Steve Smith wrote at 04/12/2013 11:25 AM: > I've been heard using the term Homo Hiveus to describe one end-state > that humans may (socially) evolve to... I'm not convinced it is > necessary or even possible... but I *do* feel it would be a tragic loss > if humanity becomes one big lock-step colony (or set of > competing/mutually-ignoring? colonies). I think we have a > counter-example to this in societies such as the Japanese who (from my > Western/American perspective) seem to be a lot more predisposed > (culturally?) to give over to collective behaviour. The fascists of > early last century seemed prone to this (in a top-down way?), and to > some extent the collectivists (socialism, communism), and for the most > part all of those have (mostly) failed to capture the hearts and minds > of the members of the collective.
Yes, I agree. It may simply be one of population density. As long as we have the rural communities and inter-deme transmission, we can probably resist total over-convergence. > Extremist fanatics might be the closest to this? Individuals being > "captured" by a small set of very powerful and shared memes? Moonies, > Muslim Bro'hood(???), Taliban(???), Aryan Nation, Extreme Right Christians. But examples like these demonstrate that even if we won't end up in overwhelming over-convergence, there are isolated pockets where people are stuck in the ideological gravity wells of the consensus surrounding them ... like ants in an antlion pit. > And how do you feel about thoughful action and actionable though <grin>? At worst they're myths. At best, they are post-hoc justifications or rationalizations. Now concepts like "mindfullness" are simply misnomers because they're really about suspending your inner narrative and paying attention here and now. If there's a mind I approve of at all, it's the immediate mind, tightly coupled with the environment, as opposed to some hysterically deep hidden markov homunculus. > And I hear... "the map is not the territory", if you really want to see > what is in that area labeled "there be dragons here", you need to go > visit, and don't expect to come home having bagged a dragon, but you > might get eaten! The aphorism about models that maps directly to "the map is not the territory" is "all models are always wrong". No matter which way you cut the relationship between a model and its referent, it's false. The value in modeling lies in the constellation of models, not any one model. > I agree perfectly (now go ride off a cliff!) <smirk> Ha! No offense, but just because you tell me something doesn't mean it's true. I think one could drive a very large truck through the volumes with which we disagree. > I like your term - Crypto Idealism... now, have you ever considered that > you might be paranoid? <grin> Every minute of every day. -- =><= glen e. p. ropella I'm living in a room without any view ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
