Hi Roger, That's just too trivial as a solution, although nothing finally is: the attractor of dynamical systems and phase space are fascinating, although I fail to see how the discussion advances through them.
There is something difficult about power/control, even speaking restricting to linguistic frame. Whether one looks to Teun van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Don Kulick... yes, these guys have political axes to grind at times, but I agree that power/will to control can mask itself as anything and the work of these linguists is to document and expose how this marks discourse. Say somebody comes to you with a set of "hundreds of problems" and you lend a listening ear. It's ambiguous linguistically speaking whether: 1) This somebody really needs your help with his jarring list of problems, and is prepared to sincerely tackle them, taking your advice into deep consideration. 2) This somebody is barraging you with messages, out of desire/power/insecurity, and before one problem has been tackled, has already jumped to the next because the problems themselves don't really matter: she/he just wants to be "taken seriously" and feel control, with you jumping though all of their "problems and questions", necessitated by solidarity, respect, politeness expectations of discourse. Number 2) according to most linguists I've read, is force and harm onto others, publicly, through the media for instance, as well as in private discourse/messages, and marks its somewhat violent control agenda by no significant concern for answers or the problems themselves, pretend follow-up to answers, half listening, and half answering. But it gets devious/cruel when agenda 2) poses more convincingly as 1). Thus for now, I remain convinced that the ins and outs of the control structure "self", as Bruno put it, make agendas inaccessible because notions of self, are as semantically slippery as they have always been. My aesthetic sense/intuition/taste, computational or not, doesn't really consider this to be a problem. It just tells me in Nietzsche style: "No. 1 is beautiful and No.2 is ugly. If you can't distinguish, then you have no taste- or at least lack some taste, a sense of style and should acquire some or more, if you want some measure on such problems." Of course, I take this with a large grain of salt. But any comments on self, agendas, control welcome. Thanks Robert and Bruno for yours. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Roger <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy and all > > The logic of an Agenda is purposeful or goal-oriented, what Aristotle > called "final causation". where an object is PULLED forward by a goal. > By what should be. > > This is the opposite of "efficient causation", as in determinism, > in which objects are PUSHED forward. By what is. > > > Hi Roger, It's hard to convince myself of that as a solution, although the attractor concept of dynamical systems and phase space are fascinating. But I fail to see how the discussion advances through them. There is something difficult about power/control, even limiting ourselves to linguistic frame, barring that we have access to the total set of possible computations running through our 1p state at any one time. Whether one looks to Teun van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Don Kulick... yes, these guys have political axes to grind at times, but I am somewhat convinced that power/will to control can mask itself as anything and the work of these linguists is to document and expose how this marks discourse. Say somebody comes to you with a set of "hundreds of problems" and you lend a listening ear. It's ambiguous linguistically speaking whether: 1) This somebody really needs your help with his jarring list of problems, and is prepared to sincerely tackle them, taking your advice into deep consideration. 2) This somebody is barraging you with messages, out of desire/power/insecurity, and before one problem has been tackled, has already jumped to the next because the problems themselves don't really matter: she/he just wants to be "taken seriously" and feel control, with you jumping though all of their "problems and questions", necessitated by solidarity, respect, politeness expectations of discourse. Number 2) according to most linguists I've read, is force and harm onto others, publicly, through the media for instance, as well as in private discourse/messages, and marks its somewhat violent control agenda by no significant concern for answers or the problems themselves, pretend follow-up to answers, half listening, and half answering. But it gets devious/cruel when agenda 2) poses more convincingly as 1). Thus for now, I remain convinced that the ins and outs of the control structure "self", as Bruno put it, make agendas inaccessible because notions of self, are as semantically slippery as they have always been. My aesthetic sense/intuition/taste, computational or not, doesn't really consider this to be a problem. It just tells me in Nietzsche style: "No. 1 is beautiful and No.2 is ugly, bloated, overdose of messages and problems discourse fluff, posing as No 1) . It's easy, if you subscribe to training this faculty of your intuition, capacity for aesthetic judgement provides instant output, instead of assuming blindly you can tell truth from lie. You can't, you can just better your statistics. If you can't distinguish at all, then you have no taste- or at least lack some + a sense of style and should acquire more, if you want some measure on such problems." Of course, I take this with a large grain of salt and usually give people benefit of the doubt, as a sort of tribal commitment. But any comments on self, agendas, control welcome. Thanks Robert and Bruno for yours. PGC :) > > > Roger , [email protected] > 8/20/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so > everything could function." > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > *From:* Platonist Guitar Cowboy <[email protected]> > *Receiver:* everything-list <[email protected]> > *Time:* 2012-08-19, 15:14:47 > *Subject:* Re: On puppet governors > > > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 18 Aug 2012, at 17:55, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> On 15 Aug 2012, at 14:46, Roger wrote: >>> >>> But humans are not entirely governed from outside, they have their own >>> agendas. >>> >>> >>> >>> We have a top level agenda: maximise self-satisfaction, and minimize >>> self-dissatisfaction. This can be programmed in very few lines, but needs a >>> very long time to bring sophisticated being like us.� >>> >>> >> But doesn't concept or computation of "self" makes this statement on >> self's agenda much less clear than it looks? >> >> Is "self" some conceptual cartoon or program, like individual isolated >> humanist "bag-of-flesh + brain soup", a consumer in a market with bank >> account, a career, set of personal experiences, a class idea, is it a >> tribal idea, or is it some esoteric notion of "Gaian world soul", a family >> notion etc.? >> >> >> It is more like a control structure. The self is really defined by the >> ability of some program to refer to their own code, even in the course of a >> computation, like an amoeba can build another similar amoeba. Or like when >> you look into a mirror and recognize yourself. It is the third person self, >> like in "I have two legs". Then the math shows that a non nameable deeper >> self is attached with it, and obeys a different logic (the soul). >> >> Satisfying oneself, in nature, is mainly drinking when thirsty, eating >> when hungry, mating, peeing, etc.� >> But with its big neocortex, the man has made things more complex. By >> incompleteness (or akin) he is never fully satisfied, want more, get >> addicted, refer to authorities, and then to forget how happiness is easy. >> >> >> > Convincing, but I am less sure. Particularly because 1p perspective has > apparently many selves (the list I mentioned: "bag of flesh, consumer, > career, family, citizen etc.") and the distinction between "self" and > "other" is subject to transformation. Sometimes boundaries are > insurmountable and sometimes they vanish. Time influences this perhaps. > > But according to you, building on incompleteness, if we forget/ignore G鰀el > and comp enough, happiness is easier :) This is not good marketing. > > m > > > � > >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
