ways, coming up out of the shadow of his
> brothers' Jackson 5 to eclipse them.   The stories of the family dynamic
> that seems to have ultimately crushed him into the caricature of a pop
> star he became (whilst still churning out good work) were already afoot,
> alongside the other rising (and oft dysfunctional) pop phenomena of that
> time (Carpenters, Donnie&Marie, Cap'n&Tenille, etc.) Many 60's rockers
> were already (dissolved, self-destructed, OD'd, but this younger cohort
> of wholesome(ish) pop/folk/rock singers were growing up with their older
> siblings/mentors as cautionary tales, or perhaps in a more extreme
> crucible with the exploding budget of boomer teens/young-adults for
> their music.   I mildly resented Michael's (and many of the others)
> success, but I also had a hint of his pain and knew I wouldn't trade his
> rising fame for the dysfunction that drove/shaped it.   Karen
> Carpenter's death-by-Anorexia and other events of that genre/era attuned
> me to the price many (all?) of these people were paying.
>
> There might be a notable exception in Linda Ronstadt who was a few years
> older than me but from the nearby city of Tucson and struggling/fumbling
> *her* way through the same waters.   I really didn't appreciate it until
> after she had lost her voice to Parkinson's a decade ago and I saw a
> documentary on the arc of her life, how dedicated to her art she was,
> and how much of that transcended the pop-rock I knew her (most well)
> for.   It might be acutely notable that while she had some fairly
> high-profile relationships (e.g. Gov. Jerry Brown, Steve Martin, Jim
> Carrey, Mick Jagger, Bill Murray, Aaron Neville, George Lucas, etc...)
> she managed to not let any of those famous men eclipse or deflect her
> from her own professional arc, though I am sure they all influenced her
> arc in some way.
>
> I'm sure someone could give Ronstadt the same snark-treatment if I held
> her up as "a Great Woman", and maybe it is equally fair to note that few
> probably hold her up in that way beyond simply appreciating the great
> work she has done along the way.   I also believe to support a "Great
> Woman Narrative" that she was highly influential among her peers and
> younger musicians (especially women) and in the domain of modern
> (80s-90s?) country-rock (with a dash of mexican-hillbilly ranchera)
> thrown in.
>
> <shaking my tiny fist>

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: great man theory

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

The Bezos/Musk interest in space exploration is a contrast to the Gates foundation. I don't really admire any of them other than to observe that they can do things our government can't even do, at least without much more expense and time. Sure there is a mining angle to reaching other celestial bodies (that would be profit driven), but I think there has to be aspect of "What is all this wealth for?" If Bezos/Musk decide to emphasize technological or scientific goals over human goals, that is fine with me. To me these folks were set on an unavoidable cosmic path that led them to wealth, and it is just interesting to see what is possible with that wealth. It beats Ellison and his stupid sailboats.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 9:45 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] great man theory

While I find the great (wo)man theory fundamentally problematic, I don't think criticisms like this list which reduce those who might be held up as such to diminished caricatures of themselves much more than snark.

There is a big (overwhelming) component of ego involved in these people's success and each of our own tiny egos is threatened by any other ego finding success (especially spectacular success).   But *we* are the ones who build the foundations on which giant towers of ego are built.   *We* (the peoples) are the ones who project our own ego-needs out in such a way that the various measures of success and opportunities for accumulation of power (e.g. wealth, influence) end up building the scaffolding to elevate these people whom we so much love to hate.

I suspect what makes these "great (wo)men" figures such good targets for resentment is that we see our own tiny egos reflected in their inflated (by attention/fame/wealth) egos?

