On 8/7/2014 12:46 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 7:54 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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?
Erm... you have to wait in a conversation or written text for the other side to respond
as this way, you can accuse anybody of failing to address a question they set out to
treat, before they do so. Already addressed that.
I thought you would address them, but having read the whole post I didn't see any examples
of reductionism that were guilty. So maybe I misunderstand how you use "reductionism".
Rather than "explaining things in terms of the interaction of simpler elements" maybe you
mean "abstracting into a a few oversimplified categories". I was looking for some
explication.
I just don't see that reductionism versus holism has much to do with the
use or
misuse of political power -
Exactly my final point in the last post. Straw man of partial editing again.
So we're in agreement.
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?
Just 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?
Reducing a system to its elements/constituents/features for some purpose. Take
your pick.
"Reducing a system to its elements" I can understand. "Politics that pragmatically
confuses possible with necessary dangers appears to multiply idiotic assignments." I can
understand. I just don't see the connection.
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;
Everybody on a watch list "could" bomb an airliner would be the skewed logic. Confuses
potential and necessity, which was my point.
Sure. But some people are much more likely to bomb and airliner than others. So some
discrimination is warranted. The watch list is supposed to list those for which the
potential is high. Nobody confuses that with necessity. If they were necessarily going
to bomb and airliner they'd be on an arrest warrant, not a watch list.
between which I think there is some ethical gap.
You're really fishing here. I don't think there is a clear winner in "what's worse: mass
surveillance for all futures/peoples of type X, or bombing an airliner?" Please elaborate.
That's just picking strawman extremes. Consider the other extreme, which is worse mass
bombing of airliners all over the world so that no one is willing to fly anywhere, or
inconveniencing a few people by putting them on a watch list. If you want to be serious
you'll have to consider tradeoffs.
And how is the threat of terrorist bombing of "secular or materialist
orientation"
when the bombers are motivated by religion.
How do you know?
I didn't say I knew. You're the one who asserted it was "secular or materialist
orientation" to blame.
People in tough economic situation can be manipulated in all kinds of ways. It doesn't
always have to be "idiot who believed in virgins"; as radical right wing would have us
think.
Like some major religions, the secular or materialist position does not
provide
protection from idiotic persecution/politics.
The secular or materialist position on what?
On ice cream. Come on Brent... you implying that you don't see this refers to reality,
truth, state of affairs?
The secular/materialist position is that one's beliefs should be proportioned to the
evidence. That's the best protection I can think of.
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.
As preached by CNN? Please, Brent. Is your boogie here for real or you pulling my leg?
Part of this happiness is surveillance, prohibition, death penalty, economic opportunism
externalizing costs plus all the justice conundrums we've discussed on this list.
Pursuit is not necessarily achievement. It seems that a significant par to this society
like things you don't like. When I feel like that I write letters, join protest marches,
donate to causes I favor. What do you suggest?
My point here, irrespective of people's beliefs not always exerting influence on
everything they do, is that pursuit of happiness can be construed to mean "take
advantage of others until you get caught" => does not save us from theological trap of
taking our own core beliefs too seriously, and hurting ourselves/others.
On the other hand if you take all your beliefs frivolously, you will never act on them and
never improve the world. That's the mystic's detachement.
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.
So? That is appropriate justification according to you? I'd say you usually have higher
standards than this.
I said it was a cause not a justification.
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?
??
Placeholder for perceived esoteric positions with common derisive connotation;
"perceived" because it's easy to shoot them down and make fun of them without taking a
stance and then masking the sniping with complexity, like the news, cultural propaganda
do, or a ton of posts, questions and details for example. Majority is wrong on a lot of
things and easy to influence.
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.
It's what the speaker or writer intends, despite misunderstandings, possible errors, and
invalid interpretation. If I say something is ambiguous and state that I'm not sure,
then this is different than stating there is valid reasoning/assumptions to grant
certainty of this ambiguity and what should be done about it. PGC
Fair enough.
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.
