Glen, Steve, Nick, Like possibility and necessity <https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/necessity+and+possibility> are formal duals, born from an adjoint situation, I can suggest poetry versus deposition. The salient common feature is one of openness. When I speak poetically I am reaching, inviting interpretation, allowing for contradiction. When I am being deposed I aim for consistency, to fortify truths, and to establish clear boundaries.
I mention these here in an attempt to provide a case study for our (presently) three orders of privacy. The degree to which individuals rely on poetry or deposition in their discourse provides for the individual's different strategic options. Lately I have been listening to the Red scare <https://redscarepodcast.libsyn.com/> podcast. The two hosts keep themselves in a poetry domain much looser than I think I can maintain for any period of time. A side-effect of this looseness is that they can at times appear to be talking past each other, seemingly unphased by contradictory expressions, and yet are clearly developing a shared complex of understanding. For an empathetic observer, it is crucial to not adopt an extreme position with respect to the poetry-deposition scale. Either extreme leads to meaninglessness. In the former case everything becomes everything, in the latter only tautologies survive. Without needing to put things in terms of Alices and Bobs, we can focus on what it is to have interpersonal connectedness within our three orders of privacy. At times the two hosts are very explicit that being indirect is a valuable strategy in their personal dealings, one gets a strong sense of steganography. This steganography in-turn forms a basis for the ambiguity and deniability of a given interpretation (second-order privacy). Lastly, this second-order privacy (through indeterminacy and freedom from deposition) gives rise to a playground for expression and poetry. What seems interesting here is not the project of identifying encoders with their decoders, but rather the possibility of modeling conceptual play. Here I am thinking of concept in the sense of Carnap <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-intensional/#ParIntLog> (again from the SEP article on intensional logic). Concepts there are functorial, they are seen as structural mappings that take states-of-affairs to objects of designation. Varying states-of-affairs over their objects of designation provides room for conceptual play, though at the expense of consistency. I have been trying to think about how to make this idea more precise over the last couple of days. I will continue too, but I wanted to be sure to add a log to our conversational fire. Another possibly interesting case study could be that of the trustafarian. In the trustafarian case we can identify gaming with dissimulation [1] (in the Baudrillard sense). Here, the obscurity is access to money and familial support. When we see a trustafarian on the street spanging or at a music festival rubbing petroli into dreaded hair locks, we are not seeing their rich LA power-lawyer fathers (anonymity). I leave the obvious cases of deniability and ambiguity as an exercise for the reader. Lastly, there is a gaming/dissimulation layer. This individual will continue to act as if they have nothing: spanging, sleeping on a dirty blanket, dumpster diving for food, etc... Jon [1] For Baudrillard, dissimulation is when one acts as if they do not have what in fact they do. See the 6th bullet point here <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/baudrillard/notes.html>.
-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
