God has not spoken to me recently, but I have had some wonderful conversations with the Universe.
There are alternatives to Pragmatism other than despair or obscurantism. BTW — Pragmat "ISM!" Mon "ISM!" Just more fictional stories? My interpretation of the Hermeneutics (lineage as described earlier) suggests a "*So Now What*" of two parts: 1- evaluate and act based on *_*ALL*_* the information. 2- strive for practical omniscience to assure that you have *_*ALL*_* the information necessary to evaluate and act. davew On Fri, Nov 8, 2019, at 8:36 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > All, > > “Everything is interpretation.” > > Yey-AH! Duh! What else could it possibly be? Does God speak to you? > Presumably not. Hopefully, not. > > Welcome to monism. So now what? > > You only get five seconds to be amazed at the wisdom of monism before you > have to start making distinctions between those interpretations that prove > out in the end and those that don’t. > > Now I admit that problems arise in those situations in which some > participants in the collective discussion have the power to alter the > outcomes. Presidents, bosses, and parents are all in that position, to some > degree. You hold the child in your arms and you croon, “Everything is going > to be all right”. You might do that when “there is a goblin under the bed.” > You might also do it when the plane in which are riding is hurtling toward > the ground. The fact that you do the same in both sorts of situations doesn’t > change how those situations “prove out”. Some interpretations are better than > others. > > The answer to “everything is interpretation” is not obscurantism or despair. > It’s Pragmatism. > > Nick > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > Clark University > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Prof David > West > *Sent:* Friday, November 08, 2019 8:44 AM > *To:* friam@redfish.com > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism > > Steve, > > On the back of my Hermeneutic Card is the pedigree: Hermes Trismegistus, > Dilthey, Heidegger, Gadamer, Derrida, and Foucault with infusions from Hesse > and Jung (the alchemist more than the psychologist). This lineage is quite > distinct from the "interpretation of sacred texts, e.g. the Bible) thread of > hermeneutics. > > "Everything is an Interpretation," a metaphorical Philosopher's Stone from > this thread of Hermeneutics coupled with our late friend Hywel's favorite > dictum, "Ah, but it is more complicated than that," is part of the foundation > for my critique of "isms" and of the current impeachment process. > > Confronted with a rich, dynamic, ambiguous, conflicting, and emerging data > set; humans select data points from that set and weave together a, mostly, > self-consistent story — an Interpretation. As individuals this is essential > and unavoidable, to some degree, as our physical survival depends on it. > (This point has been mentioned before - we perceive what is useful to > survive, not what is really "out there.") > > At the group level a few (one to perhaps a few hundred) "storytellers" > convince an uncritical herd to accept a particular story (interpretation) and > voila we have a religion, a philosophy, a science, an "ism." The foundational > "story" can exist, if and only if, it repudiates, denies the existence of, or > simply disregards any contrary or inconvenient data points in the original > rich and complex data set. > > When I said in the earlier missive that they ignored ninety-percent of that > data set, I was indulging in hyperbole. But, I would asset with a great deal > of assurance that the ratio of accepted to rejected data points is never less > than 50:50. > > in the capitalism article a number of statements / assertions are made in a > simple declarative fashion, giving them the veneer of "fact" or "truth." > Statements about capitalism and post-truth. From my Hermeneutic perspective, > such statements are Interpretations, not facts not truths. It is more > complicated than that. > > The conclusion the author made, also asserted in declarative sentences of > "fact," is problematic, specious, or absurd depending on the depth of a > reader's alternative interpretations of overlapping or orthogonal data points > with regard capitalism and post truth. (Personally, his assertions about > post-truth are the unforgivable misinterpretations.) > > With regard to current impeachment efforts: a small (few hundred to less than > a thousand) storytellers are cherry-picking the data set, and interpreting > each point so that it is consistent with the intended "moral of the story," > weaving this grand interpretation narrative and selling it to a herd of tens > of millions. > > But, because the storytellers have suspended their disbelief to such an > extent that they are no longer aware of their own Interpretations — believing > that everything they say is literal, gospel, veridical TRUTH. > > This would be fine, except for the fact, that by doing so, they are almost > guaranteeing a political outcome that is