No, and I didn't remember the joke, but google tells me if I haven't seen one then their strategy for hiding there must be working.
-- rec -- On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Nicholas Thompson < nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Well, GEEZ, Roger. Have YOU ever seen an elephant in a cherry tree? > > > > Nick > > Ps: if you are too young to know what an elephant joke is, you won’t get > this. In fact, if you’re old enough to know what an elephant joke is, you > still may not get it. > > > > > > > > *From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On > Behalf Of *Roger Critchlow > *Sent:* Friday, December 10, 2010 2:15 PM > > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Privacy, Individual vs. Collective > > > > I'd say that the original conspiracy theory was the suspicion that one was > being stalked by a group of very stealthy predators. Usually a false > positive, but one false negative and you were lunch. > > > > -- rec -- > > > > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:14 AM, glen <g...@ropella.name> wrote: > > Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote circa 10-12-08 10:29 AM: > > > It seems conclusive to me that most conspiracy theories can be attributed > to > > Gross Stupidity and the Secrecy imparts an air of reasoning where none > > exists. ( We refuse to believe some affairs are complete and utter > nonsense, > > hence all the sightings of Jesus in concrete stains. Our brains impart > > patterns where none exists) How much effort is expended to reveal that > some > > agency was incompetent or stupid (Air India, Lockerbie Bombing). > > Although this perspective on 6 sigma thoughts (e.g. conspiracy theories) > is reasonable and practical, it's also dangerous. We, as a population > depend fundamentally on the thinkers in the tails of the distributions. > Those people do the due diligence none of us practical, reasonable > people are willing to do. Sure, it's true that most of what those (us) > wackos spend their (our) time on ends up being rat holes and dead ends. > But the benefit is worth the cost. Without wackos like Penrose > speculating about quantum decoherence in the brain or astrobiologists > _wanting_ to demonstrate the functional equivalence of chemical > constituents in compounds like DNA, we'd be lost. Our progress, if we > made any at all, would be made by blunt thinkers whose best > contributions enslave us to machines like assembly lines or standard > accounting practices. > > Even more to your overall point, the wackos, albeit in the tails of some > distributions, can be thought of as the _most_ human, the grounding > points for other distributions. What's more human than the plight of a > paranoid schizophrenic? What's more human than strapping on a diaper so > you can make good time stalking the object of your affection? _These_ > are the people who save us from becoming _objects_. They must be > cherished and treasured for their humanity. > > Don't be too hard on the wackos. And don't resist becoming a wacko > yourself. Let your freak flag fly, man. ;-) > > -- > glen > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
