Marcus -
It would appear that your fears were more founded than I could have
imagined.
It would also seem that I was standing in the wrong lane staring down
the headlights (again).
<schmeeeaarrrrrr!>
Small solace, but I am pretty sure Gary took more Trump votes in every
case than Jill took Hillary ones, if that is not an oversimplification.
If there were any spoilers, it was probably in States where Gary split
the vote on Trump, giving it to Hillary.
To me, there is a paradox in the apparent fact that Populism seems to
always support or lead to Fascism. And now "here we go!"
<<What I hear pretty exclusively is "I won't vote for them because
nobody else is voting for them" or maybe even more pointedly "I won't
listen to them because nobody else is listening to them".>>
I have been far more afraid of a major regression to our democracy
than any compulsion to pursue the kind of progressive efforts I would
try to advance. I don't think my fear was misplaced. I take some
comfort that I was not alone in this. Kind of like that feeling
after 9/11 that minor disagreements were silly and irrelevant. Will
have to find a way to navigate all this. Sigh.
Marcus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Friam <[email protected]> on behalf of Steven A Smith
<[email protected]>
*Sent:* Tuesday, November 8, 2016 5:16:56 PM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Trump Is Just A Normal Polling Error Behind
Clinton | FiveThirtyEight
Glen -
I appreciate the nuance here.
I have been dealing with crypto-fascists all of my life... we have
discussed the libertarian vs the Libertarian, I have endured the
years where Lefty political correctness was approaching fascism and I
have had to endure the Righty style fascism that seems to be hitting a
crescendo under the rallying cry of that "man-child" running for
president.
I isolate myself enough in daily life so as NOT to have to spend too
many cycles on this constant interpretation, for those who do not have
that luxury, I understand that this can be deeply painful to the
psyche if not the soul.
I refer you to the musical observations of the philosophers known as
"They Might be Giants":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow-nuHCTA5E
Unfortunately, *I* believe that the language we use in our
communication deeply informs the language we use to think... and that
by adjusting our discourse with others can lead us to think (for
better or worse) differently. I believe that the damage being done to
our culture today is as much the way our thinking is modified by this
presidential race as it is the possible outcomes. We are leading
ourselves to believe that our only two choices are to become a
xenophobic, retrograde, bigoted people or to continue with a status
quo which is clearly not serving many, many people very well.
While I don't completely agree with or support Jill and the Greens, I
DO appreciate the alternative rhetoric they have offered. Her *very*
low polling indicates to me that either *many* of us really aren't
willing to think outside of one of the two boxes offered to us, OR,
there is something specifically wrong with their message that *I* am
not getting?
What I hear pretty exclusively is "I won't vote for them because
nobody else is voting for them" or maybe even more pointedly "I won't
listen to them because nobody else is listening to them".
- Steve
On 11/8/16 8:25 AM, ┣glen┫ wrote:
Right. It's not quite right to suggest that switching codes is bimodal or
bivalent. I think it's more of a spectrum, at least in an informal sense. If
we were talking about a person trying to communicate a complex idea in a
non-native language then switching to their native language, that would be more
bimodal. But I'm talking more about, eg, realizing in the middle of a
conversation that you're talking to a crypto-fascist who puts up a good veneer
at first, then reveals their fascism over the course of the conversation. When
I realize it, I switch, either to something that will completely alienate the
person, or to language that makes me sound more like a fascist, depending on
how I feel at the time.
Marcus' idea of a an interpreter vs. languages closer to the bare metal is, I
think, akin to Nick's idea of imaginary vs. factual. And the gist is solid.
There's a very high overhead interpreting through many layers of abstraction or
entertaining imaginary worlds through the suspension of disbelief. It's a
luxury we can't always afford. But both assume there exists a bare metal. I'm
a constructivist, for the most part, and believe all our languages are
interpreted and there really is no such thing as a natural, close to the metal,
machine code. There are no linguistic or cognitive facts, only action facts.
And this may be closer to what you're trying to say, because that means that we
are always interacting through an interpreter, albeit sometimes many layers out
vs. only a few layers out.
On 11/07/2016 08:05 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
I guess I already feel I have to "code switch" all the time already... I have
to speak a pidgin of Left/Right/Green/Libertarian/Anarchist just to communicate with my
friends and colleagues on these matters. I understand and agree that in world D, the
emergent patois will be much less familiar/comfortable than the one I have now and that
in world H, it will be much more familiar, less abrupt of a change. I guess I assumed
that Agent G and agent M were more like me in this regard than maybe they are.
============================================================
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
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================
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
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
