Re: labels

Posted by gepr on Oct 14, 2020; 3:21pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/labels-tp7599012p7599164.html

So, along with the comments made about Roberts' memos and recognition that the court is just as political as the other 3 branches (and the implicit 4th), and hearkening back to the apparent capitalist *requirement* of a permanent, but materially open, under class, what concrete form could a Platonic Constitutional Representative Democracy take? If not "text", then what? What expression(s) do we have to enshrine in order to enshrine the abstract concepts being expressed?

Maybe *multiple* expressions would approximate it better, a text, a diagram/animation, and a mechanistic computation. (My principle is 3 are required, 2 is inadequate, 1 is ridicule-worthy.) So if the concept(s) to be enshrined are separation of powers into, say, 4 branches of government, then from that conceptual constitution, we write a text, draw a diagram, and build a simulation. Then those 3 "documents" are held up as "the Constitution" ... "the law of the land".

To my mind, that question *precedes* the causal inferencing (well-) shone by Whitehouse. The extraction of an ephemeris from noise requires some sort of prior model. We have to decide kindasorta what we're looking for before we start willy-nilly inferring. (While relatively agnostic inference algorithms like empirical mode decomposition are always attractive, TANSTAAFL.)

On 10/13/20 12:09 PM, David Eric Smith wrote:
> I don’t really know which thread to attach to, or where best to attach to it.
>
> But in a room I was in, Sheldon Whitehouse’s statement in the confirmation hearing was playing:
> https://www.facebook.com/derek.friday/videos/10102085065399760/
> This seems to me where the conversation should be, (or at least this part of it).  I would like the evening news better if they would include content of this kind. For cynics about politicians who want to cop-out and say “Ah, they’re all rats”, I would like to put this forward as an argument that there are plenty there to work with.
>
> Narrow questions that can be answered legalistically, but that refuse to address the big mechanisms of causation, seem to me to be pure distractions, and it irritates me that they get more than proportional time.  Any meaning the narrow moves get is coming from these big causal contexts, and it is worth seeing a bit of the machinery by which they are organized.


--
↙↙↙ 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
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/