-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > Option 1 is that a recipient can't understand a concern or is unable to > act on a request for change from a signaler > Option 2 is that a recipient understands the concern but has a different > value system from the signaler that renders it moot > > If the effect of their behavior is damaging in some important way to the > signaler, then it doesn't really matter what the intent is. The > signaler's options are to displace the recipient from the environment or > move themselves.
Well, that's an awfully _binary_ way to think. [grin] I'd suggest there are a countable infinity of other options as well. One such option (let's say option 3) is to keep the recalcitrant recipient in the large group and form a still smaller group within the larger group that does not include the recalcitrant recipient. That way the group can preserve the good parts of the recipient's presence and minimize the bad parts. This could imply something like a hierarchical church where the sub-groups get smaller and smaller until you get to the _top_ person... e.g. the Pope. _Or_ the large group could consist of many overlapping small groups, some with hierarchy and some without. > Fair enough. One point is that people vary on many dimensions, and in > my view, the more the better. There's no shortage of people. My > example is indeed sub-group neutral and was to illustrate that two > people having many dimensions of incompatibility could still communicate > through abstractions, which in my view, this is a good thing to > facilitate and encourage. Another separate view is that groups can be > oppressive to the individual, and that the individual may well not be at > fault when so oppressed. I don't disagree with any of this. I would even carry it further and say that two people who constitute a very tight group in one sub-space (say husband and wife) may require delusion-inducing layers of abstraction in order to find common ground in other sub-spaces (like when an engineer marries an artist). > My view is that the world does not fall apart > when people do their own thing. The forces that create groups are > much stronger than the forces that ensure individuality. Again I don't disagree. In fact, this is just another way of saying what I've said: People do what they do _unintentionally_ because ... well, that's just what they do. The vast majority of them don't create groups to achieve some intended, personal, cognitive, purpose. However, resource-rich people may or may not do such purposefully manipulative acts. Most of us don't have the time or energy. Now, there is probably a _huge_ tendency to rationalize one's actions (probably after the fact but also before and during) and, thereby, ascribe a purpose and intention to group formation. For example, in high school, I was a member of the "jocks", "brains", and "heads". I like to think it's because any one group was too shallow and I purposefully jumped from group to group. But, in reality, it's probably just because I'm a misfit and happened to be good at sports, school, and hanging out at the boat docks listening to Black Sabbath. [grin] But such rationalizing is seductive and addictive. And a good conservative skeptic will make every attempt to doubt such intention and consider that it may be ascribed and not inherent. - -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. -- Barry Goldwater -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGy3PXZeB+vOTnLkoRAugQAJ9XNhLlJ8Y1V9QnnWQeKhQYWcWjFACfQbKT yzDrrPi150aFhV+A14gzZUY= =NjTn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
