Putting aside for a moment the outpouring of news content, which at the moment, is pressing the discussion of whether or not angry mobs are possible without social media (seemingly ignoring much of history), I might agree that data for *the relevance of ethics* are starting to flood in like Pennsylvania ballots. In fact, much of vFriam this week, seemed to be dedicated to beating around that bush. It had me in a bit of an *aporia* though, as I was unsure as to how to proceed. What exactly is wanted from ethics? My tendency is to put on my philosopher's hat or my scientist's hat, but more and more I feel doubtful that these tools are the correct ones. Forlorn, I find myself in a foundationless state of post-modernism, believing that there can be no analysis besides one situated in power dynamics and boundary disputes. Please advise.
-- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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/
