Your interleaving broke me. I can't tell if you have a coherent thing
to say or if you're merely reacting shallowly to the things I've said.
Maybe it's because I'm still sick from my last COVID infection and
just can't think straight. But I can't coerce your interleaved
responses into a coherent whole. Sorry.
I appreciate that you try and that you are direct in acknowledging when
you fail. I am not in a good position to judge where the blame or
remedy to this lies. I know that my intention is not to "react
shallowly" and I do know that I believe that what I am saying is at
least *seeking coherence*. In particular seeking a "mutual coherence"
with what I think I hear you saying. I think that is the point of
dialogue, or maybe more pointedly "conversation"? I am not trying to
"prove a point" by any measure, but rather seeking what point might be
self-evident from our contrasting perspectives on it?
But I can respond to the primary point I think I was making, which is
that the disambiguation of the 2 conceptions of telicity (1 - agential
aspiration vs. 2 - calculation where a final state is an input)
I think I understand 1) but am struggling with 2). Are we talking
about the "forward chaining" where the results of one intentional act
becomes the input to the next turn of a telic engine-crank? The
self-other scaffolding of co-evolution evolution?
relies on asking questions like "How personal is the calculation?" Is
it merely about you, the agent? Or is it about something larger, like
the system in which you (the agent) operate? If it's the latter, then
telicity leans more my way (type 2). If it's the former, then it leans
Nick's way (type 1).
At risk of blurring away from the coherence I aspire to in this
conversation, I'm lost as to why/how these must be distinct and not in
an obvious way coupled? Is it not the co-evolution of "the agent" and
"the agent's context" which drives these systems forward?
The dissolution of self (however it's brought on - hallucinogens,
ecstasy, beauty, etc) is one way to ensure we talk about type 2
telicity, rather than type 1. Individualism ("efficient markets", BDI
agents, etc.) restricts telicity to type 1, whereas socialism
(networks, fabrics, fields vs particles, etc) allows both, conflates
the two.
Maybe you are saying what I just tried to say above? My intuition is
that we are talking about the same thing in the same sense but with
confoundingly complementary lexicons or idioms?
Those of us who are tricked by profundity seem to feel an urgency for
self-dissolution. My guess is that's because they don't have a way to
induce ecstasy in themselves, at will. Whether you develop a regimen
of judicious drug use or can simply dive in and back out of deep
bullshit like String Theory doesn't matter that much. All you need is
some/any method by which to induce ecstasy in yourself. And if you
have such a method, you won't be *desperate* for it. And if you're not
thirsty in that way, you won't fall for profundity against your will.
On a good day (hour minute second), everything feels profound to me and
I needn't focus on/be-drawn-to/generate anything more than what is "just
there"... if there is a bottom line for me in this conversation it is
reinforcing this.
I am *drawn* to this list for the relative profundity (and deep bullshit
as in string theory or more snarkily our "complexity babble") it offers
me. Even while the dragonflies perching on the tips of the reeds
growing from the pond filled with fish and insects and myriad other bits
of life dancing together can be plenty if I allow it. Or the clouds
scudding in the sky, bumping up against the Sangres, phase-changing into
rain to wet the rock and vegetation and fill the streams, recharge the
aquifers and acequias to overflow into the arroyos to irrigate the
fields and surge my pond to ... ... ...
I am struggling (contentedly?) in this moment to understand your
conception of telic, of how it relates to the ecstatic experience of
profundity and the recursive (telic?) drive to generate yet-more
(pseudo?) profundity.
FWIW, Jon and I sat out by that pond last week with young Tycho who
contentedly moved a handul of dirtied mah-jong tiles around on a
handmade table while the 'dolts spoke "of many things: Of shoes—and
ships—and sealing-wax—Of cabbages—and kings—And why the sea is boiling
hot—And whether pigs have wings."
I am saddened that mutual coherence is so elusive... supporting your own
repeated suggestion that "communication is illusory", but nevertheless
ever-hopeful that "the illusion of communication" is in some fundamental
sense real and is the magic dust of the coherence I seem to believe in?
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