I "grew up" with Michael Jackson in perhaps a different way than others.   I ran a night-time Pop-Rock show at my local AM station during his rise to fame. He was one year younger than me.   The Rock Stars (Stones, Beatles, etc ad nauseum) of the time were already young adults... in many cases a decade or more older than I, and I could defer to their fame more easily.   Michael Jackson had just hit it big with his single - "Ben" which some of you may remember as being the theme song to a hollywood movie about a Rat named "Ben".   The movie was sweet, the song was sweet, etc.   I liked the tune and I had a guarded respect for someone "my age" being so capable vocally.   I was also tapped into the industry chatter about "young stars" and Jackson was a unique phenomena in many ways, coming up out of the shadow of his brothers' Jackson 5 to eclipse them.   The stories of the family dynamic that seems to have ultimately crushed him into the caricature of a pop star he became (whilst still churning out good work) were already afoot, alongside the other rising (and oft dysfunctional) pop phenomena of that time (Carpenters, Donnie&Marie, Cap'n&Tenille, etc.) Many 60's rockers were already (dissolved, self-destructed, OD'd, but this younger cohort of wholesome(ish) pop/folk/rock singers were growing up with their older siblings/mentors as cautionary tales, or perhaps in a more extreme crucible with the exploding budget of boomer teens/young-adults for their music.   I mildly resented Michael's (and many of the others) success, but I also had a hint of his pain and knew I wouldn't trade his rising fame for the dysfunction that drove/shaped it.   Karen Carpenter's death-by-Anorexia and other events of that genre/era attuned me to the price many (all?) of these people were paying.

There might be a notable exception in Linda Ronstadt who was a few years older than me but from the nearby city of Tucson and struggling/fumbling
*her* way through the same waters.   I really didn't appreciate it until after she had lost her voice to Parkinson's a decade ago and I saw a documentary on the arc of her life, how dedicated to her art she was, and how much of that transcended the pop-rock I knew her (most well) for.   It might be acutely notable that while she had some fairly high-profile relationships (e.g. Gov. Jerry Brown, Steve Martin, Jim Carrey, Mick Jagger, Bill Murray, Aaron Neville, George Lucas, etc...) she managed to not let any of those famous men eclipse or deflect her from her own professional arc, though I am sure they all influenced her arc in some way.

I'm sure someone could give Ronstadt the same snark-treatment if I held her up as "a Great Woman", and maybe it is equally fair to note that few probably hold her up in that way beyond simply appreciating the great work she has done along the way.   I also believe to support a "Great Woman Narrative" that she was highly influential among her peers and younger musicians (especially women) and in the domain of modern
(80s-90s?) country-rock (with a dash of mexican-hillbilly ranchera) thrown in.

<shaking my tiny fist>

- Steve

On 3/12/21 9:48 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:

