mathematics and politics
Locked
 
|
and in other Reddit news...
Mathematicians are redundant in Leicester Algebraic geometer arrested for protesting the detention of Alexey Nevalny 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/ |
Re: mathematics and politics
|
The main problem I had with the Navalny presentation was fearing there was going to be a test at the end! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipAnwilMncI&feature=emb_title From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of
jon zingale and in other Reddit news... 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/ |
Re: mathematics and politics
|
|
In reply to this post by jon zingale
A direct quote from Reddit: "...to ensure a future research identity in AI, computational modelling, digitalisation and data science requires ceasing research in Pure Mathematics in order to invest and extend activities in these areas" In an ideal world no compromises are required. In the real world there are constraints. It's very difficult for me to take a strong position, but I don't think allocating more resources on AI, computational modelling, digitalisation and data science is necessarily a bad idea. On Thu, 4 Feb 2021 at 03:36, jon zingale <[hidden email]> wrote: and in other Reddit news... - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
I have to admit that I found the part cute where Navalny stands outside a soviet-era apartment complex and lets us know that this was the home and humble beginnings of Vladimir Vladimirovich. As a comparative study, I find the approaches of politicians in the US and in Russia intriguing, could they be any further? Navalny, for his supporters, must appear fearless and ready to die for the free future of Russia. Meanwhile, AOC must appear freightend and outraged that aggression will have any part in the future of America.
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/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Pieter Steenekamp
I suppose I get that Leicester can restructure whatever it is they believe
they offer however they wish. As an outsider, I cannot help but feel a little shocked that a public research university appears to fail to understand the value of pure mathematics. In particular, the failure would not only be toward understanding the history of how computation, AI, and the data sciences came to be, but also a failure to recognize the wellspring from which new ideas in these fields come forth. At the very least, I sympathize with one commenter who remarked, "If any department can be axed without warning there seems like very little reason for any academic to want a job at Leicester." -- 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/ |
|
In reply to this post by jon zingale
Yep. The difference is a testament to our civility and Russia's barbarism.
On 2/3/21 9:15 PM, jon zingale wrote: > I find the approaches of politicians in the US and in Russia intriguing, could they be any further? Navalny, for his supporters <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGsRTfjuZFA&ab_channel=DWNews>, must appear fearless and ready to die for the free future of Russia. Meanwhile, AOC must appear freightend and outraged <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut2u-_qYWqM&ab_channel=TheLateShowwithStephenColbert&t=460s> that aggression will have any part in the future of America. -- ↙↙↙ 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
|
|
|
This post was updated on .
Is that sarcasm? The US is clearly not a peaceful nation. I think I can agree
if you are claiming some kind of aesthetic distinction, something about how a group of mobsters wants to be perceived, Corleones in suits. -- 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/ |
|
|
Nope, not sarcasm. Your comment sounded either like toxic masculinity or some form of "kids these days". Yes, it's good to worship brave people who risk their lives simply to make progress. But it's just plain silly to mock and insult people who've come to feel *entitled* to walk down the street without being murdered. AOC is right to expect to be safe in fulfilling her representative duties. And *that* she normally does is a Good Thing. That Navalny is NOT safe, and has no expectations of being safe, demonstrates that Russia is not a civilized country.
On 2/4/21 8:40 AM, jon zingale wrote: > Is that sarcasm? The US is clearly not a peaceful nation. I think I can agree > if you are claiming some kind of aesthetic distinction, something about a > group of mobsters wants to be perceived, Corleones in suits. -- ↙↙↙ 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
|
|
|
This post was updated on .
Good to hear. It is not mockery. When I observe politicians I cannot help but
wonder about the trappings of power. Each expression may fairly be interpretable, Navalny's or AOC's, on some level as a bid in a perpetual game of political narrative scoping, a rhetorical performance insisting "this is who we are today". As far as I can tell, it doesn't require authenticity or consistency to play. Today we are playing civil, tomorrow boxing our little brother's ears. |
|
|
Well, when confronted by conspiracy thinking (e.g. all people are inauthentic and simply put on masks fit to purpose), you can choose to mimic what you think they're doing *or* you can ratchet out a bit and ask yourself what is the virtuous behavior you might like to engage.
