On 01/09/2014 07:28 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
Ok. Great. Where would you like to start?
Well, we've already started. See Marcus' post, my response, and Steve's
response. I tried to send a private message to you to see if you wanted
to take a one-on-one conversation off line. But my e-mails
Oh, Dear. It's not supposed to do THAT! It's just supposed to ask where you
live, where your mother lives, for your first born son as a hostage, and three
players to be named later. Did it actually refuse you? Could you send me a
copy of that message so I can have them killed? Earthlink
I think this works for awhile but since it's a positive feedback system
(making the rules gets you more gold) it eventually breaks or has to be
intervened. So when the revolution comes we know who will be first
against the wall/sent to the guillotine/sent packing. Following an
undetermined
Nick and I are headed to Capitol Cafe.
Frank
---
Sent from my Android phone.
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe
On 01/09/2014 07:48 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
I'm told that in some countries like Sri Lanka, money comes with power,
rather than power with money.
Make an appropriate tax table, or send out the military intelligence to
deal with these people that fancy themselves as the deciders.
On
Glen,
Well, we have started. But I don't think we have made a good start. I would
like to be arguing about something about which we agree there is probably a
truth of the matter. Now that might violate some libertarian's (or at least
some postmodernists) principles from the start.
Ah yes. Propose a nonsense topic, wait until it is shown to be nonsense,
they raise a vague follow-up
topic, and ask the other person to say something in particular for you.
Do you want to get your hands
dirty or just play professor?
Original email:
-
From: Nick Thompson
On 01/10/2014 12:43 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
Well, we have started. But I don't think we have made a good start. I would
like to be arguing about something about which we agree there is probably a
truth of the matter. Now that might violate some libertarian's (or at
least some
Frank,
Thanks for organizing the shift. That worked pretty good.
Your comments about my argumentative style are taken and noted with
gratitude. In general, I think you are correct that I like to provoke a
discussion, although I don't particular mean to provoke a person. I think
there
Nick writes, incidentally to Frank's comments about [his] argumentative style:
As for the inner life thing, I
don't think I am dishonest when I say that I don't believe in an inner life.
I admit that I have something like that as an experience, but think it must
be an illusion.
The
Yes. I agree. We might get into trouble later regarding understandings of
rich, but mostly it's true. It tends to be less true in hunter gatherer groups
where less dominant males tend to gang up and control their more successful
colleagues. See Boehm's Democracy in the Forest. I think
On 01/10/2014 02:31 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
Yes. I agree. We might get into trouble later regarding understandings of
rich, but mostly it's true. It tends to be less true in hunter gatherer
groups where less dominant males tend to gang up and control their more
successful colleagues.
Define right vs left: Steve Hawking can right good science, when left to
his own devices.
(Rimshot: I'll be around all week)
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Nick Thompson
nickthomp...@earthlink.netwrote:
Glen,
Well, we have started. But I don't think we have made a *good* start. I
Glen,
I hope this helps.
CONCLUSION:
There are examples of less ruling of the rich and, even if there were no such
examples, a discussion of why it would be better if we had less such ruling
would be useful.
ARGUMENTATION: I agreed to the proposition that the rich tend to have a
On 01/10/2014 02:31 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
Yes. I agree. We might get into trouble later regarding understandings of
rich, but mostly it's true. It tends to be less true in hunter gatherer groups
where less dominant males tend to gang up and control their more successful
colleagues.
On 1/10/14, 3:41 PM, glen wrote:
OK. So, as a descriptive fact: He who has the gold rules. Now we go
back to Marcus' question: Does the aphorism mean He who has the gold
_ought_ to rule? At which point, I just reiterate my response, which
is: Since all we've ever known is He who has the gold
Yeehaa!
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/liftoff-spaceshiptwo-celebrates-new-year-test-flight-2D11767010
Commercial flights planned from NM although test flights are in Mojave, a
standard testing ground.
-- Owen
FRIAM Applied
On 1/10/14, 6:28 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
(2) Second, given that understanding of what I agreed to, there ARE
examples where the rich are not as dominant as the rich are in our
current society. In fact, not long ago, we were such a society.
For example
Marcus,
I guess I don't follow. Perhaps others will clarify.
Best,
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
On 1/10/14, 10:45 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
I guess I don't follow.
One can always deconstruct to the point that whatever we hold dear is
arbitrary.
That's an exercise many people don't seem to do, for whatever reason.
Maybe they find it upsetting.
The left draws from one set of premises,
20 matches
Mail list logo
