I agree that to the degree we might be tools in any context, it undermines the efficacy of our pragmatism, not matter what our aspirations might be.
Is "toolism" or "being a tool" formulable in terms of co-option or (voluntary) deference of personal agency? Is there an ad-hoc formula to describe the relationship between toolism, agency, pragmatism (+ what else)? On 9/17/21 10:45 AM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote: > Yes, if the extremism is taken on as the mechanism implementing the function > (e.g. fighting advantage). But if the extremism is accidental, like most > preemptive registration is, then No. Where one accidentally stumbles into an > extremist position, it's not pragmatic at all. > > Now, if you're a tool like our conservative SCOTUS Justices and your > registration is a result of your manipulation by *others*, then we have an > interesting question. As a mere pawn in the larger game, which we all are to > some extent, which is more pragmatic on your (the tool's) part: > > 1) resist your overlords from effectively and efficiently using you for your > pragmatic purpose, or > 2) or grease the skids, play along, allow your overlords to use you well? > > In either case, the tool who doesn't know she's a tool cannot be a pragmatist. > > > On 9/17/21 9:32 AM, Steve Smith wrote: >> Glen - >> >>> IDK. Maybe this is simply the inescapable optimum for some people. Rosen is >>> a great example, ostracized and ridiculed as vitalist for so long, causing >>> him to be reactionary and retreat further into his own game, followed only >>> by a few brilliant acolytes and open-minded domain hoppers. And maybe >>> little p pragmatists are simply lazy or cowardly, not willing to tilt >>> windmills long enough to push through a paradigm shift, compromising away >>> the baby, happy enough with the bath water. I have no hill to die on. Maybe >>> that makes me pathetic. >> What a great medley of colorful idioms... >> >> I was acutely taken by "I have not hill to die on" and your >> characterization of the "small p pragmatist"... >> >> I can't find (in my fragmented associative memory, aided only by my >> flimsy google fu) the historical/mythological reference >> (Scythians/Parthians/Greeks) to the small band of warriors who >> deliberately trapped themselves on a ledge or a blind canyon (or their >> leader contrived it), knowing that having no other option than fighting >> their way out, they gained an advantage over the larger force who could >> always retreat to avoid individual self-extinction, supporting a >> collective will to yield to a smaller force? >> >> I believe this is one of the charms/seductions of extremism... and in >> the historical anecdote above, is that not a highly pragmatic >> tactic/strategy? >> >> If we think of ourselves as cartographers/naturalists/archaeologists, >> mapping a landscape, rather than trying to control it, perhaps the >> strategies shift? >> >> - Steve > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