I don't care, at all, whether Navlany's bravery is fake ... or whether AOC's victimhood is adopted for political purpose. But I *do* care about how, say, rape victims respond to their treatment. And how my elderly neighbor responds to news of gang violence downtown. Etc. I care about that for the same reason I care about young black hackers who have no role models in the media. Or Renee's grand daughter going to a scientific conference with me and the VERY FIRST talk being given by a woman. In espionage and public relations, they talk a lot about "the appearance of impropriety". But if there's one thing we might learn from Nick and EricC's kindasorta radical behaviorism is that if you think all the time about putting on masks to manipulate others, then you probably *are* one who puts on masks to manipulate others. Hence, I choose to treat AOC's presentation of fear and Navlany's presentation of bravery as authentic, not because it is, but because the effect it has on, say, Renee's grand daughter is real. And that's probably why I reacted the way I did. On 2/4/21 8:59 AM, jon zingale wrote: > Good to hear. It is not mockery. When I observe politicians I cannot help but > wonder about the trappings of power. Each expression may fairly be > interpretable, Navalny's or AOC's, on some level as a bid in a perpetual > game of political narrative scoping, a rhetorical performance insisting > "this is who we are today". As far as I can tell, it doesn't require > authencity or consistency to play. Today we are playing civil, tomorrow > boxing our little brother's ears. -- ↙↙↙ 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
|
Re: mathematics and politics
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Reminds me of this: https://asiatimes.com/2020/12/russias-space-chief-cant-help-but-bash-rival-spacex/
Like being shamed for having soft hands. -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 8:46 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] mathematics and politics Nope, not sarcasm. Your comment sounded either like toxic masculinity or some form of "kids these days". Yes, it's good to worship brave people who risk their lives simply to make progress. But it's just plain silly to mock and insult people who've come to feel *entitled* to walk down the street without being murdered. AOC is right to expect to be safe in fulfilling her representative duties. And *that* she normally does is a Good Thing. That Navalny is NOT safe, and has no expectations of being safe, demonstrates that Russia is not a civilized country. On 2/4/21 8:40 AM, jon zingale wrote: > Is that sarcasm? The US is clearly not a peaceful nation. I think I > can agree if you are claiming some kind of aesthetic distinction, > something about a group of mobsters wants to be perceived, Corleones in suits. -- ↙↙↙ 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/ |
|
|
Ha! That's a hilarious article. Almost as funny as playing YMCA as you lumber on or off a stage.
On 2/4/21 9:13 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Reminds me of this: https://asiatimes.com/2020/12/russias-space-chief-cant-help-but-bash-rival-spacex/ > > Like being shamed for having soft hands. -- ↙↙↙ 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
|
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
To some extent I agree, though I reject the choice of either A *or* B. I
prefer to make room for longer formal expressions and attempt to make use of them as their own thing. When confronted by need I partially evaluate as needed. We live in a post-net-neutrality era of Instagram influencers, Twitter mobs, doxers, and cancel culture. The post-net-neutrality constraint seems important as it contributes to defining an optimizing function for our polity. Today, the most politically savvy of us is so exactly because they *internalized* this. These are social times, and by that, I mean political times. Persona trades high and nearly all of us, especially in these unprecedented times, have a steady diet of dynamically curated media. There is to my mind ample reason for caution and skepticism regarding the rhetoric I, and those around me, adopt. My concern with acting on appearances, and seeking the Polly Anna I wish to see in the world, is one of Hebbian correction and is similar to the concern I feel when reminded that Jesus has a plan. The disconnect can be very real in its facilitating of future canalization, the very real danger of forming a banality of evil. OTOH, I agree that we *must* care for how rape victims respond to their treatment and elderly neighbors respond to news of gang violence downtown. That is if we hope for polity at all. -- 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/ |
|
|
OK. I suppose I can chalk this up to the same complaint I (too often) lodge at EricC. We can shock-jock start with an appeal to machismo, expecting AOC to suck it up and act like a man, exhibiting bravado even if there's a scared little kid inside. *Then* as we continue to intellectualize everything down to our inferential endpoint with lots of big words and sophisticated reasoning, come to an opaque, obscure, and irrelevant agreement.
