Talking about what's best for the group means identifying the group. The selfish will look at their bank account, the parochial will look at their neighborhood or their church, and the globalists won't consent to any boundary. In my neighborhood, the folks on the corner of Solano and San Pablo that have been protesting the treatment of Gaza emphasize the loss of human life, but others that pass by care more about the territorial integrity of Israel, or just don't count any loss of life that isn't in their circle. Much reactionary talk online talk about how people wish the Biden administration cared as much about U.S. citizens as they do Ukrainian citizens.
A step in the right direction for arguments in good faith would be to state what a context of concern is, acknowledging that the value is arbitrary, and then argue how that context is or is not benefited on different time scales by some policy. Typically, people take any offramp they can early in such discussion because they can't bear to consider possible worlds outside the values they've adopted. -----Original Message----- From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen Sent: Monday, November 11, 2024 12:08 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: [FRIAM] complex self (was Re: How democracies die) I agree completely with the assertion that there *can be* a complex self. But I maintain there exists something like an allostatic load on the individual, some cumulative damage from chronic exposure to information overload. If we continue following a personalized medicine kindof guide, it's reasonable to suggest that things like a Dunbar number have a lot of variation to them. Introverts versus extroverts, openness to new experiences, etc. In other words, some of us can hold complex self conceptions. Others of us not so much. And it's necessary for those who experience less allostatic load recognize that the more fragile (or smaller scoped) selves exist. One dimension often used to simplify our self is narration, assemble the mostly luck-based arbitrariness of the world into a story. Mostly, we tell ourselves stories that serve a purpose, rationalize an action, justify an exploitation, relieve guilt at failure to act, etc. Sometimes, we tell stories just to escape painful small talk like "What do you do for a living?" Each story projects from the high dimensional space down as far as needed for that purpose. And until we give up on individualism, our allostatic loads will increase in direct proportion to the population. On 11/9/24 08:37, steve smith wrote: > Thanks to EricS for translating the question of > liberty/alism/tarianism into the terms of > > the situated self in a webwork of relations, groups, obligations, and so > forth. > > I appeal to: > > Michael Levin's /Cognitive Light Cones/ and the implications for > /multi-scale aggregate entity morphogenesis/... > > The_Computational_Boundary_of_a_Self ... > Multicellularity_and_Scale-Free_Cognition > <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337930182_The_Computational_ > Boundary_of_a_Self_Developmental_Bioelectricity_Drives_Multicellularit > y_and_Scale-Free_Cognition> > > While his focus is on bioelectricity as a mechanism is apt for his specifics, > I am intrigued by the implications for collectives such as humans in various > eras. Getting most interesting once aggregation into groups larger than > Dunbar began (co-facilitated by written language, chalco-lithics, > agriculture, domestus, ???). > > With personal global communication (starting barely with the merging of > national/regional postal systems, but then time-collapsing with international > telegraph, wireless, landline telephony. > > And now the global internet (semi-partitioned by nationalized > corporate and other institutional firewalls) and gawdelpus social > media (connecting limbic systems directly, y passing cognitive > layers?) > > And then IoT sensors/actuators > > And now again some more the current era of ML/AI providing some kind of > dynamic glue or maybe metaphorically like "electrode gel" to improve > coupling/match semantic impedance? Or (?glen's?) reference to "arraying of > antennae" recently? > > > And all cross-cut by Ned Hall's Proxemics? > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxemics > > > On 11/9/24 4:30 AM, Santafe wrote: >> ;.l;;llk;pl....lp;lk.l;p0k.lo0ahgsThis one is funny (as in odd, not comical). >> >> I understand that Glen is glossing liberalism as a kind of >> (trivialized-individual)-indulgentism. But I wouldn’t gloss the word that >> way. >> >> Liberalism should have been about enabling the possible freedoms, and >> curbing the uses of power that we consider exploitative and abusive, which >> in an ungoverned system would always be cropping up and entrenching and >> concentrating themselves. The core being some notion of freedom that needs >> to be understood, and is not immediately conflated with individual