I do not believe there is anything in postmodernism that argues for an infinity
of truths or denial of a definition for truth. Indeed, I believe it is pretty
much exactly what glen asserts,* "Truth(s) can be something like moments or
high order stabilities that allow us to settle contested claims, even if only
temporarily."*
However, such truths are still "owned" and promulgated by some consensual
group, at some specific time, and in some specific context.
This is true even of "close to the metal brute facts." Dr Johnson's stubbed toe
was an eloquent assertion of a truth, at that time. Bishop Berkeley's truth is
a lot closer to current quantum physic truths, today.
Although the group 'owning' truths about the established hard sciences and
mathematics might be very expansive, even that is not universal (e.g.,
psycho-nauts and Zen-ists).
In 'new' sciences (e.g., psychology) there are almost certainly >2 up to 7 +/-
2, different contending truth groups.
In the realm of culture-through-politics, I am pretty sure the postmodernists
have it right. Truth, in that context, is little more than a cudgel to be used
to flatten those that disagree.
davew
On Wed, Oct 16, 2024, at 9:26 AM, glen wrote:
> I think I agree with Jon, here. But I'd word it (very) differently. And
> although Marcus' response is in Eric's vein, it only targets "close to
> the metal"/brute facts, not derived facts (with variation on both
> "facts"/primitives and "derivations"/logics).
>
> While I'm an avowed pluralist, my commitment isn't to an infinity of
> truths or, worse, the undefinedness of truth. Maybe there are trillions
> of truths (allowing for each biological organism to have "their truth",
> uniquely). But to go so far as to suggest there are infinite truths or
> that truth is undefined is a bridge too far. That would be like arguing
> there are no such things as parallel lines in any spatial system, no
> agreement to be had no matter what the context.
>
> My confidence in a plurality is bounded to a few, I think, N≥3 or so,
> but maybe something closer to "N=7±2", reflecting something like the
> affordance of sensemaking minds. And to be clear, that small set of N
> truths can wander in some kind of Peircian sense, I guess, except
> without assuming it'll monotonically converge to a static/permanent set
> of N fixed member truths.
>
> In this wandering space of paraconsistent logics, we may still follow
> the framework Eric sets out. Truth(s) can be something like moments or
> high order stabilities that allow us to settle contested claims, even
> if only temporarily. But here I see more of a tie between truth and law
> ... maybe, deep down, my antipathy toward evolutionary psychology is
> simply that the discipline is too young? Social convention comes from
> somewhere ... somewhere bound to reality, even if the binding is
> through a wobbly causal network with randomness at every node. Can
> convention be completely unbound to truth? That seems like an extreme
> claim to me.
>
> On 10/15/24 12:28, Jon Zingale wrote:
>> FWIW, I think Eric is correct to highlight the relationship between being
>> *increasingly promulgated to the semi-divine stature* and the disappearance
>> of *demos*. However, I am resistant to a characterization that renders demos
>> as *abstract* rather than *virtual*. I am resistant to the idea that demoi
>> are implemented rather than immanent. While there may come a day where
>> master-slave relations become complete and fully actualized and demos
>> (relegated to the abstract) is solely manifested via deputization, I
>> maintain a level of wishful-hoping that for as long as we engage one
>> another, demos de facto exists and immanently so.
>>
>> This subtlety, for me, parallels on the one hand, the ontological status of
>> infinitesimals in founding the differential calculus, and on the other,
>> discussions I am having with Nick around the nature of *facts*. To my mind,
>> disinformation isn't simply the overturning of truth values intension with a
>> concept. Rather, disinformation campaigns (like other forms of fascism) aim
>> to atomize networks of relations. Atomization can happen at various levels,
>> sometimes at the level of the ideas and at other times at the level of
>> repositories. Demos, like concept, is inherently non-discrete even if only
>> nilpotent. In the end, I suppose both that the denial of demos is expensive
>> and that collective perceptions can stay irrational longer than I can stay
>> solvent.
>
>> On 10/15/24 12:14, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>> Jump out of your car when driving on the freeway or inject bleach to kill
>>> the COVID, and enjoy Your Truth.
>
>>> On 10/15/24 11:02, Prof David West wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>> <mailto: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
>>>> <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> <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com
>>>> <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>>> on behalf of Marcus Daniels
>>>> <mar...@snoutfarm.com <mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>
>>>> <mailto: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> <mailto:friam@redfish.com
>>>> <mailto:friam@redfish.com>>>; russ.abb...@gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:russ.abb...@gmail.com> <mailto:russ.abb...@gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:russ.abb...@gmail.com>> <russ.abb...@gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:russ.abb...@gmail.com> <mailto: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> <mailto: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>
>>>> <mailto:russ.abb...@gmail.com <mailto:russ.abb...@gmail.com>>; 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
>>>> >>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>>> >>> 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>> <mailto: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>> <mailto: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>> <mailto: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,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,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,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
>>>>
>>>> <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,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,1,9VLze-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,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
>>>>
>>>> <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://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/
