Pithy: channeling Dr. Johnson vis-a-vis Bishop Berkeley. davew
On Tue, Oct 15, 2024, at 2:14 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Jump out of your car when driving on the freeway or inject bleach to kill the > COVID, and enjoy Your Truth. > > *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Prof David West > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 15, 2024 11:03 AM > *To:* friam@redfish.com > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] [EXT] Re: tolerance of intolerance > > Eric, > > Going all postmodern on you — there is no such thing as *Truth*, only > *Somebody's Truth*. > > This is painfully evident at the moment in the fallacy of "fact checking," > all the assertions of "misinformation," and "follow the science." > > I do not see totalitarians of any stripe engaged in 'destroying' the truth; > only in demanding that *Their Truth* is the one and only *Truth*. > > And, totalitarians are not the only ones engaged in this endeavor—everyone > who has or wants to have power of whatever degree does the exact same thing. > > davew > > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2024, at 12:39 PM, Santafe wrote: > > You know, I don’t mind the phrase “above the law”. It may not be > > tailored to lower-level mechanistic arguing about one or another case, > > but it acknowledges a system context in which a society will operate > > under some kind of hierarchy of prerogatives. > > > > I don’t normally think about law in such hierarchies, and do more often > > about truth. But I think similar arguments are appropriate for both, > > with certain modulations. > > > > What (re. power) do we want from truth in a society? We want truth to > > stand as a referee over all contesting claims. This is why > > authoritarians, but even more totalitarians, have as a first-line > > priority the killing of truth. Not just evading it or disregarding it, > > but publicly setting it on fire, to make the point that there will be > > _no_ referee over the exercise of power by whoever happens to be > > holding it. Arendt has some wonderful passages on the way the Nazi > > movement was, from before its takeover through its ending, a project of > > substituting fictitious worlds for the real world in the lives of their > > followers. This (now coming from me, not Arendt) is why the hopeful > > totalitarian doesn’t tell borderline lies or ambiguous lies; he tells > > extravagant, absurd lies, to make the point that any holdout hope for > > truth will be ground up and blown away in the movements movement. > > > > The fragility of a role for truth in a society is that a commitment to > > it has to be a kind of escrow. The society has to grant truth > > legitimacy and authority, and then the various members have to be > > confined within that commitment when their own interests would motivate > > them to escape it. Ulysses at the mast, or something like that. > > Rawls’s veil of ignorance. > > > > The question of what law is, and who it is answerable to, is different > > because it is entirely conventional, unlike truth which has a very > > individually-judgeable aspect. But will the society’s legitimated > > notion of “law” be a tool for use by a king? By specifically the > > God-Emporer (Mao or, increasingly, Xi) or Louix IV or Napoleon? Will > > it be a tool for use by the holder of an office (Putin? Trump “if > > you’re the president they (SCOTUS) let you do it”)? Or is > > law-the-system claimed or intended to have prerogatives above those of > > specific persons, or of offices w.r.t. their occupants, and if so, in > > what is that prerogative vested? The charateristically vague notion of > > a “democracy” supposes that there should be some abstract entity — the > > “demos” — in which the prerogative of law is vested. But since > > abstract entities don’t operate in the material world, what we have is > > some edifice of institutions etc. that is meant to suitably instantiate > > a “demos”. We can complain about all the ways an actual, realized > > system fails to instantiate a demos well, or is aimed at a wrong > > concept of one. But that complaint is different from the distinction > > that, as the Maoist government promulgated him as increasingly > > semi-divine, there was no concept of a “demos” at all that had > > prerogatives above him. > > > > I think we lose that relevant notion of hierarchy of prerogatives if we > > abandon the “above” in “above the law”. > > > > Lot of hair-splitting for no substance; I know… > > > > Eric > > > > > >> On Oct 15, 2024, at 12:22, glen <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> I agree. We're dancing around the meaning of "above the law" and