concepts. >> >> I do agree that the west, with the US in the vanguard, has departed from the >> rather complex and sensible notion of individualism that one finds in Scots >> like Adam Smith, toward a quite trivialized notion of the individual and of >> freedom somewhat interpreted in those terms (although even what that >> relation is would take some thought to try to articulate). >> >> But there can be a complex notion of the self, and the relation of its >> development to the social context, without which nothing like a normal human >> self can even form. The gloss I gave above for liberalism seems quite >> compatible with a complex notion of self, and then it isn’t in an opposition >> to syndicalism, or whatever other evocative words one can recruit from the >> common language to characterize the situated self in a webwork of relations, >> groups, obligations, and so forth. >> >> The splits would then go along somewhat different axes, it seems to me. >> >> Eric >> >> >>> On Nov 6, 2024, at 12:10 PM, Marcus Daniels<mar...@snoutfarm.com> wrote: >>> >>> There’s some unstated assumption you must have. For the lefties and >>> righties to band together, they’d have to have some basis for a coalition. >>> What is it beyond the price of milk? For example, as a liberal I’m in >>> favor of high gas taxes. High gas taxes discourage use of internal >>> combustion cars, thereby reducing CO2 and mitigating climate change. In >>> California, the taxes on gas and tolls on bridges help to pay to maintain >>> the roads and mass transit. And I’d say go ahead and phase out natural >>> gas stoves and furnaces too. Other liberals I know hate that idea because >>> they believe that will drive up the cost of living which is already high >>> here. Still other liberals just voted out the local DA because they >>> thought she was soft on crime. Earlier she was voted in to give young >>> minorities a fairer shot navigating the legal system. Liberalism is hardly >>> a rigid system of thought. >>> >>> Being inclined to adopt a political philosophy gives scaffolding for what >>> goals are important, how to achieve those goals, and considerations of the >>> greater good where one might put aside their selfish interests. What I >>> see in last night’s results is just collective selfishness. I should want >>> to work with such people, so they don’t go ahead and burn everything down? >>> I expect that many of these folks in the rust belt will need Social >>> Security and Medicare more than I will. By the time I need it, most of my >>> loved ones will be gone. Yeah, let’s do this! >>> >>> Perhaps I am a liberal in your definition and not a lefty because I don’t >>> care about what happens to them as people (they aren’t my friends or >>> family), but I do care about the kind of social systems that can be >>> sustained. Actual conservatives, on the other hand, believe that there is >>> an evolved social system that is not engineered, but nonetheless is of some >>> quality and should be protected. The lefties and righties I think you are >>> speaking of don’t care about regulatory social systems at all. They have >>> diverse goals and values that perhaps could form coalitions, but do those >>> coalitions that have more depth than list of grievances? This is the new >>> world: Not just total social atomization, which would be fine with me, but >>> a lack of modeling of others. None of that cognitive dissonance to deal >>> with if we must march to the same drum of Project 2025. >>> >>> Marcus >>> >>> From: Friam<friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of >>> glen<geprope...@gmail.com> >>> Date: Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 7:58 AM To:friam@redfish.com >>> <friam@redfish.com> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die >>> >>> It's funny, actually. The overwhelming majority of my liberal friends >>> either object (through passive aggressive tactics or outright accusations >>> of "nit-picking") or distance themselves from my "moralizing". Nick once >>> did this in a vFriAM, suggesting that I'm too willing to jump to discussing >>> the moral or ethical value/consequence of some sentiment or activity. My >>> attempts to unpack and demonstrate that their liberalism is *founded* in >>> the assumption of individuality and organismal agency fall on deaf ears >>> because they'd rather commit to the in-group and avoid the navel-gazing. >>> >>> But in order to distinguish between a lefty and a liberal, you have to dig >>> down into your navel, pry out the lint, and make an attempt at analyzing >>> agency, where it lies, how it's [de]constructed, etc. My conservative >>> friends are more willing to do that than my liberal friends, at least to >>> the extent of a taxonomy of moralized positions. It's right to do this, >>> wrong to do that, etc. They're less individualist than the liberals. >>> Although the liberals actively engage with in-groups and disengage with >>> out-groups, they drop moralized issues like hot potatoes. >>> >>> The opportunity I see in Trump's 2nd term is for the lefties and the >>> righties to band together against the liberals. With 8 billion people on >>> the planet, liberalism is a fantasy, or perhaps just a fossilized ideology >>> we have to grow out of as the old people die. Of course, we could >>> depopulate the earth and resuscitate liberalism that way. But that sounds >>> more painful than changing our minds. Hm. Maybe it is easier to kill and >>> die than it is to change one's mind? IDK. >>> >>> On 11/6/24 07:18, Marcus Daniels wrote: >>>> Harris wasn’t a candidate of the left she was a moderate applying the >>>> technique of triangulation to get elected to keep our institutions from >>>> being abused and damaged by an inappropriate candidate. I’m not sure >>>> what else she could have done short of finding a way to push Biden out >>>> earlier. As for me, I’m not shedding any liberal tears. In a way I’m >>>> looking forward to how Trump will betray his voters and the suffering they >>>> will feel at his hands. They certainly deserve it. >>>> >>>> *From: *Friam<friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of >>>> glen<geprope...@gmail.com> >>>> *Date: *Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 6:58 AM >>>> *To: *friam@redfish.com<friam@redfish.com> >>>> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die >>>> >>>> Just for reference, my antifa friends don't recognize any difference. >>>> Nothing's changed from yesterday to today. And while that may seem myopic, >>>> there's a lot of truth to it. Harris is fairly right-leaning with her >>>> record as a prosecutor in CA, position on fracking, failure to denounce >>>> the actions of Israel, etc. The local antifa has been active in things >>>> like blocking ports of entry (particularly for Boeing-related shipments >>>> and such). DDoSecrets has been steadily accumulating data from bad actors. >>>> Unicorn Riot consistently publishes about ongoing abuse of indigenous >>>> communities. Etc. >>>> >>>> W.r.t. deeper changes, a break from status quo *liberalism* (the main >>>> boogeyman of the lefties), could be hastened by another Trump term. I see >>>> it as an opportunity for actual lefty strategists (as opposed to a warmed >>>> over righty like Harris) to design a [de|re]construction plan similar to >>>> Project 2025, but for sane people. Literally *any* of the tactics used by >>>> the Trump backers could be used by an organized effort from the left. >>>> >>>> But the problem is that those with the real strategy skills aren't >>>> revolutionaries. As Eric lays out, they're too addicted to the >>>> institutional game to strategize around or to blast through institutions. >>>> That's what makes the tiny antifa efforts like blocking ports (for a tiny >>>> few hours) or breaking windows on main street seem so stupid and >>>> indulgent, like the temper tantrums of an undisciplined child. >>>> >>>> And in this regard, I join both my antifa friends and my MAGA friends in >>>> scoffing at the liberal tears. If you actually want change, then buck up >>>> and make it happen. Politics is not a day job you leave at the office at >>>> 6pm. Granted, I'm a tourist in both of those groups - all groups, >>>> actually, and would be happier if Harris had won. But being a tourist >>>> allows me to say such things without too much hypocrisy. >>>> >>>> On 11/6/24 02:55, Santafe wrote: >>>>> A change that I think can happen, and I don’t know how fully it can >>>>> change in four years, which is the time to find out whether the whole >>>>> electoral system and federal judiciary can be completely rewired, is that >>>>> Americans become a lot more like Russians. Small, localized, and trying >>>>> to hunker down and get through one’s own little day and little life, and >>>>> not be visible enough to become a target for anything. Everything that >>>>> is a problem and that needs to change, is a problem because it brings >>>>> together a lot of actors. To change, it needs coordinated commitments. >>>>> That’s what wasn’t great in the U.S. already, but gets very very hard in >>>>> an atomized society. I do expect the bullying and belligerent behavior >>>>> from the MAGA faction, which has already been getting systematically >>>>> worse over the past 9 years, to undergo a large increase. Maybe by about >>>>> the same factor as cannabis use increased when it got legalized, and for >>>>> sort of similar reasons. There will continue to be people who don’t like >>>>> it, as there are now, and as there are lots of Chinese who still have >>>>> global and humane views and don’t like the rise of belligerence being >>>>> driven in their society, but aren’t doing anything effective against it. >>>>> -- 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/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. 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/
