Pamela, the present structures cannot be "reformed." We need a revolution that allows new structures to emerge. Visit our website and read about the ECOS gathering.
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Pamela McCorduck <[email protected]> wrote: > I found that article on Enough with this Basic Income Bullshit an > interesting read. I had to wonder why he capitalized Entrepreneur, as if it > were Realtor, or some other nonsensical social climbing, but I agree that > the system will need major overhauls. He is not alone in believing this, > given all the “end of capitalism” writings we see. > > Pamela > > > > On Sep 9, 2016, at 3:33 PM, Steven A Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > glen - > > > > > >> As usual, I ignore all the places where we agree and emphasize the > disagreements ... because life is more fun that way. 8^) > > I understand that... though it IS my habit to acknowledge the things I > agree on to more starkly expose the ones I don't (or at least I try to do > that). > >> > >> I'm not sure when it happened. But at some point I began to buy the > idea that politics is deeply embedded in everything. I think it started > when I moved to the bay area and heard people (constantly) say things like > "that's just politics" ... implying that whatever they were talking about > was somehow not politics. > > This is very much the Glen I know... a particular subdiscipline of > contrarianism? > >> This article reinforced my position just this morning: > >> > >> Enough With This Basic Income Bullshit > >> https://salon.thefamily.co/enough-with-this-basic-income- > bullshit-a6bc92e8286b#.1xcadg3vf > > I'm reading it now, though the rich hyperlinking to interesting side > topics and references is causing some intellectual ablation! I've come to > recognize something like a "0th world problem" which are issues that are > even more abstract and relatively empty than "1st world problems"... That > is what I'd call my experience with this rich offering you made. > thefamily.co is all new to me BTW... thanks for that too! > >> > >> As a result, I began following all the politics I could stomach as > closely as my [in]competence would allow. > >> > >>> Though I think gay (LGBTQZedOmega) and reproduction rights would have > been retarded and a few (other) conservative Xtian rights would have been > advanced differently but... > >> > >> Maybe. I resist our "great person" (https://en.wikipedia.org/ > wiki/Great_Man_theory) tendencies wherever I find them, though. It's > reasonable to speculate that Obama had much less to do with those advances > than we might think. > > I agree with dismissing the GPT in first order effects, but I think > there are many second order effects which are much more significant. Sure > jOeBama couldn't pull us out of Iraq/Afghanistan or shutter Gitmo or ... > and ... the way we thought he would/could/should... and we can postulate > reasons and excuses until the cows come home for that. My point about the > things that *were* achieved under his watch and the *different* ones to > have likely been achieved under a Wealthy/Conservative/Mormon Romney > relates to the spirit of the community. An unfortunate example might be > the current focus on police abuse, particularly in urban african-american > communities. I think the minimal empowerment of having our first black > president may have lead both to the popular pushback against the abuses and > possibly even generated more abuses? Under our first female president, I > think we will likely see some significant shifts in gender issues, not > necessarily because Hillary is a "Great Woman" who would single handedly > "lead us forward", but just because of the social tenor set by her rise to > the top of our political game. > >> But it's also dangerous to argue that some event/process would have > happened regardless. That's a typical flaw of my libertarian friends > who'll claim that advances like artificial hearts or whatnot, despite being > government funded, would have emerged even without government funding. > Criticalities (like "great people") probably do play some/much role in > some/many cases. I'm simply skeptical that we can tease out which cases. > > I think this is an acute example of the things dual/hybrid models which > include both discrete (particle, agent, etc) and continuous (field, patch, > etc.). I am hypothesizing that the individual (great person) does less in > their direct role, exercising their personal/professional agency than they > do by setting a tone, representing an ideal... and that doesn't just > include their sycophantic followers, it includes their vitriolic opponents > as well... those who "rise up against". I think a good deal of our > gridlock in the government was a reaction to Obama both as a black man and > as a (presumed) liberal, more than anything he specifically did or did not > do. > >> > >>>> In short, this game has absolutely nothing to do with the > >>>> idealistic system(s) framing Arrow's or Condorcet's propositions. And > >>>> that may partially explain why markets would be more robust > predictors. > >>> > >>> Excepting, I would contend that "this game" is *shaped* by the lack of > viable paths to successful 3rd party intrusions INTO the game. > >> > >> Well, good games, games that I find _fun_, anyway, are always > co-evolutionary with implicit objective functions. Boring games are those > with unambiguous rules, zero-sum outcomes, etc. Were I to run for a large > office (or participate on the campaign of someone running), I'd regard the > viable paths as part of the game, not isolable merely as the context of the > game. > > I am not arguing against the strategies of the two major parties or > their candidates. I understand why they want to keep the game defined for > their own purposes. I also understand why the wannabes wanna change the > game up. What is more puzzling to me is why/how "we the people" can > continue to *pretend* we are unhappy with the status quo while all but > *citing* the status quo as the motivation for our behaviour? "I HATE our > polarized two party system but I won't even LOOK at the third parties > because THEY are not viable in our current context!" What? How will they > ever BECOME viable if you won't give them any consideration? For me, this > moment of clear and extreme disaffection with the party in the first part > and the party in the second part, is the perfect opportunity to make some > inroads into the very change we *claim* we want. Oh well. > >> > >> Perhaps this is why, during near-drunken argumentation, people always > accuse me of private definitions and "moving the goal posts". 8^) Who says > I can't move the goal posts? What game were _you_ playing? > > I have played a variant of battleship where each player is allowed to > move one ship after each salvo from the other player. It is at least as > interesting as the original. > >> > >> Yes, I would have thought this directly in the camp of "applied > complexity". I have a friend working on election security: > http://freeandfair.us/ But that work is too "close to the metal" for me, > I guess. I'd prefer a systems engineering project experimenting on > geopolitical systems in general. I imagine there are lots of people doing > that work, breathing stale air in faraday cages peppered around the country > housed in various nondescript buildings. > > Oddly, NM is a great place for faraday cages without stale air! As you > may guess, contemporary adobe structures make pretty fair faraday cages... > at least if they have stucco netting (or better yet expanded metal > plaster-lathe) and metal (rather than nylon) window-screens... just make > sure the two are well connected (stucco net and window screens) and the > embedding in the adobe on a foundation makes a pretty good ground. By > having lots of thermal mass (adobe, preferably double) you can leave the > windows open and solve the stale air problem. > > > > I haven't done careful analysis or research, so the density of stucco > netting might not be fine enough to handle all frequencies, but it sure > does work well to attentuate/absorb wifi, bluetooth and cellular signals! > I'm doing a pilot project in a small farmstead in NNM to > deploy/test/prototype a village-telco mesh and I'm *very* thankful that the > window screens are nylon (and NOT electrically connected to the stucco > mesh)... on most of the buildings... > > > > People unfamiliar with NM architecture would call most of our farmhouses > "nondescript". > > > > > > ============================================================ > > 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 > > > ============================================================ > 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 > -- Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D. President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA [email protected] mobile: (303) 859-5609 skype: merle.lelfkoff2
============================================================ 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
