I also was happy I spent much of last weekend *not *on my computer, for
once.
> Anyway, I can't accept determined attributes as being something worthy
> of pride. Enter the "free will" -- for individuals -- and "stigmergy"
> -- for collectives -- debate(s). What attributes can we really be proud
> of and what do we chalk up as hysteretic?
>
I do not really know enough about hysteresis to understand this analogy,
but I think this might be a conflation of meanings within the English
language. This kind of confusion happens pretty often, see my notes on
'expect' below. Pride can either mean a claim to competency ("look at this
vase I made, I am proud of it") or general approval associated with
identity ("I am proud of the Aerican Empire / Free & Open Source movements
/ city council although most of the contributions to these efforts were not
by me, because they do good things that I am in some small way a part of").
> Similarly, what can we _expect_ from those around us without seeming
> "spoiled and usurious"? Even the most John Wayne style individualist
> (self sufficient, yet generous, honorable, naively respectful, etc.)
> will end up disrespecting her environment (people and things) because
> individualism is ... bullsh!t, to put it nicely.
I have only seen a couple of John Wayne movies (sounds like that is
representative though, just kidding) but as I recall his characters 1)
shoot and punch people 2) sometimes just for fun, and 3) have been injured
and relied on help. He does not seem like the epitome of low impact living
to me.
> So, one not only
> should we have expectations, we _must_ in order to fully understand
> symbiosis.
There are many ways that biological symbiosis is different from social
symbiosis, but I think in both the usual sense of 'expectation' does not
apply ("I expect you'll be leaving on the 12:00 train, then", "You failed
to meet expectations, Bob, we will have to let you go", "Welcome welcome
welcome, to the land of expectations, to the land of expectations, to the
land [...]").
If a clownfish fails to ward off predators and parasites from a sea
anemone, the anemone is not going to say "What the heck man, we had a deal"
and withdraw it's protection, it is just going to continue what it was
doing. Of course, if it dies from parasitism and predation, the clownfish
has one less anemone to hide in. This is why not only biological forms can
evolve, but also ecosystemic patterns. The point is, symbiosis is not
exactly governed by consent, but by mutual opportunism. Each partner takes
what it wants/needs (there is really more of a gradient than a strong
distinction), and can afford to give a little. It is generalised
reciprocity<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(cultural_anthropology)>:
An individual or species realises that if there are such-and-such defenses
and offenses *here*, and not *there* in order to save on the cost of
specialisation, then on average they tend to do alright.
So I think rather than having social conventions about how much we should
trust people (or how much we think people should trust us), trust should be
an analytic endeavour: we can use best practices in prediction, such as
they are, to try to guess what a more-or-less safe approach to a given
interaction would be, based off past patterns of activity, theories about
behaviour, and so on.
> (That reminds me of the continuing increase in narcissism
> scores of college students. Oddly, as civilization progresses,
> entitlement progresses... funny that.) What should we expect, if not
> lives better, richer, more luxurious, more relaxing, than our parents'?
>
This trend seems unsustainable, as there is no such thing as infinite
luxury, wealth, and relaxation. We should instead set some ulterior goal
(whatever you want, be it development of a field like technology or art, or
observation / replication of the universe) and then remove poverty,
discomfort, and stress where they impede completion of this goal to the
extent needed. I feel it would be much more beneficial to the species and
planet as a whole for someone else to be assured of a source of meals than
for me to have access to more technology. If we can do both, great
(sometimes these things can leapfrog).
-Arlo James Barnes
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
