Thanks for the elaboration, my "worst fears" trumped my "greatest hopes" when I read the Wikipedia article...
The first rule of Fight Club is "you do not talk about Fight Club" > Steve, > > I mentioned the Bellamy Clubs then and now, solely as an example of > spontaneous generation of hundreds of local groups to talk about the > future. I mentioned before I taught a class with Bellamy's grandson > who was writing a biography and i was told many a story about the > clubs and their evolution. > > First, they were a self-organized, spontaneous, emergent phenomena. > Not sponsored, not directed, just one neighbor talking to another, > "say have you read this?" > > It seems inevitable, and it was the case that the clubs became > "organized" and the discussion "formalized" which killed the whole > thing. Bellamy was appalled by the eventual "findings" of the club and > distanced himself from them. And of course they dissipated as fast as > they arose. > > If the generative phase of the clubs were to be replicated, it would > probably have to be on-line somehow and how you would prevent the > discussion from prematurely settling on a variation of the current > general political discussion instead of fully exploring alternatives — > I have no clue. > > davew > > > On Sun, Apr 19, 2020, at 9:31 AM, Steven A Smith wrote: >> >> Dave - >> >> I do remember your reference to the Bellamyists and probably wrote a >> long-winded (well-over 300) commentary which I then deleted. >> >> What I remember of that (my aborted response) was somewhat >> reactionary to Utopianism and Nationalism. In the spirit of >> productive optimism, I realize(d) my reactionaryisms was maybe not >> very productive. I don't want to devolve into the splitting of >> hairs we are so fond of here in this forum. >> >> With that caveat... I am struggling against those two things I >> impute to what little I know of "the Bellamyists". "One (hu)man's >> Utopia is another's Dystopia". And. "Nationalism is (dangerously) >> out-of-scale Tribalism". >> >> I guess I would ask why such a grandiose scale structure would need >> to be put in place? Would not an emergence from discussions among >> small groups (such as the threads on FriAM) not be a more practical >> and perhaps "safer" route? Is such a structure/container required, >> or perhaps it might be inevitable? But then it would not be >> Bellamyists, but rather DaveWestist? >> >> With that in mind... perhaps it is worth discussing the Bellamyites >> primary focus (as claimed in the Wikipedia Article that is my only >> source) of "nationalizing industry". That seems to be what the Left >> is leaning toward... or at least regulating/taxing industry at the >> federal level to the point that it IS effectively nationalized? >> What is the Right's version of that? In the spirit of NeoLiberalism >> and free-markets of which the Right is most fond, nationalization is >> anathema. >> >> And yet, it seems that the "free market" is best at innovation... and >> once an industry has been commodified, perhaps the next step IS to >> nationalization. There might have been a time when gasoline >> stations had something significantly different to offer, one from the >> other, but even the detergents and oxygenators seem to have become >> pretty standard(?lame assertion?) and the only difference is how big >> is the big-gulp soda in the convenience store, is it filled from the >> Coca Cola or Pepsi Cola pantheon and are more triggered by a giant >> yellow clam-shell logo or a green baby brontosaurus? >> >> I'm entirely with you on the diversity of foodstuffs referenced >> earlier... but IF/When I'm going to feed from the same trough of >> the same hybrids as my fellow piggies, why put so many different (or >> any?) labels on them? And then why not plant your own garden with >> seeds exchanged with friends and neighbors, localized to your >> conditions, and buy/trade what you can't grow from small (tiny) farms >> within a short drive (walk)? >> >> And I agree on the liminal, though I see liminality everywhere at all >> scales, like the fractality of an estuary and this moment is more >> acute and offering/demanding more focused/proaction? If we did live >> in our everyday liminality more-better, then this would just be an >> extrema(ish) of scale... but since we (mostly) don't, it feels like a >> change in quality in it's quantity. There I go, splitting hairs? >> >> - Steve >> >> >>> Steve, >>> >>> This *_should_* be a time between lightning and thunder, liminal, a >>> time "when all things are possible." >>> >>> I would love to be optimistic, even guardedly, >>> >>> Prerequisite, perhaps, is for everyone to accept Hywel's dictum, >>> "Ah, but it is more complicated than that" coupled with a heady dose >>> of agonizing reappraisal of one's unexamined positions. Healthy >>> doses, of "you have a point," "errors were made," "our ontology >>> should incorporate those distinctions," etc. >>> >>> A while back I spoke of the Bellamy Clubs as a social / civic/ >>> phenomenon focused on a "constructive way forward." Something of >>> that sort would be required to instantiate your optimism. >>> >>> davew >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Apr 19, 2020, at 7:14 AM, Steven A Smith wrote: >>>> >>>> Dave, et al - >>>> >>>> These are fecund times. The time between the lightning and the >>>> thunder - "when all things are possible". Or maybe, if you have a >>>> more apocalyptic bent, the beginning of the "end of times". >>>> William Gibson's "Jackpot" perhaps (to be more ambiguous). >>>> >>>> I think Churchill tried on (in oratorial style): >>>> >>>> "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the >>>> end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." >>>> >>>> In closing your "trip report" a dozen posts back you referenced >>>> once again, the likelihood of a violent clash between Left and >>>> Right or Red and Blue as a next logical/likely step in the path we >>>> seem to be stumbling (shambling?) down right now. >>>> >>>> The recent (armed) protests at state capitals, demanding that the >>>> Governors "open up the state" do seem foreboding. An almost >>>> self-abusive desire to trigger a breakdown in social order. >>>> >>>> The (""/failing!!!!""