Or, we can simply accept that *I* would have been scared as hell if I were in AOC's heels on the 6th. And because I admit that it would scare the hell out of me, when I see her or Porter talk about the experience, don't immediately rush to cynicism or post-modern power deconstruction. My immediate reaction is that such emotions *prevent* me from doing my job in the same way it prevents them from doing theirs. And that would be true even if my tolerance of violence is way higher than theirs. On a tangential note, our pervasive "battle rhetoric" around slogans like "fight cancer" or Trump's "fight like hell" is overwhelmingly AT FAULT for this machismo. And the first step to realizing why "fight cancer" and "fuck cancer" piss me off in the worst way is to know that such language is at least 1 primary reason we have so many morons out there refusing to wear masks and believing QAnon crap. AOC is right to have been afraid and right to show vulnerability in expressing that fear. And those of us afraid to show vulnerability or lionize (fake) bravery to the world are as much at fault as the criminals themselves. p.s. It should be clear that I'm not accusing *you*, Jon, of any of this ... only making clear that what one reads is never what another has written. On 2/4/21 10:18 AM, jon zingale wrote: > To some extent I agree, though I reject the choice of either A *or* B. I > prefer to make room for longer formal expressions and attempt to make use of > them as their own thing. When confronted by need I partially evaluate as > needed. > > We live in a post-net-neutrality era of Instagram influencers, Twitter mobs, > doxers, and cancel culture. The post-net-neutrality constraint seems > important as it contributes to defining an optimizing function for our > polity. Today, the most politically savvy of us is so exactly because they > *internalized* this. These are social times, and by that, I mean political > times. Persona trades high and nearly all of us, especially in these > unprecedented times, have a steady diet of dynamically curated media. There > is to my mind ample reason for caution and skepticism regarding the rhetoric > I, and those around me, adopt. > > My concern with acting on appearances, and seeking the Polly Anna I wish to > see in the world, is one of Hebbian correction and is similar to the concern > I feel when reminded that Jesus has a plan. The disconnect can be very real > in its facilitating of future canalization, the very real danger of forming > a banality of evil. OTOH, I agree that we *must* care for how rape victims > respond to their treatment and elderly neighbors respond to news of gang > violence downtown. That is if we hope for polity at all. -- ↙↙↙ 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
|
|
|
Glen wrote: On a tangential note, our pervasive "battle rhetoric" around slogans like "fight cancer" or Trump's "fight like hell" is overwhelmingly AT FAULT for this machismo. And the first step to realizing why "fight cancer" and "fuck cancer" piss me off in the worst way is to know that such language is at least 1 primary reason we have so many morons out there refusing to wear masks and believing QAnon crap. Boy, Howdy, do I agree with this! The Orwellian normalization of violent language is as obvious on the left as on the right. Try to get through a Sanders or a Warren speech without encountering the word “fight”. In that context, Trump’s “Go down to the Capital and fight….” Is going to seem poor evidence of incitement to assault. While I am on a Orwellian rant, please consider the defanging of words like unbelievable, incredible, and their cognates. Incredibly-unbelievably has come to mean “very”, and unbelievable-incredible to mean “good.” When we have abused these words in this way, where do we go to express the meaning, “unreliable, implausible, not worthy of belief or consideration”. As Orwell would have predicted, the abuse of these words exactly coincides with our national crisis in credibility. And “absolutely”. Absolutely has come to mean. “yes” or “I agree”, Nick ‘ Nick Thompson https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- OK. I suppose I can chalk this up to the same complaint I (too often) lodge at EricC. We can shock-jock start with an appeal to machismo, expecting AOC to suck it up and act like a man, exhibiting bravado even if there's a scared little kid inside. *Then* as we continue to intellectualize everything down to our inferential endpoint with lots of big words and sophisticated reasoning, come to an opaque, obscure, and irrelevant agreement. Or, we can simply accept that *I* would have been scared as hell if I were in AOC's heels on the 6th. And because I admit that it would scare the hell out of me, when I see her or Porter talk about the experience, don't immediately rush to cynicism or post-modern power deconstruction. My immediate reaction is that such emotions *prevent* me from doing my job in the same way it prevents them from doing theirs. And that would be true even if my tolerance of violence is way higher than theirs. On a tangential note, our pervasive "battle rhetoric" around slogans like "fight cancer" or Trump's "fight like hell" is overwhelmingly AT FAULT for this machismo. And the first step to realizing why "fight cancer" and "fuck cancer" piss me off in the worst way is to know that such language is at