EricS, 

 

What you wrote here is one of the most succinct, persuasive, and all around 
nifty explications of Peircean Pragmati[ci]sm I have ever read.  Complete with 
the ricochet  shot to the heart of  Rorty.  Thanks. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

 <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]

 <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> 
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of David Eric Smith
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2020 5:13 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] where are the "patriot hackers"?

 

All points here good to know, Stephen, and many premises I agree with.

 

It seems to me that, if this conversation is ever to do more than have people 
talk past each other, all discussants need to find it valuable to use 
restricted scopes for words, to remain within each other’s scopes along the 
track of a discussion to figure out what premises are common and what follows 
from them, and to operate on however many tracks in parallel are needed to 
include the things people want to talk about.  

 

Here is a concrete example.  In the Rights of Nature article, I find:

 

“Christianity and science, the legitimising powers of the western society, have 
been in agreement on this fundamental tenet."

 

Well, that’s one thing the word “science” can stand for in a conversation: one 
of the two legitimizing powers of ’the western society’, together with 
Christianity (what lovely bedfellows).  

 

 

When Nick uses the word science in the sense his original objection, I am 
willing to recast it in my language as a label for what many of us believe is a 
new domain of linguistic, behavioral, and social cognitive practice 
distinguished by the following premises (or tenets):

 

— there is some truth-notion characterized above and before all else by 
internal consistency, allowing it to be converged toward by a suitable body of 
practice which we aspire to build.  One could even say that this premise of a 
stable truth-notion is put forth as the replacement for Descartes’s Cogito, as 
a starting point on which to build commitments, even if all subsequent steps 
are fluid and subject to update and overhaul

 

— the state of knowledge (so, recipes, propositions, lexicons, etc.) is 
something like a very elaborate sample estimator for the values that make up 
“what is true”.  It’s very fluid, if every instance of the adoption of a term, 
the commitment to rules of language or logic, interpretations of experiments, 
and every other habit is considered potentially in error and subject to 
overhaul; so it is essential to what one means here by “science” that this 
premise of a stable truth-notion is its starting tenet

 

— all the methods traditionally invoked as constituting “scientific method” 
could be seen as some first finite components in an open-ended toolbox for 
trying to recursively find and identify errors by classes of family 
resemblances they have, in the expectation that correcting the error makes the 
state of knowledge a better reflection of whatever is true.  So, 
intersubjectivity or rigorous rules of argument to overcome sample omissions, 
observation bias, deluded thinking, etc.; empiricism as a corrective to 
delusions that can persist in group levels of any size, etc.  But unlike the 
Encyclopedists, the body of method for error discovery is just as open-ended as 
the state of knowledge it has produced at any given time.  Since errors tend to 
propagate recursively, we probably have to assume that the tools to detect them 
can be expended indefinitely, else the premise that one can converge on true 
assertions would be implausible

 

(Apologies that these first three reiterate something I wrote here a couple of 
months ago.  I don’t like repeating oneself either.)

 

— that the above criteria separate out some propositions at any given time from 
everything we might be capable of thinking or feeling at that time, making it 
not all equivalent.  Thus the unhappiness of Tolstoy’s unhappy families, each 
according to its own fashion, is not really a pattern for what a “true 
assertion” looks like.  Or more neurologically, synaesthesics may see the 
letters of the alphabet in colors.  However, each synaesthesic may see a each 
of the letters in a different color than the other synaesthesics do.  Do I deny 
that they experience the letters with colors?  No, of course I don’t.  However, 
do I expect science to arrive at a conclusion that it is in the nature of a 
printed letter to _have_ a particular color, or to have any color at all?  Also 
No.  And so on.  If no state of belief a person can sincerely hold can ever be 
batshit crazy, then there can’t be category distinctions, and the true 
assertions don’t actually exist in the sense the scientific tenet supposes.

 

 

I would argue that any good-faith person has to recognize that these two 
operationalizations of the word “science” simply are not referring to the same 
thing.  Having recognized it, what can one then do?

 

1. You can argue, like Richard Rorty, that it is the nature of people that they 
cannot possess the truth-version of “science” without having it coopted into 
the “legitimizing power” version, and therefore we should try to exterminate 
the truth-version in a kind of totalitarianistic PC, William James’s 
pragmatism-as-social-utilitarianism taken to its limit, which is the 
annihilation of Peirce’s pragmatism.  To me this is only a stone’s throw from 
the Unabomber argument.  One can make and then debate the quality of such 
arguments.  They can be insightful about how the various aspects that are 
simultaneously present in human life and thought affect each other, and thus 
can contribute to solving problems and righting wrongs even if one doesn’t 
think the original arguments hang together as wholes.

