I laughed, though I'm not a logician.
But both of you are pointing out why "some things in moderation" is different
from "everything ... including moderation". The latter is obviously loopy,
self-referential. It wears its "logical depth" on its sleeve. The former is
flattened out, which is w
I think it just represents their attempt to moderate their response to you!
btw... as I wrote that I realized how differently we use the term
"moderate" as a verb and as an adjective or noun. The noun seems to
naturally derive from the verb... that if a process is moderated then
it's outcome/re
> The truth (as in the eventual consensus after years of haggling) will be
> "everything in moderation, including moderation". Being trapped by an
> entraining pattern is good, as long as it's not permanent.
My preferred way to say this, for many years now, has been “Some things in
moderation”
nsight.
Marcus
From: Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 12:08:24 PM
To: FriAM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] merging with the mob
I think both Occupy and the Tea Party, present challenges to your argument,
here. What about mobs *without* a "master e
I think both Occupy and the Tea Party, present challenges to your argument,
here. What about mobs *without* a "master equation"? ... an, in principle,
incompressibility? ... they don't generalize at all? In either case, even the
most coherent advocates failed in their descriptions of the "mov
put.
Marcus
From: Friam on behalf of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 6:39:18 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] merging with the mob
Glen writes:
“Well, I'm not much of a sports oriented person. But
Glen/Nick/Marcus/List -
When reading Ben Franklin's autobiography as a young man (me not Ben), I
remember being disturbed by his observation about the members of the
Continental Congress as (paraphrase) "building factions in response to a
particular topic, then dissolving and reforming them into d
On 01/25/2018 08:42 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Apologies for arriving late at the party and then quibbling, but I
> assume we all agree that not all groups of people with a common set of values
> and interests are "mobs".
We can't really agree on that unless we define "mobs" in such a way a
: Thursday, January 25, 2018 9:05 AM
To: FriAM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] merging with the mob
On 01/25/2018 05:39 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> My take is that they wanted someone that would project into their (lower
> dimensional) tribal space in a seamless way. It was an important part of
>
On 01/25/2018 05:39 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> My take is that they wanted someone that would project into their (lower
> dimensional) tribal space in a seamless way. It was an important part of
> how they got along.
>
> You alluded to collective measures of fitness. A progressive’s me
Glen writes:
“Well, I'm not much of a sports oriented person. But sometimes they're useful.”
Certainly, sports metaphors are useful to understand tribalism, because sports
are tribal activity.
I’m reminded of visiting a company in Austin to discuss a project of mutual
interest. I didn’t rea
Well, I'm not much of a sports oriented person. But sometimes they're useful.
Playing, say, right outfield on a baseball team can be satisfying. Sure it's
great if you can play short stop, pitch, and catch. But right field is quite
nice, actually. I can say the same thing about being a full
Glen writes:
< If people would, more often, set aside their (mostly illusory anyway) agency
and focus on accepting a Pawn role in others' games, we'd see fewer fractures. >
Suppose that there are roles in others’ games that need to be filled for the
game to keep going, or to improve the chances
< But, in the end, I reject that argument. That need for celebrity, that need
for drama, or "strong amplification of conflict to bring things into focus" is
the problem, not the solution. >
I certainly wasn’t thinking celebrity or drama.
Marcus
On 01/23/2018 08:32 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> This may be true, but for me it is not about agency or identity. My `tribe’,
> if you insist on that word, is anonymous and (I believe, at least) pursues
> group goals not individual goals. I don’t even know a Dreamer, but if there
> is a governm
< The fractures we're seeing in society, I think, are caused by an artificial
discretization between individuals and tribes. Millionaires discretize
themselves from minimum wage workers. Retired people discretize themselves
from the working class. Cops discretize themselves from the populace
On 01/22/2018 05:17 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> The kind of people that will accept your service aren’t worthy of it, and
> often don’t even know what to do with it.
Yeah, maybe. But to be clear, I'm not suggesting a complete and continuous
abdication of agency, only a little more (and more fr
Glen writes:
< I think we ought to give ourselves over to our "tribes" in much the same way
we give ourselves over to, say, eating pizza because our body likes
high-glycemic food, every once in awhile. Every so often, it just feels good
to be part of the *mob*. >
The kind of people that will
18 matches
Mail list logo
