Hi, Glen, 

 

Interesting response.  As I get older, I see the asymptote on which I am 
converging is that by the time I die I will know nothing.  Thus, it's quite 
possible that I am just being inconsistent.  But let's look into it.  See 
below. 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 9:45 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Meat

 

 

I really like the idea of virtuous argumentation.

[NST==>I think this is my Deweyish upbringing asserting itself.  I can’t really 
defend it.  It just seems to me that if we don’t have ways to converge (other 
than raw power) we are doomed to live by the sword.  I am not very good at 
swordplay.    <==nst] 

  It seems to highlight the state vs. behavior duality. 

[NST==>Do I know that duality?  I am guessing that I think of them in terms of 
levels of organization.  Can you say more?  <==nst] 

 But, this seems right in line with my tendencies against (naive) realism. 

[NST==>Glen, how familiar are with Peirce’s weird form of [idealistic] realism. 
 And how it leads both to tough scientism and blousy postmodernism, in 
different hands. <==nst] 

 You tend to spend quite a bit of time trashing relativist positions (including 
the more extreme postmodernism), yet argue in favor of face 2 face teaching, 
apparently on the grounds that social context is at least somewhat powerful.  
Do you admit a full spectrum of power: realism <-> constructivism?  Or is the 
rant against MOOCs just a "get off my lawn" and, deep down, you stick with 
hard-line realism?

[NST==>I am sure there is a contradiction in here somewhere, but I don’t yet 
see it.  Couldn’t I believe that conversation with other well-informed people 
is the best way to arrive at the real?  Or, at least, one of several methods, 
all of which make a contribution?  Could you say  a bit more?  <==nst] 

 

RE: Cowspiracy -- Before chemo, I was approaching vegetarian.  I ate meat once 
a week, fish once a month or so, eggs maybe twice/month.

[NST==>Again, I have not very coherent feelings about this domain.  I recently 
read THE BIG FAT SURPRISE and decided to believe it hook line and sinker.  I 
think there is an awful lot “food witness” going on, where people express their 
individuality by not eating this and that. More of the narcissism of the IMac 
and the You-tube generation.   As the family cook, I find it’s just a pain in 
the ass.  But just about the time I get on my high horse about “people like 
that”, I encounter somebody with Crohn’s Syndrome, and such like, and am 
completely humiliated.  Not much of philosophical interest in all of that.  
<==nst] 

  I admit I ate quite a bit of cheese, though, perhaps thrice per week.  During 
chemo, I craved meat so much, it seemed crazy to avoid it.... and after eating 
it, I felt like a god (comparatively, anyway).  T rebuild after treatment, I 
started eating ~4-6 eggs per week.  Now that I've mostly recovered from the 
treatment, though, I've been lazy about returning to my low-animal diet.  
Cowspiracy is just the rhetorical stimulus I need.  But it's not the climate 
impact that drives me so much as the water footprint.  If my math is right, 
this site:  
<http://waterfootprint.org/en/resources/interactive-tools/product-gallery/> 
http://waterfootprint.org/en/resources/interactive-tools/product-gallery/ lists 
3-4x higher waterprint rates for beef, cheese, and eggs.  The consistency of 
the difference implies the relative amounts are about the same between the 
movie and the website.

 

 

On 10/30/2015 08:06 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> You saw the question I asked and got to the question I really wanted to ask.  
> I was a professor for years and in that role I tried to foster face to face 
> conversation on tricky, intricate, issues.  WHY?  Face to face education is 
> under a tremendous attack these days.  Why not 32 MOOKS followed each by an 
> objective test.  Save on dormitories.  Save on the whole /in loco parentis/ 
> thing.  Who cares if they drink too much, take drugs, and rape each other if 
> it's not on OUR watch?  Higher ed could be so much more efficient.  Do we 
> really need to spend tens of thousands of dollars to teach kids how to GROOM?

 

--

⇔ glen

 

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe  
<http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Reply via email to