Take a look: emergentdiplomacy.org, click on ECOS. I'd especially love your feedback. I've been thinking about this since my TEDx talk a few years ago, and now we're making it happen.
I'm a recent revolutionary since growing inequality, climate change, and forever war are our biggest global challenges, and elites in power have blown it. My indigenous friends in N. Dakota, who rightly call themselves "protectors", not "protestors" have attracted the President, himself. That's the only thing that seems to work now. I have seven grandchildren--sounds cliche, but I'm damned worried about them. So I've become a Complexity activist! On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Pamela McCorduck <[email protected]> wrote: > Merle, I posted so long ago I forget what I said. I’m not a revolutionary, > never was. I don’t like most revolutions since 1776. But I’m surely open to > new ways of approaching the problem. > > > On Sep 13, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Merle Lefkoff <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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-bul >> lshit-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 > > > > ============================================================ > 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