> Fantastic rundown! Thanks. I had intended to post a rant on the abuse of the word "analog" in contrast to "digital", given the news about the antikythera <https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/mar/12/scientists-move-closer-to-solving-mystery-of-antikythera-mechanism>. Now I feel that rant would be way too lame and couldn't follow this.
>
> EricC suggested I watch "Leaving Neverland", which was interesting. But I also watched the Oprah interview afterward. Up to that point, I hadn't realized what a self-aggrandizing know-it-all she is. I'm now glad I haven't spent much time watching her shows or consuming her products. I suspect, however, she's evolved, like all of us ... like Michael Jackson, even. Maybe at one point, her contribution was of a higher quality. I won't know one way or another.
>
> On 3/12/21 8:18 AM, Prof David West wrote:
>> Nothing serious, just something that reminded me of topics in threads
>> and, I think, glen's acerbic comments about "great men / geniuses."
>> Jessica Wildfire's list (not so ironically making herself exactly
>> what she is decrying - absent billions of dollars of personal wealth)
>>
>> 5 most overated persons:
>>
>> Steve Jobs:
>> Steve Jobs didn’t invent the computer. Steve Wozniak did. He also didn’t invent smartphones or touch screens. These technologies already existed. In fact, Jobs almost stopped Apple from releasing the first iPhone. A covert team developed it in complete secrecy from him, in order to avoid his caustic skepticism. So you might say the iPhone happened despite Jobs, not because of him.
>>
>> Elon Musk:
>> Elon Musk has been promising us an affordable electric car for over a decade now. He’s used that promise to win billions of dollars in tax breaks and seed money, while actively undermining any green projects he sees as a threat to his own enterprise. Basically, he’s the biggest example of corporate freeloading you could imagine. What the world admires about Elon Musk isn’t his intelligence, or his environmental conscience. It’s his ego, plain and simple.
>>
>> Jeff Bezos
>> Bezos conducts a masterful public relations campaign that allows customers to believe Amazon isn’t completely destroying the environment, or working its employees literally to death. In fact, it is. Despite Amazon’s recent pledges to save the world, its carbon footprint has grown 15 percent since the pandemic began. At best, the billions that Bezos spends will partly undo the damage he’s caused. If that weren’t enough, Bezos and his company use every underhanded tactic known to civilization in order to cheapen its labor costs and avoid taxes. They’ve literally been caught stealing tips. Bezos himself pays almost nothing in state income tax, while the rest of us are forced to make up the difference. He cuts health insurance from his employees, then has the audacity to say in public that he has no idea how to spend his immense wealth, other than moving to Mars or cloning himself.
>>
>> Oprah Winfrey
>> Oprah isn’t a hard-hitting journalist. She isn’t profound. She caters to the lowest common denominator, the suburban housewives of America, who need to feel special and important because nobody else treats them with any respect. Oprah figured this out early on in her career. They’ve been her core audience from the start. Oprah rode to fame on satanic panics and woo-woo spirituality. She’s a chief architect of the magical thinking that now fuels QAnon-style conspiracy theories and anti-vaccine movements. Oprah has spent a lifetime coddling intellectual fragility, while manufacturing controversy and outrage for profit.
>>
>> Tony Robbins
>> The more you learn about Tony Robbins, the more you find out his real secret. He only knows how to succeed if you’re a big, good-looking white guy like him. Otherwise, his advice doesn’t work. Of course, the worst thing about Tony Robbins is that he apparently spent most of his career telling people to stand up for themselves, while preying on women and bullying them.
>>
>> What these people have in common:
>> So, apparently these are the five most successful people in the world. They have the most money. They have the most influence. They’re kind of awful. If we’re honest with ourselves, we can see how we’ve created a mythology around these individuals. We tell stories about them that never really happened. We ascribe pithy quotes to them they didn’t really say. We turn them into mirrors of our own personal desires. In case you missed the last few thousand years of western civilization, the most powerful people in the world aren’t nice. They’re not fair. They don’t play by the rules. They’re brutal. They cheat. Often, they’re simply in the right place at the right time — and they exploit that to their advantage, often at everyone’s expense.
>>
>> for entertainment purposes only.
>>
>> davew

gepr

Re: great man theory

Ha! So true. It reminds me of the effort awhile back to go through one's house and count the things made in China vs. made in USA. Although that may have some merit, a *better* accounting would be to go through one's "house" and count things with which you intended to Do Work vs. things you intended to Bring Comfort. The Work/Comfort ratio of a household seems like a useful thing.

On 3/12/21 10:00 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> If Bezos/Musk decide to emphasize technological or scientific goals over human goals, that is fine with me. To me these folks were set on an unavoidable cosmic path that led them to wealth, and it is just interesting to see what is possible with that wealth. It beats Ellison and his stupid sailboats.

--
↙↙↙ 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

Steve Smith

Re: great man theory

In reply to this post by gepr

> What is the quote "Methinks the lady doth protest too much"? >8^D
>
> Dave's post held zero resentment, as far as I can tell. Maybe Steve resents.
I was reporting on my own experience/introspection of/on/with
resentment, yes.   I was also noting that such lists are compressed
caricatures.   I don't know if Glen or Dave resents these people their
success, but it sure sounds like whomever did the caricaturing was
looking for a (not inaccurate, but possibly very carefully contrived)
low-dimensional silhouette of a high-dimensional
person/phenomena/career/movement.
> I don't and I don't think Dave does. What's at work, here, isn't resentment. It's an attempt to point out a fundamental flaw in our highly connected world ... watching as GroupThink churns from one celebrity to the next, from celebrity like Trump to the more sedate celebrity of Biden ... from the celebrity of AI to the more sedate celebrity of ML.
Sure, there is a pop-collective over-estimation of value going on in all
of these examples.    We here variously give folks like Pearce or
Feynman caricatured celebrity status which in turn might evoke the
desire in some to create a less flattering caricature.   Caricature all.
> If we replaced the people in Dave's list with technologies, we'd see the SAME pattern.
And some have called out the signifier "Science" and the things it
pretends to point at as being a broad example as well.
> And Dave explicitly said, and Jon remarked on, the fact that *we* make these celebrities. They're the victims. And if we want to come to terms with our highly connected world, we need to look hard in the mirror.

