On 1/13/22 5:48 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
Anyway, the reason I noticed this article is that I posit that the steely harm reduction approach that was discussed recently is in my mind a form of stoicism. Can one put away their emotional responses and make hard choices based on the greater global good? If one engages in large intimate social networks, I would say two things are likely to happen: 1) executive decisions become harder because there is diffusion of sensitive information, and thus political complications in making them. Members in the network may not be sharing the whole factual context (preferring the emotionally laden parts) 2) there are still dominance relations (her language), but they are just manifest in different ways. Namely by being in the center of a social network and slightly censoring the information that gets passed along.
this makes me think of the progressive ideation: "think global, act local" which first-order I support/ascribe to. Your point illuminates higher order issues with this. I always felt it held a strong component of hubris that any of us could actually effectively *think global*. A variation more apt might be "feel global, act local"?
I presume there are network theoretic models/treatments of aspects of this phenomena?
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . 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/
