On 01/27/2017 08:34 PM, Vladimyr Burachynsky wrote: > So I cause confusion only because I do not fit into any well established > classification system. I bring this up because my experience in life defies > most systems which you are attempting to tease apart.
Well, to be clear, I offered the idea that abstract categorizing is easily broken by concretizing the categorized. So, you're simply backing up what I was saying. In essence, the categories are artificial. Concretizing any particular person imputed to be a member of the class, will demonstrate they're not a member of the class. Hence, "elites" actually has measure 0, despite what the sloppy thinker thinks prior to trying to measure the class. > Perhaps I can add two or more defining characteristics, these ephemeral > elites also believe they are speaking the truth and demand that the audience > also believes. This is what I call > "the evangelical personality." > Secondly they also believe that they are never responsible for unforeseen > outcomes. They invent rationalizations after a calamity to exonerate > themselves. > "The saintly fool personality" > Third they accuse someone, very publicly, announcing and justifying their > subsequent actions before acting. I guess these observations don't narrow > down the field very much for any of us. > "The righteously angry personality" > I guess the fourth factor is that they never admit they screwed up, ever. > "The good but stupid soldier" > I thought Beta's sucked up to Alphas on a regular basis like cheerleaders. > So now we have 7 characteristics. Not bad for a start. But suspect there are > a lot of amateurs in the grouping. Well, I count 6: 1. indefiniteness, 2. hermeneutics, 3. evangelizing, 4. negligent (saintly fool), 5. disciplinarian (you made me do it), and 6. abdicating. But what I was getting at with (1) and (2) was, I suppose, what is required within the head of the accuser. What are the characteristics of the way the accuser _thinks_ that results in them accusing some class of being "elite". Your (3-6) are traits that the accused might exhibit or the accuser might perceive. But they're not properties of the accuser's mind/thoughts. I set up my attempt to understand the accusers' minds, rather than attributes of the _accused_, because I believe the accusations are either TRIVIAL or FALSE. They're trivial because, as I said, we're all "elites" at something ... elite tooth brusher, elite seashell gatherer, etc. They're false because the classifications don't survive unless you choose a single well-defined predicate (like wealth or athletic achievement). So, the quesiton is: What type of mind accuses the "elites" of this or that. And the answer is: the type of mind that is prone to indefinite (schematic) thinking and an expectation of (or frustration with) hermeneutics. And those apply regardless of (3-6) or any other arbitrary descriptors of the alleged "elites". -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