antithetical to their expressed > intent. (And, on a personal level, making me happy that I might be sitting > out the consequences, mostly, from Amsterdam.) > > If only Derrida could counsel them with a bit of constructive deconstruction. > > davew > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019, at 4:30 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: >> DaveW - >> >>> As a card carrying Hermeneutic >> "Hermeneutics is the art of understanding and of making oneself understood" >> - Wikipedia >>> From the viewpoint of someone who knows/believes/understands everything to >>> be Interpretation, this is a silly assertion. >> Interpretation of "received wisdom" conventionally. Rhetorical presentation >> of "received wisdom" is not hermeneutical. >> >>> The only way you can ascribe Truth to an ism, Capitalism included, is by >>> disregarding ninety-percent of the "data" as irrelevant and claiming the >>> self-consistent (mostly) residue to be that Truth. >>> >>> And of course each ism cherry picks the ten-percent of the data >>> (non-overlapping sets) that supports its interpretation of >>> fact/reality/truth and vociferously defends it as the only correct way to >>> see things or think about things — and then makes the fatal mistake of >>> believing, in a fundamentalist sort of way, their own story >>> (interpretation). >> This cynical interpretation of the attempt to condense knowledge and wisdom >> is not unfounded, but do you contend that it is intrinsic ot "isms" that >> they be thus? Is your 10% data-driven, anecdotal, or rhetorical? >> >>> That last step, believing the fictional story that you weave from your >>> interpretation of cherry picked data, is fundamental to the idiocy of >>> impeachment. >> Do you mean *this impeachment* of *this president* at *this time*? Or are >> you impugning the very idea of impeachment, of congressional oversight of >> the Executive and the ideal of checks and balances? >> >>> While the story being told may have substance, it has no Reality, it has no >>> Truth, and telling (yelling) that story will have no effect except other >>> than increasing anger and hostility between and among all those with other >>> stories to tell. >> The style of this administration (and sadly the last Republican one as well) >> is that of an arrogant bully, saying and doing anything to get one's way, >> denying any wrong-doing categorically, and then squealing "unfair!" anytime >> someone lands even a half-good punch on them. Decades ago, when my >> sympathies were more with the Right than the Left (in some key areas) it was >> because I interpreted their position to be considered, thoughtful and in >> some sense generous. I haven't seen that from the Right in a very long time, >> and have seen it more and more on the Left. Politicians are still >> politicians but *some* of them truly seem motivated to be *Statesmen*, even >> if the game as it has (d)evolved makes that hugely difficult. >> It is really rich for the (self-Righteous) Right to accuse the left of being >> bullies, but that is one of the clear hallmarks of a bully... to cry foul >> when confronted effectively. >>> davew >>> >>> [Personal aside: some ranchers in southern Utah gave me a "Keep America >>> Great — Trump 2020" ball cap. I am tempted, sometimes, to wear it in >>> solidarity with Adam Schiff and Democrats/Liberals who seem Hell bent on >>> getting Donald re-elected. I don't do so because I am afraid of attracting >>> violence from ultra-orthodox, fundamentalist, believers of the TrumpSatan >>> story.] >> What about the simple possibility that many will believe that you believe >> the story embroidered on the cap, no matter how they might react overtly? >> I'm of the apprehension that while you don't seem to strictly believe that >> Trump has made America "Great Again" or that keeping him in office will >> yield a continued or increased "Greatness", I suspect that your own version >> of what I call in myself "morbid fascination" has you happy enough standing >> around roasting marshmallows of what is left of things as he proceeds to >> burn it down. I shared some of the reactionary spirit that (nearly) drove >> Bernie to the nomination in 2016 and did in fact drive Donald to taking the >> Gerrymandered Electoral College majority, but whatever good that disruption >> brought is well over IMO... it is time to call a halt to this "punctuation" >> and return to a new "equilibrium" if we can. >> Do YOU see a new equilibrium possible, or do you think we need to rekindle >> the flames if they start to die down? >> - SteveS >> PS. I am reminded of Nick's (with Stephen/Owen/et-al support) MOTH (my way >> or the highway) strategy in the iterated prisoner's dilemma. It is perhaps >> too simplified for application in the context of our national elections, but >> I suspect that the Left may be moving toward that strategy which beats the >> chronic defector strategy that the Right seems to prefer. >> ============================================================ >> 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
