Glen, I was thinking this was my own obsession only. But the mind of the accuser is repeatedly presenting itself as more important then any specific category. It runs through them all like a river.
I recall someone wishing to learn how to build sailboats and that person thought I was born with such talents. Somehow I restrained myself at the idiocy of such a statement. As far as I knew all that I was born with was appetite and the uncontrollable instinct to void myself. Sailboats took 3 decades to master The leaky guts and pipes only two years. I started wondering why a man would attribute some extraordinary gift of birth to another and resent me for it. I have been accused of cheating at cards simply for having a memory of what was played and what was not. I have watched people after a big thunderous noise automatically assert that they did nothing, even before the least effort at analysis of what just happened. So the next action if it can be called that was to blame anyone near by and still deaf from the noise. These accusers are generally not very quick witted and unreliable. There are too many to fight at once so learn to duck. Personally I treat them as being defective and symbolic emotional thinkers. Perhaps these categories are misleading and what is going on is much more primitive, deeper into a kind of pre-social tribal mind set. Accessible only through fear. vib that was a useful exchange on a serious problem. But what intrigues me is how your letter ended up in my Junk folder. Lucky I found it. -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ? Sent: January-30-17 6:01 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Globalism in the age of populism? .. & Open Source Software On 01/27/2017 08:34 PM, Vladimyr Burachynsky wrote: > So I cause confusion only because I do not fit into any well > established classification system. I bring this up because my experience in > life defies most systems which you are attempting to tease apart. Well, to be clear, I offered the idea that abstract categorizing is easily broken by concretizing the categorized. So, you're simply backing up what I was saying. In essence, the categories are artificial. Concretizing any particular person imputed to be a member of the class, will demonstrate they're not a member of the class. Hence, "elites" actually has measure 0, despite what the sloppy thinker thinks prior to trying to measure the class. > Perhaps I can add two or more defining characteristics, these ephemeral > elites also believe they are speaking the truth and demand that the audience > also believes. This is what I call > "the evangelical personality." > Secondly they also believe that they are never responsible for unforeseen > outcomes. They invent rationalizations after a calamity to exonerate > themselves. > "The saintly fool personality" > Third they accuse someone, very publicly, announcing and justifying their > subsequent actions before acting. I guess these observations don't narrow > down the field very much for any of us. > "The righteously angry personality" > I guess the fourth factor is that they never admit they screwed up, ever. > "The good but stupid soldier" > I thought Beta's sucked up to Alphas on a regular basis like cheerleaders. > So now we have 7 characteristics. Not bad for a start. But suspect there are > a lot of amateurs in the grouping. Well, I count 6: 1. indefiniteness, 2. hermeneutics, 3. evangelizing, 4. negligent (saintly fool), 5. disciplinarian (you made me do it), and 6. abdicating. But what I was getting at with (1) and (2) was, I suppose, what is required within the head of the accuser. What are the characteristics of the way the accuser _thinks_ that results in them accusing some class of being "elite". Your (3-6) are traits that the accused might exhibit or the accuser might perceive. But they're not properties of the accuser's mind/thoughts. I set up my attempt to understand the accusers' minds, rather than attributes of the _accused_, because I believe the accusations are either TRIVIAL or FALSE. They're trivial because, as I said, we're all "elites" at something ... elite tooth brusher, elite seashell gatherer, etc. They're false because the classifications don't survive unless you choose a single well-defined predicate (like wealth or athletic achievement). So, the quesiton is: What type of mind accuses the "elites" of this or that. And the answer is: the type of mind that is prone to indefinite (schematic) thinking and an expectation of (or frustration with) hermeneutics. And those apply regardless of (3-6) or any other arbitrary descriptors of the alleged "elites". -- ☣ glen ============================================================ 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ 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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