it's a > >> terrible phrase. But people use it. So you have to have some way to parse > >> it (again, based on the *rest* of whatever it is someone says). Hardline > >> positions like what Jochen and Dave are taking can help develop such > >> parsing strats, at least they help me. > >> > >> On a similar note, this article was very interesting to me because of both > >> my long-term interest in "mindreading" (which I'll now call "mentalizing", > >> I guess) and my more recent interest in replacing things like ontologies > >> with LLMs: > >> > >> Defining key concepts for mental state attribution > >> https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00077-6 > >> > >> > >> > >> On 10/15/24 09:11, steve smith wrote: > >>> I hope I'm not (just) muddying the water here, but I think "buffered from > >>> the remedies of law" might be better than "above the law"? I think it > >>> applies not to just the wealthy and powerful but to other ideosyncratic > >>> reasons like obscurity, anonymity, unpredictable-behaviour, etc... > >>> On 10/15/24 9:00 AM, glen wrote: > >>>> Well, OK. I agree with the gist. But rather than target Congress, the > >>>> Admin, and bureaucrats, I'd target wealthy people, whatever their day > >>>> job might be. There are people mostly above the law. Musk is one of > >>>> them. But more importantly, there's a couple of handfuls of companies > >>>> that own the world: Blackstone, KKR, Carlyle, Bain, etc. To boot, those > >>>> companies "are people", are effectively immortal, and can't seriously be > >>>> punished for any crime they might commit. > >>>> > >>>> And this point is definitely a systemic one. Even if every single member > >>>> of the entire government were biased against those who wield this power, > >>>> the system has too many weak points to hold them accountable. When faced > >>>> with a super villain like Musk, it takes a champion (at least one, but > >>>> more often a team) to counter-game the system (e.g. Whitehouse, Warren, > >>>> Wyden, etc.). And the champions usually eventually succumb to biology or > >>>> corruption. > >>>> > >>>> On 10/14/24 15:52, Prof David West wrote: > >>>>> True, citing exceptions to specific laws does not indict the > >>>>> */system/*: /"We mean the entire legislative, executive, and judicial > >>>>> enterprise."/ > >>>>> > >>>>> However, the way the phrase,/"no one is above the law,"/ is popularly > >>>>> used, especially now and in the political context, it is not a systemic > >>>>> assertion, but a personal one: hold X accountable because no one is > >>>>> above the specific law that X ostensibly violated. _I will accept > >>>>> chastisement for being equally sloppy in usage_. > >>>>> > >>>>> Also, I would argue that the system has been corrupted to such a point > >>>>> that a whole class of people in particular roles are above the law > >>>>> systemically: > >>>>> - Congress abdicated its responsibility to enact laws, ceding it to > >>>>> bureaucrats. > >>>>> - Those same bureaucrats usurp the role of the judiciary by indicting > >>>>> and trying those who violate their laws (and they are laws, including > >>>>> criminal felony laws), crafting their own rules of evidence and > >>>>> procedure, and determining guilt or innocence with no recourse to the > >>>>> 'Systems' judiciary. > >>>>> - If you include the explosion in use of 'executive decree'; you might > >>>>> argue that a substantial part of the executive branch of government in > >>>>> the U.S. is 'above the law'. > >>>>> > >>>>> davew > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Oct 14, 2024, at 12:15 PM, glen wrote: > >>>>> > I think that was Jochen that said it, not Russ. But your refutation > >>>>> is > >>>>> > either a fallacy of ambiguity or composition. By "the rule of law", > >>>>> we > >>>>> > don't mean the rule of any particular law ... like a city statute > >>>>> > against walking your alligator down the street or whatever. We mean > >>>>> the > >>>>> > entire legislative, executive, and judicial enterprise. Of course, > >>>>> > particular slices of the population are exempt from some particular > >>>>> > law. E.g. London cabbies used to be allowed to urinate wherever > >>>>> without > >>>>> > regard to the typical laws governing such. That doesn't imply that > >>>>> > London cabbies are "above the law". I suppose you could say they're > >>>>> > above that particular set of laws. But "exempt" isn't synonymous with > >>>>> > "above", anyway. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > I don't think the SCOTUS ruling on immunity claims the President is > >>>>> > above the law, contrary to the implications of the left's rhetoric, > >>>>> > only that they're exempt from some/most/all laws when executing the > >>>>> > role of their office. It's bad. But it's not bad in the way the > >>>>> > rhetoric implies. