I think the GR just says you might want to value context over doctrine.
On 9/27/12 7:53 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:
Well... so much for discussing modeling...
Personally, I am not a big fan of the Golden Rule because it implies
that everyone /should /be happy with the same things. It also implies
the very arrogant position that what you-in-particular want can be the
"should" for everyone else. How about if we try to "do unto others as
/they /would have us do"?
As an example I am sure many on the list are familiar with: My mother
does all sorts of things for me that she wishes I would do for her. We
reach an impasse when I try to explain (usually for the 20th time)
that I actually dislike the thing she is doing.
We can get into a similar place if, for example, we think of all the
weird kinky things that some people might like us to do unto them, but
we would really prefer they didn't do unto us. And yes, there is
nobody on this list that someone, somewhere, wouldn't want to do some
really, really nasty things with. (See "Rule 34")*
Eric
*This is where there is a small chorus says "speak for yourself"; for
you people, imagine those desiring very boring and mundane things.
P.S. Having many times been in the presence of "people with too much
money", even by middle-income US standards, I find the types of
behaviors Steve mentioned annoying, but in no way offensive. Of
course, I have been raised to have a strong belief in personal
property, and (despite my hippy parents) have strong Libertarian
leanings. I have never seen anybody dump a month's worth of my wages
on a single meal, but I have seen a month of my salary go to a table
of meals, and I have attended private events that probably cost a year
of my salary. I think such spending is dumb, I wish they would give a
bit to me, but ultimately it is their money. And, since it is on
topic, "There, but for the grace of God, go I." Grace is funny some
times ;- )
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 08:28 PM, *glen <[email protected]>* wrote:
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
------------
Eric Charles
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601
============================================================
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
============================================================
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
