I can't think of when I'm not puny. And yes it might have
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Arlo Barnes wrote:
> That is Dewey decimal system, unless you were making a pun that went over
> my head. Duodecimal is base 12.
> -Arlo James Barnes
>
> ==
That is Dewey decimal system, unless you were making a pun that went over
my head. Duodecimal is base 12.
-Arlo James Barnes
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http:
Hmm I thought to be a Libertarian you needed to know the Duodecimal system,
able to stamp books with a rubber date stamp, and promise to return books
on time. And if you work for the unseen university be good with penuts.
(Rimshot)
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:30 AM, glen wrote:
> On 01/12/2014 1
On 01/12/2014 10:43 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> The fluid comes with plumbing to control it, of course. Overall, I
> agree, those with money have power. I even agree that those that have
> the self-control to acquire and control their money probably are
> demonstrating rational behavior in do
Hmm a bit overly complicate: Hawking and Right good science, when Left to
there own devices.
(Rimshot)
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:18 PM, glen wrote:
> On 01/09/2014 11:52 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
> > On 01/08/2014 06:56 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> >>
> >> Wouldn't be wonderful if one of the right wi
On 01/12/2014 09:50 AM, glen wrote:
Money will always (eventually) dominate as the way to store power.
It seems to me the idea of long-term (inter-generational) storing power
is contrary to the underlying suggestion of the Right that power has
been earned or is socially necessary somehow.
On 01/12/2014 10:57 AM, glen wrote:
Anyway, no, "idealism" is non-rational. As I've tried to explain, I
think to be rational requires multiple options. By that I mean actual,
feasible options, not just possible in principle. Idealism tends
toward pure, non-interactive, closed reasoning. Ideali
On 1/12/14, 10:54 AM, glen wrote:
I look at various people who really just need a tiny amount of capital
to, say, start a food cart or a hand-made soap business, or whatever,
and look at the ways they have to spend their time to satisfy multiple
objectives.
The fluid comes with plumbing to cont
On 01/12/2014 08:33 AM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
> I don't know you Glen. Do you have a heart? Is "idealism" rational?
Hm. Sorry if I seem like a robot. A friend of mine recently called me
a "digital autistic". Apparently he thinks I'm normal face-to-face.
Anyway, no, "idealism" is non-rational.
On 01/12/2014 09:12 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> It's not just the money that matters its the ideas and the
> leadership too.
Of course, I agree. But we can make a further distinction between ideas
like, say, a waterless urinal versus, say, credit default swaps. While
I agree that all inventio
On 1/12/14, 9:50 AM, glen wrote:
But only money has the fluidity required for maintaining power and
control.
What I was getting at in the other e-mail was that it is, in some sense,
too fluid. A lot of people that look at their credit card balances
after the holidays can probably empathize wi
On 1/12/14, 9:50 AM, glen wrote:
Ah, got it. The ROI of the rich is steadily going down. But what you're
saying is only that one group of rich guys is losing influence compared
to another group of rich people. The two groups may be distinguishable
but they're still rich.
I don't know about that.
On 01/11/2014 05:45 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> On 1/11/14, 5:27 PM, glen wrote:
>> 1) The responses have NOT successfully shown examples where the rules
>> are set by non-rich people.
> Exercising authority or influence doesn't necessarily mean having rules
> or setting them. "Off with their
Ah, got it. The ROI of the rich is steadily going down. But what you're
saying is only that one group of rich guys is losing influence compared
to another group of rich people. The two groups may be distinguishable
but they're still rich.
At worst that just means the aphorism is too vague, not tha
Behalf Of glen
> Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 5:56 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] right vs left
>
> On 01/11/2014 04:41 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> > Neither you nor Marcus seem to have much enthusiasm for this arg
mpson/naturaldesigns/
-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 5:56 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] right vs left
On 01/11/2014 04:41 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Neither
On 1/11/14, 5:27 PM, glen wrote:
"Outside groups, including super PACs and nonprofit organizations,
have spent almost four times more on the 2012 presidential campaign
than comparable organizations spent at the same point in the 2008
cycle, an analysis of Federal Election Commission filings sho
On 1/11/14, 5:27 PM, glen wrote:
1) The responses have NOT successfully shown examples where the rules
are set by non-rich people.
Exercising authority or influence doesn't necessarily mean having rules
or setting them. "Off with their heads" ought to get above the bar.
It seems odd and bias
On 01/11/2014 04:41 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Neither you nor Marcus seem to have much enthusiasm for this argument, and I
> think every body else is bored cross-eyed by it, and I am not sure I
> understand it, and all my attempts to clarify it are treated as nit-picking,
> so ...
Nit picking
Since Nick is the instigator and it's not clear to me how facile he is
with threaded discussions, I've compiled all my responses into one post.
Unfortunately, this leaves me very little room to make any arguments
myself. I'm just responding to what others have said. So, I'll prepend
the _gist_
nuary 11, 2014 5:27 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] right vs left
Since Nick is the instigator and it's not clear to me how facile he is with
threaded discussions, I've compiled all my responses into one post.