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > On 10/14/24 09:27, Prof David West wrote: > >>>>> >> Sorry Russ, but /"Nobody should be above the law if the rule of law > >>>>> has any meaning in a democratic society,"/ is an absurd idea. > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> Assuming the US is a democratic society (in some sense), I would > >>>>> defy you to find any existing law that does not have exceptions that > >>>>> place someone, in some role or in some cirsumstance, "above" that law. > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> davew > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> On Mon, Oct 14, 2024, at 8:58 AM, John Kennison wrote: > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com > >>>>> <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> on behalf of Marcus Daniels > >>>>> <mar...@snoutfarm.com <mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> > >>>>> >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 16, 2024 3:02 PM > >>>>> >>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > >>>>> <friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com>>; russ.abb...@gmail.com > >>>>> <mailto:russ.abb...@gmail.com> <russ.abb...@gmail.com > >>>>> <mailto:russ.abb...@gmail.com>> > >>>>> >>> *Subject:* [EXT] Re: [FRIAM] tolerance of intolerance > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> I don’t think that’s fair. It depends on the opponent and what > >>>>> they represent both in terms of ideology and the sociological > >>>>> phenomenon they are a part of. > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> *From:*Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com > >>>>> <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> *On Behalf Of *Jochen Fromm > >>>>> >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 16, 2024 11:52 AM > >>>>> >>> *To:* russ.abb...@gmail.com <mailto:russ.abb...@gmail.com>; The > >>>>> Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com > >>>>> <mailto:friam@redfish.com>> > >>>>> >>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] tolerance of intolerance > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> A president who murders his opponents would not be better than an > >>>>> evil dictator in an authoritarian state. Putin's opponents like > >>>>> Navalny, Litvinenko and Nemtsov were all brutally poisoned and/or > >>>>> murdered. > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> But you are right, this possibility exists after the recent > >>>>> decision of the supreme court. It seems to be a result of democratic > >>>>> backsliding. Nobody should be above the law if the rule of law has any > >>>>> meaning in a democratic society. > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> -J. > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> -------- Original message -------- > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> From: Russ Abbott <russ.abb...@gmail.com > >>>>> <mailto:russ.abb...@gmail.com> <mailto:russ.abb...@gmail.com > >>>>> <mailto:russ.abb...@gmail.com>>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> Date: 7/16/24 7:48 PM (GMT+01:00) > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > >>>>> <friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> <mailto:friam@redfish.com > >>>>> <mailto:friam@redfish.com>>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] tolerance of intolerance > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> Why has no one pointed out the possibility that if Trump wins, > >>>>> Biden could take advantage of his newly declared immunity and have him > >>>>> assassinated? > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> -- Russ > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2024, 6:24 AM glen <geprope...@gmail.com > >>>>> <mailto:geprope...@gmail.com> <mailto:geprope...@gmail.com > >>>>> <mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>>> wrote: > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> Yeah. It's one thing to wish it or want it. It's another to > >>>>> think more in Marcus' terms and come up with a more complex strategy > >>>>> not involving stupid 20 year olds and no violence at all. I still hold > >>>>> out hope for my own personal conspiracy theory. Biden becomes the > >>>>> nominee. After the convention fades, the Admnistration announces Biden > >>>>> has gone to the hospital for bone spur surgery. Kamala takes over > >>>>> temporarily and campaigns furiously for Biden-Harris. Biden is > >>>>> re-elected. Biden recovers and gets through the Oath (fingers crossed). > >>>>> Then he goes back to the hospital with some minor thing like a dizzy > >>>>> spell. Kamala takes over again. Biden's condition worsens. First Female > >>>>> President. Biden recovers and becomes America's Grandpa. > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> Come on Deep State. Make it happen. 