Too many glosses on the word “truth”. Any of them is game, but with so many in play, and registers constantly being shifted, tracking a sentence becomes fraught most of the time. And statements that are central to the concept for one register would be not only inapt, but false or non-sequitur in another.
All that is fine if the goal is entertainment, competition, blasts of indignation, or whatever-else. But if the goal is to get clearer on something about which one was not clear, the overloading is an impediment (recalling Johnson’s literal stone). (That is never a setback for anyone who never lacked clarity on anything and thus doesn’t need anything; that cup is already full.) I think there are good takes on Peirce from a modern perspective, that were suspected or suggested by him, but probably not available with late 19th-century experience, and probably not to someone with as mechanical a turn of mind as Peirce’s. One can ask what it means to say that a word is to index some concept, and that some concept is different from another in what we want from it. In that spirit, I think that in logic and in description of life, there are two concepts that are not the same in kind, one of which I would tag with “states of factual knowledge”, and the other with “truth”, as I would want to develop the term in a modern re-try of pragmatism as Peirce was headed toward it. There are lots of little technical details along the way, where one has to state what one wants to inherit from some historical figure, and what not, or what one wants to assert, irrespective of whether somebody else did before or not. It strikes me that the things pragmaticism (I will use Peirce’s word to make explicit that his, at this time, is the one I am after) got right are that we need 1) a theory of meaning, and 2) a theory of truth, which one has to have some theory of meaning and probably other schemata to articulate. The pragmatic maxim, as a theory of meaning, is fine as a historical placeholder, and I’m not putting a lot of time into that now, so won’t worry about whether or how it might need modern updates. All the work on embodiment, and maybe some of what goes under the heading “enactivism” is probably a useful source of examples and ideas. I would argue that what we should want from a modern pragmatism in regard to truth can be expressed through the following metaphor: the concept behind “states of factual knowledge” stands in relation to the concept behind “truth” something like the concept behind “sample estimator” stands in relation to “underlying generative value” in the practice of statistical inference over stochastic processes. Even in cases where the two are quantified and represented in the same kinds of units, they are two very different concepts. There is a lot more that needs to be said to triangulate what role that “truth”-tagged concept is playing, in cognition and language, including the depths that we don’t have good concept systems to articulate; here I want to acknowledge the need for it but not dump more words in that direction. My goal in the second-preceding paragraph is to go in the direction of the _meaning_ I want from the concept tagged by “truth” (in this register). Stipulating what one wants from the meaning of something does not entail that you have a route to obtain a value for it. So if Peirce thought (a rather Panglossian caricature) that states of knowledge converge in some reliable way toward asymptotically enduring fixed points, I would certainly not want to inherit that belief (or really, any belief). But I would know, as a Modern, that we have all sorts of experience with statistics that meander and do or do not converge, the rates of convergence if they do, the difficulty of search and the likelihood of success in search problems by one or another algorithm, the difficulty of selection or of preservation of something even if one happens upon it, and so on. And not particularly wanting to have beliefs, I very much want to be able to frame those kinds of questions and try to extract answers. Everything we have learned in one or another narrow, technical and in that sense artificial domain, strikes me as something we should expect to have a place in trying to understand the dynamics of states of factual knowledge. Again, I would expect the applications to look something like the application of Bayesian Model Selection to the real-world acts of adopting or rejecting various partial and conflicted phenomenological theories. In rare cases, the problem is so constrained that one can use the formal model somewhat literally or even quantitatively; in many others, it is a sort of metaphor or an even weaker cartoon, but still suggests a kind of structure to look for in the dynamic realized in the real world. Any of the above, however, only follows if the people involved share certain goals in the exchange of language, and that is not at all assured since people can and do have many quite distinct and even non-overlapping goals. There are communities that regard self-negating speech as not only inescapable, but privileged. I found myself wondering yesterday whether post-modernism should be seen as along the path to enlightenment (NOT the European kind!). I don’t think any of what I said above can be regarded as even meaningful, and certainly not worth engaging in, from a prioritization of self-negating speech. There is speech as sabotage; what I regard Kellyanne as having discovered as her path to self-importance; a thing she appeared to want when she was young but did not see a route to achieving through the conventional channels. And of course, the advocate for the saboteur will say (invoking the original saboteurs) that that person is a resistance fighter against whomever we are aggrieved at. There is the weird case of Rorty, who for me marks the full decadence of Peirce’s hope for a theory of truth into its energetic and spiteful negation. I don’t know how to stack him in this menagerie. He and Kellyanne are clearly both smart, and Rorty is very smart in many dimensions. My understanding is that, in personal life, they both are/were also gracious and decent in their treatment of people. Rorty’s social-justice aims were also, to my eye, well-chosen and insightful. But Rorty is not on a mere campaign of sabotage, and his tool isn’t merely random obstruction to derail anybody else’s attempt to make any point. He has much more structure. Yet to my eye the gambit is still logically pretty empty. Peirce wanted something from the word “truth”, and he got however far he could toward articulating what he hoped for. Rorty simply declares, obiter-dictum, that the same word will be used henceforth as whatever is an obstacle to social-justice utilitarianism (crucially, as Rorty analyzes what the utility is and what serves it; aka among other things he is an intellectual bully), and it has no other or actual meaning. Where Peirce used Pragmatism as aiming at a theory of meaning and a theory of truth, Rorty simply re-glosses Pragmatism as a synonym for social-justice utilitarianism. Obviously, as a social practice, one can do that, and if the tribe that likes that usage can kill all the members of the tribe that disagrees with it, the dead ones can’t be said to have “achieved” anything. (The others are inclined to say they haven’t “won” anything, but I don’t think the dead ones were after “winning”; rather “achieving”.) But simply refusing to engage somebody else’s project by reglossing the term and declaring eminent domain over it isn’t interesting. We already have a term for utilitarianism, from Mill, and the social-justice version of it is a sub-variant (not even all that sub). So I don’t know. I think there is stuff to do. But only if one wants to do that, instead of some other thing. Eric > On Oct 16, 2024, at 10:26, glen <geprope...@gmail.com> 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://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,uadftNKkc00NMH7a5o39CnS6rDnt1b2pVUPz3V7eNeuJFslkbZboI8H0mzIDK_UTTdXMLuPRN8eC4USJ_wM-7bmrrV8mvZh00Tiz1tHx-p9vcDjy&typo=1 > to (un)subscribe > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,X76OOHnTtJviyJFCCt5xW-4WrDF2y4CbpRXfsFp2iIQpyIrRc9SQOCvswnGhqa985T-KO0mHUtR7v8Yrg7sv-k3X6Ypl4xe7S5oLwG-Eng,,&typo=1 > FRIAM-COMIC > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,4JQbI7oYZDwikWCjZbLoBKWxAloJNP0U1MxjyLmjG69A86IKZVxC_iBKf8klDr2UH9YSqiwfDdSb9OvolMVBRV6WFAO4fSAAcZcZC8lRas1EI5cY5g,,&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,M47MPNqjcrx5DrkfWE4n2DXEfGBJ1G1XE4WVoI3xo_8-KigZC6BGR4Nd0_pjw4DyDd-7Fe1ROep30aEY7I6oeSTe4kq-Ck8e11L1F6tB8lNmv2vPlQ,,&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/