Unfortunately, this leaves me v
On 1/11/14, 1:16 PM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
What do you mean by "rich"?
If you go by New Mexico, where the mean household income is $70,760, and
define rich to be "the 1%".
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_12_5YR_DP03
And assume that income
esigns/
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 1:17 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] right vs left
Guys,
It's honestly been "the other way" a lot. There was eve
ity
>>
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Marcus
>> G. Daniels
>> *Sent:* Friday, January 10, 2014 10:10 PM
>> *To:* friam@redfish.com
>>
>> *
ology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Marcus G.
> Daniels
> *Sent:* Friday, January 10, 2014 10:10 PM
> *To:* friam@redfish.com
&g
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, and
uraldesigns/
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G.
Daniels
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 10:10 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] right vs left
On 1/10/14, 6:28 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
(2) Second, given that understanding of what I agreed to, there A
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
(http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/
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 go
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. Se
ckthompson/naturaldesigns/
-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 3:42 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] right vs left
On 01/10/2014 02:31 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
pson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 8:11 AM
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.
Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 2:22 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] right vs left
On 01/10/2014 12:43 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Well, we have started. But I don't think we have made a good star
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 post
nickthomp...@earthlink.net
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 13:43:26 -0700
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] right vs left
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 &quo
iday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] right vs left
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
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 01
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 pe
---
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 8:11 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] right vs left
On 01/09/2014 07:28 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Ok. Great. Where would you like to start?
Well, we&
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
On 1/9/14 6:59 PM, glen wrote:
If it turns out to be necessarily the case that rich people rule the
world, then more refined questions would revolve around how to govern
the behavior of the rich people.
I'm told that in some countries like Sri Lanka, money comes with power,
rather than power wit
, January 09, 2014 5:41 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] right vs left
On 01/09/2014 04:34 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> I wonder how you and I might have an rational discussion of our difference?
> But then come to think of it, why would a libertaria
Glen/Marcus/Nick sed:
"He who has the gold rules"
Yeah. I can't go along with that.
I wonder how you and I might have an rational discussion of our
difference?
Is Glen's quote above his belief ("He who has the gold _ought_ to
rule") or an proposition he is making about who ends up ruling in
Glen, my good friend -
[...]
but most card-carrying Libertarians *would* risk personally assasinating
an innocent person or being party to a lynchmob who did the same... and
*that* is why I can't "hang" with them. Revenge might be sweet, but it
is not Justice and often lowers everyone to the lo
On 01/09/2014 05:01 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> On 1/9/14, 5:34 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>> Glen wrote:
>>
>> "He who has the gold rules"
>>
>> Yeah. I can't go along with that.
>>
>> I wonder how you and I might have an rational discussion of our
>> difference?
> Is Glen's quote above his beli
On 1/9/14, 5:34 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
Glen wrote:
"He who has the gold rules"
Yeah. I can't go along with that.
I wonder how you and I might have an rational discussion of our difference?
Is Glen's quote above his belief ("He who has the gold _ought_ to rule")
or an proposition he is maki
On 01/09/2014 04:34 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> I wonder how you and I might have an rational discussion of our difference?
> But then come to think of it, why would a libertarian WANT to have a rational
> discussion with somebody he disagrees with? That's not a rhetorical
> question.
A liber
ary 09, 2014 2:19 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] right vs left
On 01/09/2014 11:52 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
> On 01/08/2014 06:56 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>>
>> Wouldn't be wonderful if one of the right wingers on the list would
>
On 01/09/2014 02:34 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> [...]
> but most card-carrying Libertarians *would* risk personally assasinating
> an innocent person or being party to a lynchmob who did the same... and
> *that* is why I can't "hang" with them. Revenge might be sweet, but it
> is not Justice and oft
On 1/9/14, 3:51 PM, glen wrote:
In other words, a safety net doesn't go far enough. If all we're going
to do is provide a safety net, then we may as well do nothing at all.
And why one might have the contingency of nudging interesting folks
towards mercenary instincts, if there is reason to thi
On 01/09/2014 01:45 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> [...] -- a safety net. That means
> taking at scale (i.e. taxing) and filling in the gaps around those that
> don't fit immediately within the economy & society where they find
> themselves. If one buy that there is anything of value to subject
Glen sed:
I would say that many liberals would be willing to risk a few murderers
and rapists be left on the loose to avoid hanging even *one* innocent
person, while most conservatives (and libertarians?) would be willing to
risk hanging a few innocent persons (as long as they don't look too
muc
On 1/9/14, 2:18 PM, glen wrote:
You not only have to be creative and _useful_. You also have to be
willing to kick @ss and TAKE your share ... even if you sometimes take
too much or too little.
This liberal's observation is that these are ordinary (i.e. boring) but
not universal capabilities.
On 01/09/2014 11:52 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
> On 01/08/2014 06:56 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>>
>> Wouldn't be wonderful if one of the right wingers on the list would
>> agree to explore the foundations of this value difference.
>>
>
> I would say that many liberals would be willing to risk a few murd
55 matches
Mail list logo