 

2. One could, instead (also like Rorty), insist on changing the subject, but 
not acknowledge that that is what is being done.  Whenever a discussant tries 
argues for keeping the truth-version, one can act as if the legitimizing-power 
version was intended, and then give the counterargument for dismantling the 
latter.  That could be done, I guess, innocently, or obstinately, or 
maliciously.  But it doesn’t seem like it resolves to anything.

 

Anyway, 

 

Eric

 

 

 

 





On Dec 29, 2020, at 4:53 PM, Stephen Guerin <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:

 

Nick writes: 
>  But some assertions are bat-shit crazy, and provably so 

 

Knowing some of the background where Merle is coming from: Rights of Nature, 
Ecocide Law, etc 
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fmedium.com%2f%40pella.thiel%2ftime-for-a-universal-declaration-on-the-rights-of-nature-ad97263a39f4&c=E,1,ha5xvTdo930eMaFGkiL4IUimWlPxPYP1fZxWILAfpGKkX-v1oALMN-WfuYufVJwkHo_lHbCj7UUsrjo0JCOcuomJHTYVjKGfWZLkab5FvhTwr3ayJUClVVEPRQ,,&typo=1>
 , it just may be our current Economic and Scientific paradigms 
(Evolution/Competition/Captalism) in Science are literally driving us batshit 
crazy.  

Provably batshit crazy.
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guano_Islands_Act  

BTW, I got to the Guano_islands_Act starting from a google search of "metabolic 
sovereignty" *  as I thought it might get at Merle's idea scientificially.


This quickly got me to Marx's metabolic Rift 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_rift>  from which the Guano Islands 
Act popped up.

-Stephen

* I'm supposed to be writing a paper today that has something to do with 
self-sovereign identity in decentralized systems which is why sovereignty is on 
my mind.


_______________________________________________________________________
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> 

CEO, Simtable  http://www.simtable.com 
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.simtable.com%2f&c=E,1,G7kQKwAlZ8AuiN7p39nYEcYaERrM_DGM1fkOve0UH5n5hvI_2JweET4AH1qMTWcUA1ywn9B14ch1aD73HqPicfVRI6qWPT--pE91VaEYmvtbj_yPv9omwtcCAU1a&typo=1>
 

1600 Lena St #D1, Santa Fe, NM 87505

office: (505)995-0206 mobile: (505)577-5828

twitter: @simtable

z <http://zoom.com/j/5055775828> oom.simtable.com 
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2foom.simtable.com&c=E,1,69Mu7axnZcHjkm4iQa0pD_qTAUJsFgCCxm1AJz1mYbK0zC0VQRaFuXpwA5j-tgo1AxLVUxZnQppXd_HQc4lvI36YNUT7SXkrQ2ui-_QrVGMvc7aPrlo,&typo=1>
 

 

 

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 12:39 PM <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:

I think I disagree, Merle.  If we lose faith that there is a truth to be found 
concerning the matters of which we speak as scientists, we lose everything. 
When we speak as  poets, etc., of course, we relax that constraint.  But what 
defines science for me is that there are truths to be found.  I am pretty sure 
Glen also disagrees with me, and DaveW and maybe Kim, so you are in good 
company.   If anything characterizes the assault on society of the last 4 
years, it is the undermining of faith in the notion of convergent inquiry.  The 
first domino to fall was anthropology, in the sixties, which led to a mayhem of 
political correctness and purges that destroyed the field.  Sure we have to 
respect people equally.  Sure we have to treat their metaphysical non-sense on 
a par with our own.  But some assertions are bat-shit crazy, and provably so, 
and if you entertain the notion that all assertions are equally true, you might 
just as well drink the kool-aid and climb the  ramp into the space ship, so far 
as I am concerned.   I will wave you a sad good bye because we everybody’s 
shoulders to the truth-wheel if we are to survive. 

 

Nick 

 

 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

 <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]

 
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwordpress.clarku.edu%2fnthompson%2f&c=E,1,fKipON29OlOuWT1N2gvHAI8b2ONt_qlHmSKABgGGQynwY-Tb0PZQI7sgUZT2noVjr_FpnRdYIPUDrRXSEeleBLvWg0MkiQZ_7gGL9lc1P_M,&typo=1>
 https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > On 
Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 1:15 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] where are the "patriot hackers"?

 

"True" things about the world beyond the reach of science must be included in 
the expanding dialogue, like a mountain that is also an earth being, or forest 
animals that are spirit masters of their worlds. We can think of them as 
other-than-humans, but they "exist" in indigenous cultures.  They are only 
"beliefs" in ours,  but for those of us who are "Animists", they are always 
present in the dialogue. 