8^D > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> On 7/15/24 17:30, Russ Abbott wrote: > >>>>> >>> > I wonder what Scott's response would have been to those of > >>>>> us who, in response to the shooting, thought: better luck next time. > >>>>> >>> > On 7/15/24 17:28, Marcus Daniels wrote: > >>>>> >>> >> It ignores the option of doing things quietly and > >>>>> indirectly. > >>>>> >>> >> On 7/15/24 16:46, glen wrote: > >>>>> >>> >>> [Scott's] Prayer > >>>>> >>> >>> > >>>>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fscottaaronson.blog%2f%3fp%3d8117&c=E,1,irEARj2UuX0io2vsvo5UtQltYddWunshQQtMQfJZHxfHRYf3FJxoInm0IYVm9IwI4psALvtsK1hXymeqyUC5R_tfW5jZF7zWWQQ1odUIr2o6avItdKxsAJw,&typo=1 > >>>>> > >>>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fscottaaronson.blog%2f%3fp%3d8117&c=E,1,QL0WRnoyblSkIf4AvUE9OJjbfulLIAmV4kaOMzv6lQXTwCmW2EkBdX41PHQpVDSu-p7sRh4gsqE26d1Giz5pL5Nj5av4laZQ11Mt76uPpQE,&typo=1> > >>>>> > >>>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fscottaaronson.blog%2f%3fp%3d8117&c=E,1,NLO_67atoq3F2A4fB5urAh8xb9NkFr6meKf_b2Ya-AZDIOD9qAQghy5M1IF_Q05hIzoBKb18k6r7vb4BiGopaOxkFFYtJyPv-EeoOVuU&typo=1 > >>>>> > >>>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fscottaaronson.blog%2f%3fp%3d8117&c=E,1,VkCRM_BeShuRcsrz7BIuFbLjt-HSBDroXWGmBOeDO6BmTy31h_kdbYCzyPKN_Rg0M2BUO3p_mBX6qdrZ3C3Q5zqIGvcu2DuESkkHbT0_HJ1D7RPe8Dij&typo=1>> > >>>>> >>> >>> > >>>>> >>> >>> I'm currently surrounded by people who believe intolerance > >>>>> is properly not tolerated. Scott's message, here, seems extraordinary > >>>>> Christian, to me. (Real Christian, not the Christianism displayed in > >>>>> things like megachurches and whatnot cf > >>>>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fraymondsmullyan.com%2fbooks%2fwho-knows%2f&c=E,1,mlWEnEdNzLv04QI10AIP0LMUOn93iXch1nMegLlQPAOq-cYBIqujJW4gdYUEuQTKpPUzp1ea879JC3t5SphDwTnV7qr07N3d5N_qWLqcAjurOEOKwUZoDA,,&typo=1 > >>>>> > >>>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fraymondsmullyan.com%2fbooks%2fwho-knows%2f&c=E,1,9VLze-Ya03T3kg-RkUd0H2MT8KzhjXM1_P3mWd2yhwzMisAO6YtkAVx_s8XT8vXCkAhdFAGojgJWrOEnJm3bqkoFhlRobx71sav3C5aNAQ,,&typo=1> > >>>>> > >>>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fraymondsmullyan.com%2fbooks%2fwho-knows%2f&c=E,1,kd1puIuKqRwYLdYLvOGXWmcK8yvoq-6V6UyCgEYrWEMcCgau9Jh9EDf4mId5w8MTz65ekcYWJKhQArb0V_-b-5JigQzIBkIaSINdHdVQGa-sdMe-lAQ,&typo=1 > >>>>> > >>>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fraymondsmullyan.com%2fbooks%2fwho-knows%2f&c=E,1,NurRTSqj5GjO0P5dvBQvndqnW4TBWCCpQjK5xVXcDuHkiaqJ1XOtzFeGSRgp5MO9z3vTP4RZWXFMT7rTd68npa8dNPeUXmmgquZsMXu1Aw,,&typo=1>>). > >>>>> This faith that "going high" will, in the long run, win out, seems > >>>>> naive to me. The temptation to "hoist the black flag and start slitting > >>>>> throats" isn't merely a thresholded reaction, it's an intuitive grasp > >>>>> of the iterated prisoner's dilemma, tit-for-tat style strategies, and > >>>>> Ashby's LoRV. But I'm open to changing my mind on that. Maybe I'm just > >>>>> too low-brow? > >>>>> >>> >>> > >> > >> -- > >> ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ > >> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,_mNej5fxftAB_ChuN0sGhh32rzjhkdkXdFZiWy1yvuLVdhL9acWR3z9Q6CKQhO0CxC5SpK_tQCoKDrLq2xC6nnwJx7IxtlZY7Yg425N99NP2FcU,&typo=1 > >> to (un)subscribe > >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,M1_4_HZOoeNzCkfouVMnWg_61fuxIeZ8M_C4tpNkABbFw4enhjzr9bOG_AnVNz_EmKxCBF9bO_1B2IHEsm-7unRsCVi9CZ3ZW9WwZPf3L8skzlaYMw,,&typo=1 > >> FRIAM-COMIC > >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,SVd3bENpw0lEjlvXxfRm49FdrRAEdclMoKIc9KsqHp1UJ-ErefOmmmD9Sj9qeMaBkxXr89L13Up-33y5xzKTnMfLMsGRk5UZQESDoeSdxea8qg,,&typo=1 > >> archives: 5/2017 thru present > >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,kLjSgqH3BqdiiqjY2OQccfVEum8i6LvmDQJyq1y7hY2I50oyJA-OdTMV8KZ5oOFz49BmFgcXs6vfrRreu0THwCSZAP0aThTnJ9snIdH11rj2L_E,&typo=1 > >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > > > > > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > > to (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/ > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (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/ > > > *Attachments:* > • smime.p7s
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (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/
