Nah!  No, you are doubling down on the idea that some communication is not 
persuasive because it is to our emotions.  Remember.  I believe that all 
emotions are rational.  (Just based on low probability data.)    “Pfffft!” as 
Glen has taught me to say.  I love to say it.  “Pfffft!” “Pfffft!” “Pfffft!”

 

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 Steve Smith
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 1:53 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Poetry Slams vs biologic Percean Logic Machine Emulator

 





Colleagues;

 

I want to recommend the dialogue below for all who read.  

 

What is the probative value of a narrative?  What is the probative value of a 
photo of demonstrator beating a policeman with a flag?  Well, narrowly, if the 
narrative is accurate and the photo is not faked, they prove that such a thing 
COULD happen, because, you can plainly see, it has happened.  What IS the 
probative value of a poem?  Nothing?  Then why are people sometimes convinced 
by them. 

Nick -

I think you are doubling down on Glen's implication that a poem is intended to 
be persuasive ("convincing" in your term)?   While an apt poem (or joke, or 
song, ) offered with good timing can be persuasive in the context of an 
argument, it can also/instead be *illuminating* in the context of a generative 
dialog.

I'm much more interested in a generative and synthetic dialog than in 
analytical and/or rhetorical one.   In your pursuit of publishable results from 
all our rattling on here, I understand the need/value of doing very careful 
analysis and then build a rhetorical

EricS's recent invocation of the Albatross and Mariner images from Coleridge's 
"Rime of the Ancient Mariner" sent me back to that text which I chose to listen 
to, read to me (thank you Alexa) by a practiced reader.   I was primarily 
interested in Eric's revised analysis of Trump as Mariner/Democracy as 
Albatross and whatever embodied wisdom/perspective this "told story" had to 
offer.   I was drawn quickly to the image of "Rime" which I will leave the 
analysis to others here who might have dipped their beak (or earholes) into 
this bit of Coleridge.  I wasn't inclined to be persuaded by Eric to any 
particular moral judgement, just to add (if I didn't already have it) the 
offered allegory to my quiver of perspectives on this big mess we are trying to 
find our way out of (deeper into?)

Not to miss the chance Nick, I *do* agree with you that the photos/clips of the 
insurrection/coup-attempt last week represent a "possibility by example" proof. 
 Context matters (hugely) (sad how traditional media AND internet media have 
normalized everything to be taken out of context?) and with modern mediocre 
(well edited by a clever human) and "deep" fakes, I'm rarely inclined to take 
any image, video or sound recording as an absolute objective fact, even if it 
doesn't carry any obvious (even to careful technical analysis) evidence of 
spoofing/construction.   But as with good fiction (storytelling), I don't have 
to believe that there were literally two naked modern humans named Adam and Eve 
in a Garden of Plenty who became the progenitors of all human kind to learn 
something useful from the story.

This leads us full circle back to the question of what is "really real"?   And 
by correlation, can fictional narrative speak a qualitatively superior truth to 
factual narrative?   I'm not nearly PoMo literate enough to know if this has 
all been Derrida'ed and Foucault'ed thoroughly.    The competing narratives on 
the topic seem to be at an impasse, which I probably can't even characterize 
well.   Others may feel they are making headway in coming to a better 
understanding of the question, or perhaps each faction (is there more than 2?) 
are stuck in the (IMO fruitless) exercise of trying to persuade the other.   
While I think I now recognize and appreciate Glen's use of the terms 
Strawman/Steelman,  they seem to reflect the idiom recently (re)Popularized by 
the Poet-Philosopher Rudi Guilliani with "Trial by Combat!".

Joust on!

 - Steve

PS(ssst!)... my more-aggressive-than-usual style here is probably just me 
sublimating my frustration with not being positioned well to "break up the 
bar-fight" that is our national politics today.   I grant Marcus' strategy of 
"ducking out the back and let them kill one another" plenty merit when it is a 
"brawl" or another episode in a "gang war", but most bar/street fights I've 
been (even obliquely) aware of had an element of a bully and a victim, and I'm 
still proud of stepping between the two and facing down the bully while the 
(potential) victim gets a chance to collect themselves and either withdraw or 
wait for someone (bully's friends, bartender wielding a pool cue, or maybe the 
cops) to remove the bully from the equation.  If I miss my cue and turned my 
back to the real bully, I risk getting blindsided by the faux-victim and having 
possibly just made things worse.  

The Capitol insurrection/coup-attempt was some many thousands of bullies trying 
to intimidate our elected representatives who had to first bully a few hundred 
capitol police to get access.   If I'd been on site (could anyone there have 
been truly an innocent bystander?) I'd have been more likely to throw myself on 
one of the grenades (metaphorical) than to "duck out the back"...  I understand 
why many would "duck out the back" to (not?) "fight another day".   I'm glad 
few if any of the Capitol Police chose that option, but then that was what they 
were (self?) selected (and paid) for.

  Unsurprisingly, the Right (from hard-core Radical Extreme to more 
recentTrump-Radicalized) uses an obvious but still effective tactic that all 
bullies play from time to time which is pretending to be the victim:  "what are 
YOU looking at, huh?"  I really hope that those who are true (little c) 
conservatives can see how their crypto-cousin high-T, grievance-shouting 
radical-rabble are as dangerous to them and their idealized way of life (if not 
more) than their presumed complement of (little l) liberals.    </ramble>

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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