On 8/7/2014 5:57 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 2:52 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 8/6/2014 4:34 PM, LizR wrote:
On 7 August 2014 08:56, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I refuse to play this game where you get to knock down such
generalization with
partial edited posts, pretending they are held by anybody here in these
strong
forms,
PGC posted, "Assume some emergence phenomenon and you risk reductionism at
fundamental problem of identity, and the usual fascisms of discrimination
can
follow. Assume some universal person and you aren't a step further dealing
with
problems of evil and difference."
I thought saying that "the usual fascisms of discrimination can follow" was
blaming
reductionism as a component of racial discrimination...which seemed like a
stretch.
Liz feels similar it would seem; but assuming we or I got it wrong, with a nod to the
author of the body language post I can't recall (Kim, I think...too lazy to search)
concerning posts/communication problems on the net via text in general:
No, I don't blame our tendency towards reductionism across the board: just the idiotic
usual suspects.
Which are? I just don't see that reductionism versus holism has much to do with the use
or misuse of political power - which I take to be your concern. Misuse of political power
is usually accomplished by turning on group against another. So it's neither
individualism nor socialism; it's in-group socialism, mutual support all-for-one
one-for-all, combined with out-group xenophobia
Obvious, but if I have to: It's scientifically, creatively, theologically useful when
appropriate.
What does "It" refer to? blaming reductionism?
By contrast, reductionism to range of features worked into politics/law that
pragmatically/conveniently confuses possible with necessary dangers appears to multiply
idiotic assignments.
How is that reductionism? I don't understand the sentence. Can you give an
example?
It's more a stretch to assume "they (unwarranted discrimination acts/violence)" don't
follow ill-defined threat theologies of fuzzy secular or materialist orientation because
not only "can" they follow, they appear to do so:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/08/05/watch-commander/
You've lumped together the "unwarranted discrimination" of putting a person on a "watch
list" and the violence of bombing and airliner; between which I think there is some
ethical gap. And how is the threat of terrorist bombing of "secular or materialist
orientation" when the bombers are motivated by religion.
Like some major religions, the secular or materialist position does not provide
protection from idiotic persecution/politics.
The secular or materialist position on what? Whether everyone is the same person? The
secular/materialist position expressed in the Enlightenment is that each person should be
equal before the law and government exists only to serve the people in pursuing their own
happiness.
Especially given our thirst for large data, even assuming factual inaccuracy, hyperbole,
exaggeration of the link; it's naive to think this kind of phenomenon isn't ballooning
size, scope, and cost of similar needlessly discriminatory acts (profiling leading to
targeted advertising; Google snooping everybody's mail for law enforcement increasingly
etc) + institutions and industries they spawn.
The phenomenon of target advertising has been around as long as advertising, and so has
government surveillance. The main change has just been in the technology that makes to so
much easier to collect data on us internet users.
And yes, holistic postures can also be abused for propaganda. What makes one stance
inherently stranger than another, when majorities are fuzzy and mute on such question?
It's not clear to me that majorities are fuzzy and mute on the question of surveillance.
From the way they answer polls and the way they vote I think they're for it. I think
they're wrong to be so fearful of terrorists and so trusting of bureaucracy - but that
doesn't put me in the majority.
Negation space bunny teapotism?
??
Majorities, secular, religious, nationalist etc. have also been known for this stupidity
from time to time.
Which stupidity? unjustified fear?
Additionally, somebody sporting the banner of some interest/country doesn't always mean
they buy the banner (hesitant soldier examples, whistleblowers etc.) which weakens my
original post's positions quite considerably. PGC
?? I'm not sure how someone's private opinion weakens or strengthens what the say in
public. I suppose the public statements are strong or weak on their own.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
