It's a matter of completeness. There is no completely bad cultural attractor. And there is no completely good cultural attractor. It's the same with the least influential homeless person and the most universal cultural norm (like laughter or somesuch). Influential people, ideas, canalized behaviors, etc. have both good and bad consequences ... or maybe there is no objectively good or bad consequence and it's all alignment, fit-to-purpose.
My argument here is that if we want to understand things like QAnon, we're going to have to develop a science and engineering around such cultural attractors and that includes dehumanizing those attractors we currently identify with human individuals ... similar to the way we've de-iconified/de-personalized the gods. On 3/12/21 2:46 PM, Prof David West wrote: > Is there such a thing as a “good” or at least “benign” great (wo)man e.g. > Chouinard of Patagonia and the mission statement to save the planet. OTOH — > they are just as much a prod of circumstance as a Bezos, but the seem, at > least superficially, qualitatively different towards the “good.” > > Or is this just an instance of billionaire-asshole; millionaire-maybe? -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