I think that was my fundamental point as well. I wasn't trying to
contradict or impugn Glen or Dave or anyone else, just noticing that
when there is snark there is ego. If those lists of traits of "Great
(wo)men" were not dripping with snark then you may be accurate that I
projected my own stuff into it and I'm entirely off-base. Wouldn't be
the first time.

- Sieve

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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: great man theory

In reply to this post by gepr

*we* make these celebrities

Celebrity is co-creation. We cannot help but see what we see, seduced
by the possibilities afforded by the image. Dually, the image becomes
the captive of collective desire. What seems worth noting, is the power
of a partially-defined image, like with poetry, an object that waits
for another to complete it.

Sent from the Friam mailing list archive at 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: great man theory

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

OK. But a) I don't think there was any snark in the caricatures. Your perception of it is, I think, an instance of imputation ... aspects of your model being attributed to the words. But, more importantly, b) Yes, of course it's caricature. That's the point.

Your bringing up Linda Rondstadt, Pierce, and Feynman is important. I'm sorry if I glossed over that too much. But as my trailing comment about Oprah's evolution (and Jackson's evolution) should hint toward your point. Yes, we can take a deeper look into the *actual* people (as opposed to their names as symbols Oprah is not Oprah). And assuming we're not sociopaths, we can find the humanity in there ... see the victims as people.

But that's not what we do. And we do it less and less every day, every year, every decade. Republicans are horrible monsters that need to be eradicated. That's our new touchstone for "accuracy" in caricature. And Marcus' contribution may well be even more accurate, as a socio-cultural comment, that we *must* caricature these people and things in order to build wealth/momentum to do difficult work. If that's the case, getting accurate, hours long descriptive quality, into the mix *defeats* the purpose.

The reason we put the Bohms and Gödels of the world through the wringer, so that they end up suicidal, is so we can wring our objectives from their desiccated little souls. To look at our victims as full-blown humans gets in the way of our progress.

On 3/12/21 10:07 AM, Steve Smith wrote:

>
>> What is the quote "Methinks the lady doth protest too much"? >8^D
>>
>> Dave's post held zero resentment, as far as I can tell. Maybe Steve resents.
> I was reporting on my own experience/introspection of/on/with
> resentment, yes.   I was also noting that such lists are compressed
> caricatures.   I don't know if Glen or Dave resents these people their
> success, but it sure sounds like whomever did the caricaturing was
> looking for a (not inaccurate, but possibly very carefully contrived)
> low-dimensional silhouette of a high-dimensional
> person/phenomena/career/movement.
>> I don't and I don't think Dave does. What's at work, here, isn't resentment. It's an attempt to point out a fundamental flaw in our highly connected world ... watching as GroupThink churns from one celebrity to the next, from celebrity like Trump to the more sedate celebrity of Biden ... from the celebrity of AI to the more sedate celebrity of ML.
> Sure, there is a pop-collective over-estimation of value going on in all
> of these examples.    We here variously give folks like Pearce or
> Feynman caricatured celebrity status which in turn might evoke the
> desire in some to create a less flattering caricature.   Caricature all.
>> If we replaced the people in Dave's list with technologies, we'd see the SAME pattern.
> And some have called out the signifier "Science" and the things it
> pretends to point at as being a broad example as well.
>> And Dave explicitly said, and Jon remarked on, the fact that *we* make these celebrities. They're the victims. And if we want to come to terms with our highly connected world, we need to look hard in the mirror.
>
> I think that was my fundamental point as well. I wasn't trying to
> contradict or impugn Glen or Dave or anyone else, just noticing that
> when there is snark there is ego. If those lists of traits of "Great
> (wo)men" were not dripping with snark then you may be accurate that I
> projected my own stuff into it and I'm entirely off-base. Wouldn't be
> the first time.
>
> - Sieve