/ double-scare-quotes) New York Times opinion >>>> piece The America We Need >>>> <https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/09/opinion/sunday/coronavirus-inequality-america.html> >>>> from 10 days ago (feels much longer in Corona Time) exposes one >>>> side of the challenge (how modern society/America has been failing) >>>> and a hopeful response (how this crisis could help galvanize us to >>>> become who we need to be collectively). I'd love to hear >>>> something from the Right with an equally constructive perspective. >>>> Maybe I just have my ear on the wrong rail but I only hear "boom or >>>> bust" talk from the Right. >>>> >>>> Living with one foot in each camp (Red and Blue) I believe that the >>>> divide we feel is on one hand very real, but on the other >>>> deliberately aggravated as a way to keep us in dynamic tension (or >>>> more simply pitted-against one another) while those with most power >>>> keep stirring us up and raking off the top. Red/Right sees the >>>> threat of government/wealthy/elite/??? one way while Blue/Left see >>>> what I think is roughly the same threat very differently. But it >>>> might very well be the very same threat, and the pointy end is >>>> designed to keep us divided. >>>> >>>> And lest we create a strong "other" to reject/resent/hate/fear: >>>> "We have met the enemy, and they is us". >>>> >>>> The deficit-hawk, small-government GOP has been building up a State >>>> like none before it, and while they (and the NRA) are encouraging >>>> their loyal followers to arm themselves to the teeth, double down >>>> on ammunition, all the while militarizing the police, loading them >>>> up with armored personnel carriers and fully-automatic weapons >>>> (opposite the citizen's semi-autos), and bullet-proof vests, >>>> helmets and shields to maintain overwhelming force. Meanwhile, >>>> the Dems might be trying to nurture us out of our dysfunction and >>>> misery, sometimes disabling us more in the process, and the wealthy >>>> on that side are raking their share off of that, elbow to elbow at >>>> the same trough. >>>> >>>> We ship our (two hybrid strains of tomato and two germ-lines of >>>> beef) food halfway across the country (add coffee, avocados and >>>> bananas - world) from agri-industry-chemical soaked feed-lots and >>>> (formerly) fertile valleys and plains, burning fossil fuels (not >>>> just in the machines, but to make the hyper-fertilizer now >>>> needed). Whether we shop at Trader Joes, or Whole Foods, or Bob's >>>> Butcher or just order up Trump Steaks, we HAVE built a house of >>>> cards which is bending under the weight of this pandemic. >>>> >>>> Why does it feel like a segment of the population just wants to >>>> knock it down? >>>> >>>> Is there a constructive route up and out of this mess? The >>>> pandemic has exposed a LOT more of the weaknesses in our >>>> economy/society as this current administration has exposed the >>>> weaknesses in our government. It seems like an opportunity to try >>>> to rebuild thoughtfully rather than "tear it down" or "patch it >>>> back the way it was". >>>> >>>> Guardedly Hopeful, >>>> >>>> - Steve (574) >>>> >>>> >>>>> Nick, >>>>> >>>>> There is truth in what you say, but only a bit. >>>>> >>>>> I have certainly spoken as if "Science was a bunch of nasty people with >>>>> vested interests acting in an exclusionary manner." >>>>> >>>>> Hyperbole. >>>>> >>>>> A better metaphor / analogy would be the way we have hybridized our food >>>>> supply; e.g. 90 percent of all dairy cows have one of two bulls in their >>>>> ancestry, there are one or two tomato hybrids, one or two strains of >>>>> rice, wheat, corn, etc. >>>>> >>>>> This creates a huge vulnerability — a novel pest or disease and presto, >>>>> no food supply. >>>>> >>>>> Now imagine that there are multiple species of investigation, thinking, >>>>> knowledge. >>>>> >>>>> Since the Age of Enlightenment, the western world has been hell bent on >>>>> hybridizing but one of them — Formalism (aka, roughly, Science). >>>>> >>>>> Yes, I believe that Formalism has attained such a privileged status that >>>>> it tolerates no criticism and critics are "excommunicated" with prejudice. >>>>> >>>>> I would like to think of myself as someone interested in growing heritage >>>>> tomatoes in my garden and marveling at the differences in taste and >>>>> texture and finding very deep value from the use of them in culinary >>>>> creations. >>>>> >>>>> davew >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, at 8:58 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com >>>>> <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Dave, >>>>>> >>>>>> No, wait a minute! Thou slenderest me! For you, Science is a bunch >>>>>> of nasty people with vested interests. Science, on that understanding, >>>>>> has the power to exclude. For me, Science is a set of practices that >>>>>> lead to understandings of experience that endure the test of time. It >>>>>> is not the sort of thing that can exclude. If pot smoking in bubble >>>>>> baths leads to understandings that endure the test of time, then it is >>>>>> a scientific method. Something like that seemed to have worked for >>>>>> Archimedes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nick >>>>>> >>>>>> Nicholas Thompson >>>>>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology >>>>>> Clark University >>>>>> thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> >>>>>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> >>>>>> <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of Prof David West >>>>>> Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 6:31 PM >>>>>> To: friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of >>>>>> anthropological observtions >>>>>> >>>>>> Nick, >>>>>> >>>>>> I won't lose the argument, because I pre-believe that, IF alternative >>>>>> means with some kind of criteria for falsifiability and repeatability >>>>>> THEN they should be incorporated into that which is deemed "Science" — >>>>>> ergo there is no argument to lose. >>>>>> >>>>>> If there is an argument — and there is clearly a difference of opinion >>>>>> — it centers on the the issue of why Hermetic Alchemy, Acid >>>>>> Epistemology, Anthropological Thick Description, Ayurvedic Medicine, >>>>>> Adams' "rhetorical analysis" et. al. are, at the moment and for the >>>>>> most part, excluded from Science. >>>>>> >>>>>> davew >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, at 5:28 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com >>>>>> <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dave, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You're going to lose this argument with me eventually, because any >>>>>>> investigatory practice that works in the long run I am going to >>>>>>> declare to be part of "the scientific method." So if you declare that >>>>>>> discovery is enhanced by lying in a warm suds bath smoking pot, and >>>>>>> you can describe a repeatable practice which includes that as a >>>>>>> method, and that method produces enduring intellectual and practical >>>>>>> structures such as the periodic table, then I will simply say, "That's >>>>>>> science." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am not sure this works with my falsifiability schtik, but that must >>>>>>> have been at least 4 hours ago. So "before lunch". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nick >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nicholas Thompson >>>>>>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University >>>>>>> thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> >>>>>>> <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of Prof David West >>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 5:07 PM >>>>>>> To: friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> >>>>>>> Subject: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of >>>>>>> anthropological observtions >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Consider three entities making 2016 political predictions and their >>>>>>> predictions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1- "cognoscenti" those citing poll data, Nate Silver (albeit as >>>>>>> everyone notes, the citation was more interpretation than citation), >>>>>>> pundits, et. al. — Trump, at various times, has 1/1000 to 1/3 chance of >>>>>>> winning the election. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2- Scott Adams - Trump "very likely" will win to "almost certain" he >>>>>>> will win. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3- davew - Trump will win. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> # 3 is a fool because he made no effort whatsoever to hedge his >>>>>>> prediction. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The first group used traditional polling, statistical modelling, etc. >>>>>>> to come to their conclusions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Scott Adams used none of those methods/tools but, as described in his >>>>>>> book — Win Bigly — the language and rhetoric analysis tools/techniques >>>>>>> he did use. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> davew remains coy about how he came to his certainty. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> QUESTIONS: Are there different approaches, different avenues, >>>>>>> different means, for acquiring "knowledge?" I am being vague here >>>>>>> because I do not know how to make the question precise. But it would >>>>>>> have something to do with different definitions of what is considered >>>>>>> data and different techniques/tools for digesting that data to form >>>>>>> conclusions — in this instance predictions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If there are different approaches, is a comparative analysis of them >>>>>>> possible? desirable? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Different approaches — useful in different contexts? How to determine >>>>>>> appropriate contexts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Or, is there but one avenue to knowledge — Science — and all else is >>>>>>> idiosyncratic opinion? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Personally, I think there is use in pursuing this type of question and >>>>>>> then using the answers / insights to makes sense of the multiple >>>>>>> conversations concerning COVID and the response thereto. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> davew >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- >>>>>>> ... .... . ... >>>>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>>>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe >>>>>>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>>>>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>>>>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- >>>>>>> ... .... . ... >>>>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>>>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >>>>>>> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>>>>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>>>>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- >>>>>> ... .... . ... >>>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >>>>>> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>>>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>>>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- >>>>>> ... .... . ... >>>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >>>>>> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>>>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>>>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... >>>>> .... . ... >>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >>>>> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. >>>> .- ... .... . ... >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >>>> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>>> >>> >>> >>> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... >>> .... . ... >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>> >> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- >> ... .... . ... >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> > > > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... > .... . ... > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/