Merle, I posted so long ago I forget what I said. I’m not a revolutionary, never was. I don’t like most revolutions since 1776. But I’m surely open to new ways of approaching the problem.
> On Sep 13, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Merle Lefkoff <merlelefk...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Pamela, the present structures cannot be "reformed." We need a revolution > that allows new structures to emerge. Visit our website and read about the > ECOS gathering. > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Pamela McCorduck <pam...@well.com > <mailto:pam...@well.com>> wrote: > I found that article on Enough with this Basic Income Bullshit an interesting > read. I had to wonder why he capitalized Entrepreneur, as if it were Realtor, > or some other nonsensical social climbing, but I agree that the system will > need major overhauls. He is not alone in believing this, given all the “end > of capitalism” writings we see. > > Pamela > > > > On Sep 9, 2016, at 3:33 PM, Steven A Smith <sasm...@swcp.com > > <mailto:sasm...@swcp.com>> wrote: > > > > glen - > > > > > >> As usual, I ignore all the places where we agree and emphasize the > >> disagreements ... because life is more fun that way. 8^) > > I understand that... though it IS my habit to acknowledge the things I > > agree on to more starkly expose the ones I don't (or at least I try to do > > that). > >> > >> I'm not sure when it happened. But at some point I began to buy the idea > >> that politics is deeply embedded in everything. I think it started when I > >> moved to the bay area and heard people (constantly) say things like > >> "that's just politics" ... implying that whatever they were talking about > >> was somehow not politics. > > This is very much the Glen I know... a particular subdiscipline of > > contrarianism? > >> This article reinforced my position just this morning: > >> > >> Enough With This Basic Income Bullshit > >> https://salon.thefamily.co/enough-with-this-basic-income-bullshit-a6bc92e8286b#.1xcadg3vf > >> > >> <https://salon.thefamily.co/enough-with-this-basic-income-bullshit-a6bc92e8286b#.1xcadg3vf> > > I'm reading it now, though the rich hyperlinking to interesting side topics > > and references is causing some intellectual ablation! I've come to > > recognize something like a "0th world problem" which are issues that are > > even more abstract and relatively empty than "1st world problems"... That > > is what I'd call my experience with this rich offering you made. > > thefamily.co <http://thefamily.co/> is all new to me BTW... thanks for that > > too! > >> > >> As a result, I began following all the politics I could stomach as closely > >> as my [in]competence would allow. > >> > >>> Though I think gay (LGBTQZedOmega) and reproduction rights would have > >>> been retarded and a few (other) conservative Xtian rights would have been > >>> advanced differently but... > >> > >> Maybe. I resist our "great person" > >> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Man_theory > >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Man_theory>) tendencies wherever I > >> find them, though. It's reasonable to speculate that Obama had much less > >> to do with those advances than we might think. > > I agree with dismissing the GPT in first order effects, but I think there > > are many second order effects which are much more significant. Sure > > jOeBama couldn't pull us out of Iraq/Afghanistan or shutter Gitmo or ... > > and ... the way we thought he would/could/should... and we can postulate > > reasons and excuses until the cows come home for that. My point about the > > things that *were* achieved under his watch and the *different* ones to > > have likely been achieved under a Wealthy/Conservative/Mormon Romney > > relates to the spirit of the community. An unfortunate example might be > > the current focus on police abuse, particularly in urban african-american > > communities. I think the minimal empowerment of having our first black > > president may have lead both to the popular pushback against the abuses and > > possibly even generated more abuses? Under our first female president, I > > think we will likely see some significant shifts in gender issues, not > > necessarily because Hillary is a "Great Woman" who would single handedly > > "lead us forward", but just because of the social tenor set by her rise to > > the top of our political game. > >> But it's also dangerous to argue that some event/process would have > >> happened regardless. That's a typical flaw of my libertarian friends > >> who'll claim that advances like artificial hearts or whatnot, despite > >> being government funded, would have emerged even without government > >> funding. Criticalities (like "great people") probably do play some/much > >> role in some/many cases. I'm simply skeptical that we can tease out which > >> cases. > > I think this is an acute example of the things dual/hybrid models which > > include both discrete (particle, agent, etc) and continuous (field, patch, > > etc.). I am hypothesizing that the individual (great person) does