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: great man theory

The Michael Jackson documentary / accusation I think could be another self-reflection as to what is What is Wealth For?
The momentum he could have been using, in his mind, was to override the norms of society and to share affection with children -- affection that he lacked as a boy. I believe it was Bill Maher that put this into perspective noting that some pedophiles dismember their victims. Neverland Ranch may have been to create a new world with different rules. It has different properties than Musk's new world, but at some level the impulse could be the same. Neverland seems like too much of a production *just* to be for a shallow deviant purpose. It may have had a more complex deviant purpose. And you know, the Unabomber's remarks aren't the most insane thing I've ever heard, either.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 10:22 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] great man theory

OK. But a) I don't think there was any snark in the caricatures. Your perception of it is, I think, an instance of imputation ... aspects of your model being attributed to the words. But, more importantly, b) Yes, of course it's caricature. That's the point.

Your bringing up Linda Rondstadt, Pierce, and Feynman is important. I'm sorry if I glossed over that too much. But as my trailing comment about Oprah's evolution (and Jackson's evolution) should hint toward your point. Yes, we can take a deeper look into the *actual* people (as opposed to their names as symbols Oprah is not Oprah). And assuming we're not sociopaths, we can find the humanity in there ... see the victims as people.

But that's not what we do. And we do it less and less every day, every year, every decade. Republicans are horrible monsters that need to be eradicated. That's our new touchstone for "accuracy" in caricature. And Marcus' contribution may well be even more accurate, as a socio-cultural comment, that we *must* caricature these people and things in order to build wealth/momentum to do difficult work. If that's the case, getting accurate, hours long descriptive quality, into the mix *defeats* the purpose.

The reason we put the Bohms and Gödels of the world through the wringer, so that they end up suicidal, is so we can wring our objectives from their desiccated little souls. To look at our victims as full-blown humans gets in the way of our progress.

On 3/12/21 10:07 AM, Steve Smith wrote:

>
>> What is the quote "Methinks the lady doth protest too much"? >8^D
>>
>> Dave's post held zero resentment, as far as I can tell. Maybe Steve resents.
> I was reporting on my own experience/introspection of/on/with
> resentment, yes.   I was also noting that such lists are compressed
> caricatures.   I don't know if Glen or Dave resents these people their
> success, but it sure sounds like whomever did the caricaturing was
> looking for a (not inaccurate, but possibly very carefully contrived)
> low-dimensional silhouette of a high-dimensional
> person/phenomena/career/movement.
>> I don't and I don't think Dave does. What's at work, here, isn't resentment. It's an attempt to point out a fundamental flaw in our highly connected world ... watching as GroupThink churns from one celebrity to the next, from celebrity like Trump to the more sedate celebrity of Biden ... from the celebrity of AI to the more sedate celebrity of ML.
> Sure, there is a pop-collective over-estimation of value going on in
> all of these examples.    We here variously give folks like Pearce or
> Feynman caricatured celebrity status which in turn might evoke the
> desire in some to create a less flattering caricature.   Caricature all.
>> If we replaced the people in Dave's list with technologies, we'd see the SAME pattern.
> And some have called out the signifier "Science" and the things it
> pretends to point at as being a broad example as well.
>> And Dave explicitly said, and Jon remarked on, the fact that *we* make these celebrities. They're the victims. And if we want to come to terms with our highly connected world, we need to look hard in the mirror.
>
> I think that was my fundamental point as well. I wasn't trying to
> contradict or impugn Glen or Dave or anyone else, just noticing that
> when there is snark there is ego. If those lists of traits of "Great
> (wo)men" were not dripping with snark then you may be accurate that I
> projected my own stuff into it and I'm entirely off-base. Wouldn't be
> the first time.
>
> - Sieve

gepr

Re: great man theory

Yep. We could say the same thing about Jobs and Oprah. Robbins? No, not so much. But maybe. We're all inertial devices, accumulating cruft as we blunder along. How that cruft expresses itself not only changes over time, but, if not refactored regularly, can go pretty wonky pretty fast. (Psychedelics are one refactoring method. Our Supreme Court - SCOWA? - recently decriminalized small amounts of all drugs [⛧]. Different path from Oregon, but similar effect. ... Now all I need to do is find a trustable supplier! 8^D ... which is not so easy. We need to drastically increase our Harm Reduction testing stations: http://www.harmreductionsupplies.com/)

Wealth insulates us from sporadic error-correcting influences around us. Anonymity on the internet also insulates us. "Academic Freedom" insulates us. When it's easy to slice out a large chunk of consequences as externalities, it's easy for the cruft to express itself in weird ways.

