I couldn't credibly reject epiphenomena and claim it's a labrynth. To boot, I think the purpose of life is to find and explore the most unique niche you can, preferably some subspace nobody else has ever been or will ever be. So, I choose maze ... or worse ... a combinatorial infinity of fractal near-similarity.
On September 17, 2021 5:06:01 PM PDT, Steve Smith <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote: >Glen - > >I appreciate the complex candor here... at least what I parsed out >while trampling all over the text of your post , as it were (nod to >EricS). But is the garden a Labyrinth, a Maze or a Fukuokan One-Straw >Revolution ><https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/976905.The_One_Straw_Revolution>? > >SteveS > >On 9/17/21 5:41 PM, ⛧ glen wrote: >> Well, as always, some of us who are steeped and invested in some ideology >> will say something different from this. But pragmatic implies a set of >> actions, an artifact, a thing manipulated. So the million dollar question is >> whether any of us actually intend some outcome, and then act to obtain that >> outcome via busyness. To the extent that all our intentions are, at least in >> part, illusory, we can't be entirely pragmatic. (Or, i.e., the mindless >> amongst us are entirely pragmatic, their lives nothing but busyness. To be >> pragmatic is to be gloriously idiotic.) We will always be [ab]used tools. Do >> ants have their own objectives? Or are they tools of the colony? >> >> My preferred metaphysics is that awareness comprises reflectivity. And to >> the extent we can interfere with our overlords' plans, we retain our agency. >> Even if our only interference comes in the form of psychosis or idiopathic >> irritability, our individuality requires it. Of course, some of us >> [coughmarcus] are deeply strategic in their interference. 8^D >> >> >> On September 17, 2021 1:54:25 PM PDT, Steve Smith <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote: >>> 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? -- glen ⛧ .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . 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/
