Steve Smith wrote at 09/27/2012 12:55 PM: > I don't find the golden rule (one variant of "social equality"?) exactly > a delusional idea, though that is probably a thread unto itself.
Well, it's on topic. The search for a biological mechanism for the golden rule seems to target the disagreement between religion and atheism. Personally, I think the golden rule is a largely useless abstraction. It lacks any operational detail. Sometimes I might well want to be punched in the face ... sometimes I don't. Sometimes I'd like Renee' to offer me some of her candy bar. Sometimes I don't. I'm currently ~20 lbs overweight. 8^) > BTW, I'm not sure I think of this as a "lossy compression" as a > dimension-reducing projection. Multiple transactions can be like > multiple points of view projected from said high dimension, recovering > some of what was "lost" (obscured) in any given transaction/POV. That's a great point. The compression algorithm is just as important as its inputs and outputs. > In fact it is likely that I would not "sell" > but "gift" such a precious nugget of protein/sustenance to the right > member of a community as an ultimately selfish act. This is also an interesting point. The dichotomy between selfishness and altruism is false. I think it says something important when a gift giver (loudly) claims they don't want/expect anything in return. I like to play with people who fail to come to my parties after I sent them an invitation. They often will say things like "Don't stop inviting me", which opens the door for Eris! My last victim, a neighbor, said something like "I really wanted to come but blahblahblah." I responded: "That's OK. We only invited you so that you wouldn't call the cops on us when we got too loud." I still don't know whether he knows I'm joking. > If you have ever suffered the attentions (presence) of someone with "too > much money", you might not call the last one "benign". There is > nothing more offensive than someone whose spare change exceeds your net > worth, tossing it around as if they can buy you, or your firstborn, or > your soul with the flick of a pen... I don't find that offensive at all ... ignorant, yes, but not offensive. > It is one of the worst things I > find about first world tourists in third world countries, even without > realizing it, dropping a months wages for someone in service class on a > single meal for themselves. It is dehumanizing, even if it supports the > tall pyramid of an extreme trickle-down economy. I guess I have to disagree there, too. I don't think that act, in isolation, is dehumanizing. I think it depends more on the cloud of attitude surrounding the act. If you treat the locals with respect, look them in the eye, engage their customs, listen when they talk, etc. ... i.e. treat them like humans, then it doesn't matter one whit how much you spend on your food. The trouble is that wealth engenders abstraction. So, the wealthy tend to view everyone around them as tools. > to adding absolutely nothing to the economy > except the management/manipulation/speculation of loans. I'm still torn on this. I do think "financial instruments", in general, are good. I just can't predict which ones will yield good things versus bad things ... until _after_ we've used them and seen their effects. -- glen ============================================================ 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