[⛧] https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2021/03/01/55487563/washingtons-supreme-court-decriminalized-drugs-statewide-what-happens-next

On 3/12/21 10:39 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> The Michael Jackson documentary / accusation I think could be another self-reflection as to what is What is Wealth For?
> The momentum he could have been using, in his mind, was to override the norms of society and to share affection with children -- affection that he lacked as a boy. I believe it was Bill Maher that put this into perspective noting that some pedophiles dismember their victims. Neverland Ranch may have been to create a new world with different rules. It has different properties than Musk's new world, but at some level the impulse could be the same. Neverland seems like too much of a production *just* to be for a shallow deviant purpose. It may have had a more complex deviant purpose. And you know, the Unabomber's remarks aren't the most insane thing I've ever heard, either.

--
↙↙↙ 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

Steve Smith

Re: great man theory

In reply to this post by jon zingale

Well said Jon... the pop/collective celebre as poem or gestural (ala sumi-e) drawing.

Regarding these "seductions", having archetypical figures to identify with/aspire towards, they can also be cautionary. I'm sure there are many (esp. young LIbertarians) who aspire to be Musk.

I don't know how close Glen's debunking of the "Great Man Theory" comes to the "Cult of Personality" trope, but they would seem to be corollaries in some way.

*we* make these celebrities
Celebrity is co-creation. We cannot help but see what we see, seduced
by the possibilities afforded by the image. Dually, the image becomes
the captive of collective desire. What seems worth noting, is the power
of a partially-defined image, like with poetry, an object that waits
for another to complete it.

Sent from the Friam mailing list archive at 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/

Steve Smith

Re: great man theory

In reply to this post by gepr

glen -
> OK. But a) I don't think there was any snark in the caricatures. Your perception of it is, I think, an instance of imputation ... aspects of your model being attributed to the words. But, more importantly, b) Yes, of course it's caricature. That's the point.
I don't need to insist that the Snark I found in the lists was
endogenous to the list/list-maker... only the list-maker could now that
for sure and might variously "own the snark" or "deny the snark" or if
your imputation is more accurate simply be "vacant of snark".
> To look at our victims as full-blown humans gets in the way of our progress.

I don't know if Nietzsche said that first but it does seem like it could
be a paraphrase of one of his nihilistic piths.

I am inspired by the anti-Othering movement, it serves my own
recovery/respite from a lifetime of participating in zero-sum
victim/victor games as offered by our popular culture as (sometimes? or
am I imputing again?) "the only game in town".

- 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/

gepr

Re: great man theory

To be clear, recognizing that all models are wrong, some are useful isn't nihilistic. My favorite conception is (what I think I got from Kierkegaard), the leap of faith from obsessing about how wrong our models are, to something akin to "shut up and calculate" is what gets us out of analysis paralysis.

The trick, I suppose, is *when* to pull the trigger. How much do I have to empathize with Jeff Bezos before I can just get on with pointing out that his effluvium is destroying culture, market, and planet; and any "effective altruism" he may engage in will never offset the damage his effluvium's done.

How much do I have to empathize with Michael Jackson ... or Trump ... or whatever fictitious caricature (false but useful model) we might choose, in order to get on with the consequential task of mitigating their impact?

On 3/12/21 11:58 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
>> To look at our victims as full-blown humans gets in the way of our progress.
>
> I don't know if Nietzsche said that first but it does seem like it could
> be a paraphrase of one of his nihilistic piths.
>
> I am inspired by the anti-Othering movement, it serves my own
> recovery/respite from a lifetime of participating in zero-sum
> victim/victor games as offered by our popular culture as (sometimes? or
> am I imputing again?) "the only game in town".

--
↙↙↙ 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

Steve Smith

What is Wealth for?

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

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/

1234 ... 6