<<What I hear pretty exclusively is "I won't vote for them because nobody else is voting for them" or maybe even more pointedly "I won't listen to them because nobody else is listening to them".>> I have been far more afraid of a major regression to our democracy than any compulsion to pursue the kind of progressive efforts I would try to advance. I don't think my fear was misplaced. I take some comfort that I was not alone in this. Kind of like that feeling after 9/11 that minor disagreements were silly and irrelevant. Will have to find a way to navigate all this. Sigh. Marcus
________________________________ From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Steven A Smith <sasm...@swcp.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 5:16:56 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Trump Is Just A Normal Polling Error Behind Clinton | FiveThirtyEight Glen - I appreciate the nuance here. I have been dealing with crypto-fascists all of my life... we have discussed the libertarian vs the Libertarian, I have endured the years where Lefty political correctness was approaching fascism and I have had to endure the Righty style fascism that seems to be hitting a crescendo under the rallying cry of that "man-child" running for president. I isolate myself enough in daily life so as NOT to have to spend too many cycles on this constant interpretation, for those who do not have that luxury, I understand that this can be deeply painful to the psyche if not the soul. I refer you to the musical observations of the philosophers known as "They Might be Giants": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow-nuHCTA5E Unfortunately, *I* believe that the language we use in our communication deeply informs the language we use to think... and that by adjusting our discourse with others can lead us to think (for better or worse) differently. I believe that the damage being done to our culture today is as much the way our thinking is modified by this presidential race as it is the possible outcomes. We are leading ourselves to believe that our only two choices are to become a xenophobic, retrograde, bigoted people or to continue with a status quo which is clearly not serving many, many people very well. While I don't completely agree with or support Jill and the Greens, I DO appreciate the alternative rhetoric they have offered. Her *very* low polling indicates to me that either *many* of us really aren't willing to think outside of one of the two boxes offered to us, OR, there is something specifically wrong with their message that *I* am not getting? What I hear pretty exclusively is "I won't vote for them because nobody else is voting for them" or maybe even more pointedly "I won't listen to them because nobody else is listening to them". - Steve On 11/8/16 8:25 AM, ┣glen┫ wrote: Right. It's not quite right to suggest that switching codes is bimodal or bivalent. I think it's more of a spectrum, at least in an informal sense. If we were talking about a person trying to communicate a complex idea in a non-native language then switching to their native language, that would be more bimodal. But I'm talking more about, eg, realizing in the middle of a conversation that you're talking to a crypto-fascist who puts up a good veneer at first, then reveals their fascism over the course of the conversation. When I realize it, I switch, either to something that will completely alienate the person, or to language that makes me sound more like a fascist, depending on how I feel at the time. Marcus' idea of a an interpreter vs. languages closer to the bare metal is, I think, akin to Nick's idea of imaginary vs. factual. And the gist is solid. There's a very high overhead interpreting through many layers of abstraction or entertaining imaginary worlds through the suspension of disbelief. It's a luxury we can't always afford. But both assume there exists a bare metal. I'm a constructivist, for the most part, and believe all our languages are interpreted and there really is no such thing as a natural, close to the metal, machine code. There are no linguistic or cognitive facts, only action facts. And this may be closer to what you're trying to say, because that means that we are always interacting through an interpreter, albeit sometimes many layers out vs. only a few layers out. On 11/07/2016 08:05 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: I guess I already feel I have to "code switch" all the time already... I have to speak a pidgin of Left/Right/Green/Libertarian/Anarchist just to communicate with my friends and colleagues on these matters. I understand and agree that in world D, the emergent patois will be much less familiar/comfortable than the one I have now and that in world H, it will be much more familiar, less abrupt of a change. I guess I assumed that Agent G and agent M were more like me in this regard than maybe they are.
============================================================ 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