least 1 primary reason we have so many morons out there refusing to wear masks and believing QAnon crap. AOC is right to have been afraid and right to show vulnerability in expressing that fear. And those of us afraid to show vulnerability or lionize (fake) bravery to the world are as much at fault as the criminals themselves. p.s. It should be clear that I'm not accusing *you*, Jon, of any of this ... only making clear that what one reads is never what another has written. On 2/4/21 10:18 AM, jon zingale wrote: > To some extent I agree, though I reject the choice of either A *or* B. > I prefer to make room for longer formal expressions and attempt to > make use of them as their own thing. When confronted by need I > partially evaluate as needed. > > We live in a post-net-neutrality era of Instagram influencers, Twitter > mobs, doxers, and cancel culture. The post-net-neutrality constraint > seems important as it contributes to defining an optimizing function > for our polity. Today, the most politically savvy of us is so exactly > because they > *internalized* this. These are social times, and by that, I mean > political times. Persona trades high and nearly all of us, especially > in these unprecedented times, have a steady diet of dynamically > curated media. There is to my mind ample reason for caution and > skepticism regarding the rhetoric I, and those around me, adopt. > > My concern with acting on appearances, and seeking the Polly Anna I > wish to see in the world, is one of Hebbian correction and is similar > to the concern I feel when reminded that Jesus has a plan. The > disconnect can be very real in its facilitating of future > canalization, the very real danger of forming a banality of evil. > OTOH, I agree that we *must* care for how rape victims respond to > their treatment and elderly neighbors respond to news of gang violence downtown. That is if we hope for polity at all. -- ↙↙↙ 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/ |
Re: mathematics and politics
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
I suspect that AOC or Porter would adapt to the Linda Hamilton approach if it came to that. If every day involves corruption and risk of violence, then one conducts themselves in a different way. The only error that maybe they/we should be uncomfortable with is not anticipating the diminished state of the state. There was some preparation in the sense various people grabbed gas masks. That would have made sense if the facility or secret service could hit the crowd with an anesthetic in an efficient way.
-----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 10:42 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] mathematics and politics OK. I suppose I can chalk this up to the same complaint I (too often) lodge at EricC. We can shock-jock start with an appeal to machismo, expecting AOC to suck it up and act like a man, exhibiting bravado even if there's a scared little kid inside. *Then* as we continue to intellectualize everything down to our inferential endpoint with lots of big words and sophisticated reasoning, come to an opaque, obscure, and irrelevant agreement. Or, we can simply accept that *I* would have been scared as hell if I were in AOC's heels on the 6th. And because I admit that it would scare the hell out of me, when I see her or Porter talk about the experience, don't immediately rush to cynicism or post-modern power deconstruction. My immediate reaction is that such emotions *prevent* me from doing my job in the same way it prevents them from doing theirs. And that would be true even if my tolerance of violence is way higher than theirs. On a tangential note, our pervasive "battle rhetoric" around slogans like "fight cancer" or Trump's "fight like hell" is overwhelmingly AT FAULT for this machismo. And the first step to realizing why "fight cancer" and "fuck cancer" piss me off in the worst way is to know that such language is at least 1 primary reason we have so many morons out there refusing to wear masks and believing QAnon crap. AOC is right to have been afraid and right to show vulnerability in expressing that fear. And those of us afraid to show vulnerability or lionize (fake) bravery to the world are as much at fault as the criminals themselves. p.s. It should be clear that I'm not accusing *you*, Jon, of any of this ... only making clear that what one reads is never what another has written. On 2/4/21 10:18 AM, jon zingale wrote: > To some extent I agree, though I reject the choice of either A *or* B. > I prefer to make room for longer formal expressions and attempt to > make use of them as their own thing. When confronted by need I > partially evaluate as needed. > > We live in a post-net-neutrality era of Instagram influencers, Twitter > mobs, doxers, and cancel culture. The post-net-neutrality constraint > seems important as it contributes to defining an optimizing function > for our polity. Today, the most politically savvy of us is so exactly > because they > *internalized* this. These are social times, and by that, I mean > political times. Persona trades high and nearly all of us, especially > in these unprecedented times, have a steady diet of dynamically > curated media. There is to my mind ample reason for caution and > skepticism regarding the rhetoric I, and those around me, adopt. > > My concern with acting on appearances, and seeking the Polly Anna I > wish to see in the world, is one of Hebbian correction and is similar > to the concern I feel when reminded that Jesus has a plan. The > disconnect can be very real in its facilitating of future > canalization, the very real danger of forming a banality of evil. > OTOH, I agree that we *must* care for how rape victims respond to > their treatment and elderly neighbors respond to news of gang violence downtown. That is if we hope for polity at all. -- ↙↙↙ 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/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
