> One of you said:
>
>
>
> */and I can't help but wonder *why* individuals are so entitled to
> think they deserve anything at all other than the opportunity to exist
> ... if even that./*
>
I didn't say it but I will defend it. Probably in one (or two) of my
idiosyncratic ways:
1. I believe this was presented as more of a deep existential point
rather than a progressive social one. E.G.: "Does this rock, the
planet earth or for that matter *any planet* *deserve* an
opportunity to exist?"
2. Even as a progressive social point, I think it is critical to notice
that "what one deserves" is not commutative with "what a given
society might choose to extend".
It would seem that "the Golden Rule" is reflexive but I contend that "Do
unto others because you think others will and should (be required to?)
reciprocate in kind" is not the same as "Do unto others as a way to
participate in forming a desireable collective ethos which supports a
cultural milieu in which I believe I would enjoy a favorable
existence". I believe that "the Golden Rule"'s *gold* is in emergence.
Here is an interesting blog post on the topic of metal-metaphor rules
(golden, brazen, iron, etc.) and the iterated prisoner's dilemma.
https://sites.google.com/site/markshirey/ideas/golden-rule-and-prisoner-s-dilemma
and of course the ever-popular variation on Tit-for-Tat: MOTH ;/
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/My-Way-or-the-Highway%3A-a-More-Naturalistic-Model-of-Joyce-Kennison/5ab1a937d62363f3816c6b80a53aba5730ef5806
> *//*
>
>
>
>
>
> Lurking in the back caves of my liberal bleeding heart lurks a troll
> who responds badly to "entitlement" and its close relative "victimhood."
>
> Every entitlement enjoyed by one person relies on an obligation taken
> on by others. So the conversation should start with deciding what
> obligations we want to take on so as to afford a reasonable sense of
> safety and protection for others. I happen to think that I, and my
> children, and grandchildren will be happier there are basic supports
> to limit poverty, disease, and despair in the population around us.
> And, I am also glad when I think that those supports will be available
> for me and mine, should they become necessary. But is there a "moral
> hazard", here? Will I drive less cautiously because I have automobile
> insurance, smoke more and drink more Pepsi because I have health
> insurance, spend more freely because there will be food stamps? I
> suppose there's data on that, somewhere.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 10:00 AM
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Subject: [FRIAM] Latent Topics was: enough sleep?
>
>
>
> Marcus wrote, in response to Glen:
>
>
>
> > In the end, life is just a struggle for power.
>
>
>
> I think this is technically accurate, but may carry a cynicism which
> ignores some subtleties along the way? It invokes the image
> attributed (I think) to Tennyson and perhaps exploited by Dawkins to
> provide contrast to support his Selfish Genery (Nick?). "Nature: Red
> in Tooth and Claw".
>
>
>
> Edwin Wilson might anthropomorphize "genes" in Dawkins style, with his
> statement “morality is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to
> get us to cooperate”, but it does seem to sum up one perspective on
> the illusions (or realities?) that seem to come along with cooperation
>
> (symbiosis) in nature?
>
>
>
> From my ALife days, "Life" is a lot of things at once, while being
> roughly as simple as systems which increase negentropy in the flux of
> free energy sources. Your "struggle for power" is perhaps a reflection
> of the competition for better exposure to said "flux". Coherence,
> Homeostasis, Reproduction, Competition for Resources... It seems like
> some here have been more deeply engaged in these topics than I...
> your colloquial use of "Power" would suggest a little higher level of
> emergent properties, implying networks of predator/prey,
> parasite/symbiote, even ecosystems? Erwin Schroedinger in his classic
> _What is Life?_ seemed to reduce it as well as any physicist could,
> yet still left open plenty of acknowledgement of higher level emergent
> properties (I think).
>
>
>
> I have recently been reading up on "plant guilds" and in particular
> "tree guilds" to improve how I encourage or cultivate the landscape
> around my house to become more productive and interesting for me and
> mine. Recognizing the subtle interactions between highly distinct
> species (from every kingdom of life) and how their resonances can be
> reinforcing is fascinating. Of course, the ideal of what is "pleasing
> and productive" is highly context-dependent. I don't know what kinds
> of ecosystems have evolved around "invasive species" such as
> tumbleweeds, russian olives, tamarisk, but it might only be their
> relatively *recent* invasion that has us considering them a problem...
>
> they haven't found an equilibrium with the other flora, fauna and
> hydrogeological phenomena (riparian in particular) and all WE
> recognize is the disruption of the old order, and lament the loss of
> the "convenient" qualities offered to us and ours by the old order.
>
>
>
> I am also 90% of the way through Richard Powers latest Novel
> _Overstory_ which uses the lives and loves of perhaps a dozen humans
> to expose the rich and ancient history of and contemporary experience
> of Trees. It is something of an epic opus among his many richly
> complex books and characters. He did a reading at the Lensic in
> February and reported that during the course of the research for this
> book he moved to the edge of the Smoky Mountain National Park to be
> near the old growth forest there while he finished up the novel. The
> human societal metaphor of a Guild centered around a Tree seems pale
> in import and complexity in the face of his description of the legacy
> of trees and forests.
>
>
>
> - Steve
>
>
>
> > As soon as one starts to think in terms of entitled or not
> entitled (beyond rhetoric and tactics), it is just taking your eye off
> the ball. Whether it is for the best or not is in the end, subjective.
>
> >
>
> > Btw, it's good you point out the concept of the "underlying
> thread". Same idea: There's the stated topic of a thread and then
> there are latent topics. Usually latent topics are more interesting
> anyway. An individual can be a class or an individual can be one of
> a billion instances of a latent class. Mostly we are all redundant,
> and encouraged to be so -- the latter -- good little consumers,
> churchgoers, and taxpayers.
>
> >
>
> > On 4/10/19, 7:46 AM, "Friam on behalf of glen∈ℂ"
> <friam-boun...@redfish.com on behalf of geprope...@gmail.com
> <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com%20on%20behalf%20of%20geprope...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > The underlying thread seems to be the extent to which we are
> part of a fluid and the extent to which that fluid's phenomena are
> distinct from those phenomena generated by the individual parts, the
> humans. Individualist ⇔ socialist spectrum, the ontological status of
> groups (including whether your animals are mere slaves or full members
> of your group), cyborg or healthy organelle, etc.
>
> >
>
> > It reminds me of the quote I think highlights the individualist's
>
> > arrogance: "I don't know why we're here. But I'm pretty sure it's not
>
> > to enjoy ourselves." (attributed to Wittgenstein)
>
> >
>
> > Why do we think we should ever "feel recharged", "be happy", "be
> healthy", etc? I look at the way my cats behave, compare their lives
> to that of the stray we fed (and who bled all over our patio every
> time he ate, who when we took him to the Feral Cat Society, killed him
> right off the bat because he had so many diseases) and I can't help
> but wonder *why* individuals are so entitled to think they deserve
> anything at all other than the opportunity to exist ... if even that.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ============================================================
>
> > 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
>
> > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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
>
> > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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
>
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