less in > > their direct role, exercising their personal/professional agency than they > > do by setting a tone, representing an ideal... and that doesn't just > > include their sycophantic followers, it includes their vitriolic opponents > > as well... those who "rise up against". I think a good deal of our > > gridlock in the government was a reaction to Obama both as a black man and > > as a (presumed) liberal, more than anything he specifically did or did not > > do. > >> > >>>> In short, this game has absolutely nothing to do with the > >>>> idealistic system(s) framing Arrow's or Condorcet's propositions. And > >>>> that may partially explain why markets would be more robust predictors. > >>> > >>> Excepting, I would contend that "this game" is *shaped* by the lack of > >>> viable paths to successful 3rd party intrusions INTO the game. > >> > >> Well, good games, games that I find _fun_, anyway, are always > >> co-evolutionary with implicit objective functions. Boring games are those > >> with unambiguous rules, zero-sum outcomes, etc. Were I to run for a large > >> office (or participate on the campaign of someone running), I'd regard the > >> viable paths as part of the game, not isolable merely as the context of > >> the game. > > I am not arguing against the strategies of the two major parties or their > > candidates. I understand why they want to keep the game defined for their > > own purposes. I also understand why the wannabes wanna change the game up. > > What is more puzzling to me is why/how "we the people" can continue to > > *pretend* we are unhappy with the status quo while all but *citing* the > > status quo as the motivation for our behaviour? "I HATE our polarized two > > party system but I won't even LOOK at the third parties because THEY are > > not viable in our current context!" What? How will they ever BECOME > > viable if you won't give them any consideration? For me, this moment of > > clear and extreme disaffection with the party in the first part and the > > party in the second part, is the perfect opportunity to make some inroads > > into the very change we *claim* we want. Oh well. > >> > >> Perhaps this is why, during near-drunken argumentation, people always > >> accuse me of private definitions and "moving the goal posts". 8^) Who > >> says I can't move the goal posts? What game were _you_ playing? > > I have played a variant of battleship where each player is allowed to move > > one ship after each salvo from the other player. It is at least as > > interesting as the original. > >> > >> Yes, I would have thought this directly in the camp of "applied > >> complexity". I have a friend working on election security: > >> http://freeandfair.us/ <http://freeandfair.us/> But that work is too > >> "close to the metal" for me, I guess. I'd prefer a systems engineering > >> project experimenting on geopolitical systems in general. I imagine there > >> are lots of people doing that work, breathing stale air in faraday cages > >> peppered around the country housed in various nondescript buildings. > > Oddly, NM is a great place for faraday cages without stale air! As you may > > guess, contemporary adobe structures make pretty fair faraday cages... at > > least if they have stucco netting (or better yet expanded metal > > plaster-lathe) and metal (rather than nylon) window-screens... just make > > sure the two are well connected (stucco net and window screens) and the > > embedding in the adobe on a foundation makes a pretty good ground. By > > having lots of thermal mass (adobe, preferably double) you can leave the > > windows open and solve the stale air problem. > > > > I haven't done careful analysis or research, so the density of stucco > > netting might not be fine enough to handle all frequencies, but it sure > > does work well to attentuate/absorb wifi, bluetooth and cellular signals! > > I'm doing a pilot project in a small farmstead in NNM to > > deploy/test/prototype a village-telco mesh and I'm *very* thankful that the > > window screens are nylon (and NOT electrically connected to the stucco > > mesh)... on most of the buildings... > > > > People unfamiliar with NM architecture would call most of our farmhouses > > "nondescript". > > > > > > ============================================================ > > 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 > > <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> > > > ============================================================ > 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 > <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> > > > -- > Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D. > President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy > Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA > merlelef...@gmail.com <mailto:merlelef...@gmail.com> > mobile: (303) 859-5609 > skype: merle.lelfkoff2 > ============================================================ > 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
============================================================ 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