 

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 9:40 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:

So, I'm once again down in a rabbit hole over whether Dave's (cautiously backed 
by Kim) idea of a "science of the mind" is reasonable, wherein 
subjective/reflective techniques like psychedelic drugs or meditation can say 
"true" things about the world, particularly that may be beyond the reach of 
science. And there I am reading about Falun Gong 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong> and its "outlets" like The Epoch 
Times, which spew constant nonsense, feeding the delusional QAnon narratives:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-newest-trump-boosted-viral-maga-star-has-ties-to-the-epoch-times

And I'm wondering, where are the "patriot hackers" and Anonymous?

What happened to all that rigmarole about protecting the world and the internet 
from insidious sh¡t like The Epoch Times? Is it that ostensibly white hat 
members are combating shallow techniques like DDoS so well that the script 
kiddies who used to claim to be Anonymous are outmatched? Maybe Assange siding 
with Trump fractured the group? And what about the Jester 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jester_(hacktivist)>, who was arguably more 
capable than the large majority of hacktivists? Was he hired by the NSA and now 
works alone in a steel cage? Or has his mind been infected by the attractive 
conspiracy theories and persecution complexes we dorks are so susceptible to?

I feel confident that some of you have some insight! Please share.

-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam 
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,qrMYhn7Pwy3jde39vY1soq3tQGBrf1aM8ipBGLZ8zlwU7BfMxIxIr46VT8Co7RPpb7feBp34aMb6OXlFN2XRtclezH1hdYqCSftU9xDKExRm3t736sCeDA,,&typo=1>
 
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com 
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,s6d1APVImSQCQYVEyaDUwBFLTNlMB1RmhJ5nB4OsrcFHTQCUL0_bHYUcMhJCf3a4q2bJd_4ztDy0Tmt9ClKb6Ut1N-PnT-z0X6q77fbXbyzyyQ,,&typo=1>
 
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ 
<http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC> 
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,_IdlMikbHtnVs7U67i2WdP0_ublU6Eras8uXltmHO8QnMnVYQm7M7R9MKioY5zRlOqNu90KJZjormXLTNhHkvc2F6FsTsSrS4iBmUC7Rv6f-4YfyttMS8g,,&typo=1>
  




 

-- 

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org 
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2femergentdiplomacy.org&c=E,1,KPZNiwEnto-cifRFYCR5fRfpqQRhkh_uhrQsNOfEqPDZLTZ0ev7CsLskpK8PQRsNhLouL15ulCRnWcC60IDftZ-AyMfAa3AouPkW_dMl0rPmMfXZR0zZJrKu&typo=1>
 

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA


mobile:  (303) 859-5609
skype:  merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @merle110

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam 
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,ML1-jPsL_zPYhSJ_nggsFKhPMv6YxtBfa7bPK7WfKuO37SLUYROr5dcd_dqkz1KDoPA4ubJFXlGRumhliKfXA5Mmeacd4vdzg5e3KdVOGjpSkQ,,&typo=1>
 
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com 
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,SgfdkgHIV5vlU_Qb-MaVChczyJMM7db5Lqf4z3c7pPVH88J0eNjcyGfKwbC9Z3MBf3qoyegyu-SqTlZ9j04Lmkr96KqNs6KUdMkW9J6r-TbIejs,&typo=1>
 
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,H8ZJEV22H4EOk2hRe0ty0CR9sfTvppb4it_xAp6_X9FD6LJBbW8LtImqpRvdiVaZUzCL45nSZ1kCrFZCmFgah8F9psO7BlhB5jiEhuRy3nLIjfV5735XGjI,&typo=1>
  

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam 
<http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> 
un/subscribe 
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com
 
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,6R4bxW0p7AKsav3HSoIHweRsYXF3G3WxATHXMVRX4ODlIk-cFbKACXUodR4Itp1l-z146n-wT5gmeft1SGtd0ahZp_MihvANQ_LZHtvp-XkALVq2P06HH8Nr26s,&typo=1>
 
&c=E,1,6R4bxW0p7AKsav3HSoIHweRsYXF3G3WxATHXMVRX4ODlIk-cFbKACXUodR4Itp1l-z146n-wT5gmeft1SGtd0ahZp_MihvANQ_LZHtvp-XkALVq2P06HH8Nr26s,&typo=1
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC 
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f 
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,QOc7w-V-KpwKnJIhWfYkipV-NTfbRqNLYYoaC5dGW2Ji3Z51E-Knkp6f-oMB_4k3B9EvsDgFiYw2uJrZBCgv7AqbSNiGEnoSSgPQtzlTnLkF_LW4ng,,&typo=1>
 
&c=E,1,QOc7w-V-KpwKnJIhWfYkipV-NTfbRqNLYYoaC5dGW2Ji3Z51E-Knkp6f-oMB_4k3B9EvsDgFiYw2uJrZBCgv7AqbSNiGEnoSSgPQtzlTnLkF_LW4ng,,&typo=1
 

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/ 

Reply via email to