I also would have been scared as hell to be at the capitol on that day, heels
or not. Navalny, I suspect is scared too. I do not wish to pick on AOC, and prefer to believe that she (like many women in my life) just might punch a nazi. The appeal to vulnerability and the will to do rhetorical battle with white supremacists in Congress, via the tools of our time, hang for me in superposition. I assume she is defacto *more able than I* in her chosen discipline, and that her instincts carry with them potency. It follows, for me, that my interpretation of her actions remain open to the possibility that she is doing something effective. Instead, I attempt to make a point about Arrangement, territorialization in the sense of Deleuze (to continue a certain postmodern trend in my exposition). I am concerned with the relationship that bodies have to the territory, what agency AOC (say) has, and the cultural process by which she came to be selected. To riff off of Marcus' response, the *soft hands* meme (or the "In mother Russia..." snowclone) acts at a cultural level. I wish to understand better these forces and to do so without hurried conclusions. I am interested in the intellectual activity of identifying the limits implied by political actions. If it turns out to be all-for-naught, well then that will be sad, but I have hope that abstract reasoning can be a tool for arriving at relevant (dis)agreement. It seems right to concede that even lions are made of soft fleshy bits[1]. ps. I am very glad that *you*, Glen, have stepped in to take an editorial role. It is very good to get feedback about what another reads from what one has written. [1] Yes, the sloganeering is painful, and I am no less susceptible to it than anyone else. If it were not so effective on me, I probably would not react so strongly to it. Is it necessarily *machismo*? I am not sure. I agree that it is either a reason or at least an unignorable symptom in the differential diagnosis. -- 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/ |
|
|
On 2/4/21 11:29 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> The only error that maybe they/we should be uncomfortable with is not anticipating the diminished state of the state. Exactly, which is why I chose "civilized" vs. "barbaric", and plays nicely off Nick's call to Orwell. It's important to note that barbarism doesn't preempt algorithmic depth ... it may even foster such depth ... like the assertion that necessity is the mother of invention or "may you live in interesting times". But that doesn't change the fact that I do, and we should, *want* civilized infrastructure. On 2/4/21 11:46 AM, jon zingale wrote: > Instead, I attempt to make a point about Arrangement, territorialization in > the sense of Deleuze (to continue a certain postmodern trend in my > exposition). I am concerned with the relationship that bodies have to the > territory, what agency AOC (say) has, and the cultural process by which she > came to be selected. To riff off of Marcus' response, the *soft hands* meme > (or the "In mother Russia..." snowclone) acts at a cultural level. I wish to > understand better these forces and to do so without hurried conclusions. I > am interested in the intellectual activity of identifying the limits implied > by political actions. If it turns out to be all-for-naught, well then that > will be sad, but I have hope that abstract reasoning can be a tool for > arriving at relevant (dis)agreement. It seems right to concede that even > lions are made of soft fleshy bits[1]. Well, here's where I would line up with you in your incessant attempts to formalize (what I think are) informal and unformalizable things. It's only through such failed formalization that we can tease apart the formal from the necessarily informal. E.g. to poke again at Nick's understanding of "logic", I've come to believe that within a single logic (or inference machine), contradiction is unrealistic. But tolerance for contradiction (and paraconsistency) are or might be realistic *across* logics. That would render the paraconsistent logics somewhat faithful to parallel or timeslicing systems, but not sequential ones. But without attempts to formalize such, we would rush to hurried conclusions. Re: AOC's vs Navlany's response here or AOC's vs Warren's response to GameStop, unfortunately, binding definite values into variables damages our ability to think formally ... but facilitates our ability to think as consequentialists. The only formal value to concrete binding in these cases is to triangulate toward an otherwise obtuse variable, induction. And all parallax benefits from >3 definite values. -- ↙↙↙ 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
|
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |