I suppose. But what if Strawson's episodic/diachronic is empirically wrong? What if we're all diachronic (narrative, even) to an overwhelming extent? That implies some memory-deep (perhaps still mostly ontogenic) structure that might only be reprogrammed with surgery, drugs, implants, trauma, etc. I use that lemma when I argue that old animals must die, evolution requires it. Granted, humans may be way more plastic than most animals. But Shirley there's a limit.
Along those same lines, I watched this video during my workout this morning: David Deutsch on Brexit and Error Correction https://youtu.be/xdtssXITXuE I had no idea Deutsch was a rhetorical component for Brexit ... makes sense given his libertarian bent. I find the argument to error correction and adversarial disputation compelling. But something rings hollow. It's too dyadic, this side, the opposition, etc., which is odd given that the UK has a parliamentary structure. The US seems more oriented to dyadic aversariality (is that a word) than the UK. It was also odd that he lauds winning first past the post by small margins and that such small margins support some sort of individual commitment to a policy ... such that it can be falsified and corrected for. It seems to me that these small margins are sources of conflict and distrust, not coherent argumentation. I guess it's all so "theoretical" that makes me skeptical. On 9/2/21 8:04 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > A potential benefit of the episodic personality type is the ability to grieve > failures and move on. > >> On Sep 2, 2021, at 7:50 AM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Well, I do feel pity for Dave and the obsolete people/modes being left >> behind. Nostalgia is difficult. On his deathbed, with so much time to sit >> and think about dying, my dad finally admitted that his "type A personality" >> was an artifact of the circumstances within which he was reared ('30s). And >> it wasn't at all successful under the circumstances/times in which me and my >> sister were reared. My sister took something more like Marcus' stance, an >> unvarnished "get with the program". I took a more apathetic stance, "you're >> gonna to die soon, anyway, at which your pain will end." >> >> I feel the same way when I see lions at the zoo, once glorious masters on >> the Serengeti, now pathetic creatures burdened with claws and teeth and >> nobody to fight with. It's truly sad. But it's also terrifying to me. Am *I* >> capable of recognizing the signal when it comes my way? Or am I destined to >> be a scared little snowflake, hiding in my nostalgia? ... aggrieved, >> petulant, and burdened with my teeth and claws? >> >> I took a morning walk to downtown Olympia right after the pandemic. I >> walk/run around 6am. As I was returning, walking, a man in a black gaiter, >> sunglasses, and black hoodie, covered so well I couldn't see any of his >> flesh ... hell, I don't even know if it was a man. Was walking toward me. I >> didn't think much of it at the time. There was a new building across the >> street with some weird structure (e.g. a kitchen on the 1st floor with no >> other rooms attached ... WTF?). So I crossed to peer through the various >> floor to ceiling plate glass windows to see if I could figure out what it >> was for? >> >> When I was done peering into the windows, I noticed the man on the other >> side of the street, stopped, staring at me. That scared me. Did he intend >> harm? Was he offended that I crossed the street? Should I go back across and >> say something? ... well, a couple of women walked past me audibly wondering >> what this building was for and that distracted me. I talked to them for a >> minute. And when I looked back the guy was gone. >> >> Have I become just like the scared little old lady that lives next door? >> Afraid of progress? Afraid of diversity? Scared of my own shadow? I honestly >> don't know. >> >> >>> On 9/2/21 7:22 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >>> The signal to the welfare rancher is “Find a new line of work and quit your >>> whining.” >>> >>>>> On Sep 2, 2021, at 7:05 AM, Eric Charles <eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "The fact that you agree with the policies and actions does not mitigate >>>> the harm caused." >>>> >>>> This seems to be a recurring theme in conversations I am having recently, >>>> in several venues. I make a factual claim about damages caused by a >>>> policy/action/decision. Someone objects to the factual claim because they >>>> agree with policy/action/decision. I'm never quite sure where to go in the >>>> conversation after that. >>>> >>>> Like, I saw someone post, non-sarcastically, a meme claiming that Biden's >>>> withdrawal from Afghanistan was more peaceful that Trump's final days in >>>> office. When I pointed out how obviously wrong that was, the >>>> otherwise-sensible-seeming person couldn't do anything but insist that >>>> withdrawing was the right thing to do. Like... come on man... I get >>>> that... but what does that have to do with pretending things went well, or >>>> were "peaceful"?!? >>>> >>>> So, like... yeah... you might agree with restrictions on the uses of >>>> public lands... but that doesn't mean you need to pretend it has no >>>> negative consequences for individuals. Just own that those harms will >>>> happen, as part of your supporting the policy. >>>> <mailto:echar...@american.edu> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 8:09 PM Prof David West <profw...@fastmail.fm >>>>> <mailto:profw...@fastmail.fm>> wrote: >>>> >>>> __ >>>> Marcus, you seem to miss my point; perhaps just baiting me. >>>> >>>> Honors at Highlands: this was part of a policy, stated publicly at a >>>> Board of Regents meeting, "Highlands exists to provide degrees to Hispanic >>>> students that could never obtain one at any other university. Honors >>>> degrees, curricula, and courses are racist reasons that students from >>>> northern New Mexico cannot succeed at other universities and, as such, >>>> cannot be tolerated at Highlands." >>>> >>>> Posters: woman in question was a 30+ year old grad student (we shared >>>> the same advisor). The posters were in my office for my enjoyment, >>>> purchased at the university bookstore. Meeting was held in my office at >>>> her request. They were prints of Dali work considered "great art." The >>>> human figures are totally androgynous as well as being distorted in >>>> typical Dali style. Her motive for filing the complaint was, she stated in >>>> an email a year later, to discredit me with our advisor who she thought >>>> showed a preference for my work over hers. The HR office, because of their >>>> "enlightened liberal policies" accepted her complaint on its face, no >>>> investigation; as the same policy stated one was not needed because, as a >>>> male and academic staff, I had no defensible position to consider. >>>> >>>> Ranchers: this particular family took 'stewardship' seriously and made >>>> hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of improvements to public land. but >>>> my point is simply that bureaucrats, kowtowing to liberal environmental >>>> lobbyists set policy without regard to any 'facts on the ground' or any >>>> science, simply on liberal philosophy of how things "should be." >>>> >>>> Access: I too am a taxpayer. There are some very nice hot springs on >>>> BLM land near by. They are maintained and upgraded by a volunteer public >>>> group (pretty informal, word of mouth kind of stuff). Being old and >>>> feeble, my access is increasing dependent on the use of an ATV. BLM policy >>>> dictates constant reduction of motorized transport on that land, so it >>>> will not be long before my access is de facto denied. This is a personal >>>> example of a "woke" policy on increasing wilderness designations thereby >>>> denying access to elderly, handicapped, and otherwise marginally abled. >>>> >>>> You asked for examples of liberal actions/policies that caused harm, to >>>> me specifically, but by implication in general. These are tangible >>>> examples. The fact that you agree with the policies and actions does not >>>> mitigate the harm caused. >>>> >>>> davew >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 1, 2021, at 4:33 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Welfare ranchers, indeed. The rest of us have to constantly >>>>> modernize our skills.. But freeloading off the public land and >>>>> environment that’s “multigenerational” and must be preserved? Why? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Marcus >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com >>>>> <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly >>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 1, 2021 3:17 PM >>>>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>>>> <friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com>> >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Liberal dilemmas >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I owned 40 acres in Torrance County, NM which was adjacent to a >>>>> national forest. Ranchers were charged $1.21 per acre per year to use >>>>> the NF land for grazing. I could have made $48 per year by charging a >>>>> little less than the feds. My property taxes were $40 per year. >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> Frank C. Wimberly >>>>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, >>>>> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >>>>> >>>>> 505 670-9918 >>>>> Santa Fe, NM >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Sep 1, 2021, 1:50 PM Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com >>>>> <mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dave wrote: >>>>> >>>>> < More significant: I have had my curricular materials censured >>>>> and have had my job threatened on a number of occasions because it was >>>>> deemed inconsistent with liberal values. Ironically, many of these events >>>>> occurred when I was teaching at a Catholic university where I could, with >>>>> impunity, challenge religious orthodoxy, but not liberal woke snowflake >>>>> orthodoxy. I was once censured by the University of Wisconsin HR >>>>> department because a female student filed a sexual harassment complaint >>>>> because I had a meeting with her in my office where I had three Salvador >>>>> Dali prints on my wall and "she was forced to look at breasts the entire >>>>> meeting." Her complaint was upheld because neither the content of the >>>>> Dali prints nor my intent or rational for having them in my office >>>>> mattered — only her subjective feelings. At Highlands I was forbidden to >>>>> offer Honors courses or any opportunities to earn extra credit in a class >>>>> by tackling extra hard problems (these were software >>>>> courses) because doing so was racist and unfair — simply because >>>>> more non-Hispanic students obtained the extra credit or the honors >>>>> designation. > >>>>> >>>>> So the university had the expectation that before advanced classes >>>>> could be offered, there needed to an unbiasing of the candidate pool for >>>>> those classes by adequately training everyone (every demographic) that >>>>> was potentially feeding in to them? Ok. If the university wants to do >>>>> this, or incentivized to do this, it is really just a matter of >>>>> private/public strategy. If you don't want to work for a university >>>>> that has this "fair" strategy, then don't. As for subjecting young >>>>> students to strange imagery, I can see why one would not want to do that. >>>>> Just as it would strange for a female professor to dress like a hooker. >>>>> Organizations can have dress codes. Don't be a fool, universities are >>>>> just another kind of business. You mess with the business, you will have >>>>> a problem. It would be better if your department heads were "upstanders" >>>>> and just said, "Hey Dave, how is this art helping your students?" >>>>> >>>>> < Not personal, but a relative: multi-generational ranch with >>>>> Federal grazing right. Hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years >>>>> were spent enhancing the Federal land, containment ponds for water that >>>>> reduced erosion and flash flooding without diminishing runoff >>>>> contribution to watershed; planting of native grasses, elimination of >>>>> deadwood, etc. etc. End result was the ability to safely and sustainably >>>>> graze X number of cattle. About five years ago, BLM issued a new policy >>>>> dictating the maximum carrying capacity of Federal lands. The math was >>>>> based on lowest common denominator. The policy was, at the behest of >>>>> preservation groups, written with the specific intent to minimize and >>>>> eventually eliminate the use of public lands for grazing. (Also mining >>>>> and motorized recreational vehicle use.) Bottom line, allotment was taken >>>>> away because it violated the numbers — not because there was any evidence >>>>> of actual harm. > >>>>> >>>>> I'm a taxpayer. Why should I want off road vehicles or cows on >>>>> federal land? I don't care about either of those things. This is a >>>>> weird entitlement that these folks have in mind. As far as I was >>>>> concerned the Bundy principals in Oregon deserved to be met by A-10s. -- ☤>$ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
