Glen, If you want to see how NPD is amenable to type 2 treatment see "Analysis of the Self" by Kohut. I dare you.
Frank Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On Jun 7, 2017 9:51 PM, "Nick Thompson" <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Dear All, > > > > Here is Glen's thoughtful post of January 20, reborn. To be honest, I > don’t understand it. Not a bit. I am hoping that perhaps one or more of > the rest of you can help me get it. Let’s start with one baby step. What > is meant by LAYER in this text? The possible meanings open to me are, (1) a > kind of hen; (2) a stratum in a substance; or (3) a level in a hierarchical > descriptive scheme. So, “genus” is a level as is “battalion”. Are any of > these meanings relevant to Glen’s post? > > > > Please help me out here. Intuition tells me that there is gold, here, but > I just don’t have the tools to mine it out. > > > > Nick > > > > Excellent! Thanks, Eric (and everyone -- I'm enjoying this). So, here's > my, in class, answer to Nick's quiz: > > > > nick> What is the difference between a circular explanation and a > recursive one. What is the key dimension that determines whether an > explanation is viciously circular? Is the virtuus dormitiva viciously > circular? Why? Why not? > > > > *Recursive explanations contain layers of reasoning (e.g. mechanism vs > phenomenon) whereas circular ones are flat.* [bolding by NST] Vicious > circularity simply means "has only 1 layer". (I disagree with this > idea.[*]) The virtus dormitiva has multiple (abstraction of language) > layers and, by the single-layer defn of "vicious" is not vicious. > > > > Now, on to N[arcissitic]P[ersonality]D[isorder], I think we have 2 types > of recursion: 1) communicative, as Frank (probably) tried to point out to > me before, and 2) phenomenological. When we land in an attractor like > "something is wrong with Trump", we're still within a single layer of > reasoning (intuition, emotion, systemic gestalt, whatever). If we have a > tacit feeling for NPD, we can stay within that single layer and simply > assign a token to it: NPD. But if we're at all reductionist, we'll look > for ways to break that layer into parts. Parts don't necessarily imply > crossing layers. E.g. a meaningful picture can be cut into curvy pieces > without claiming the images on the pieces also have meaning. So 1) we can > simply name various (same layer) phenomena that hook together like jigsaw > pieces to comprise NPD. Or 2) we can assert that personality traits are > layered so that the lower/inner turtles _construct_ the higher/outer > turtles. > > > > What Frank says below is of type (1). What Jochen (and others) have > talked about before (childhood experiences, etc.) is more like type (2). > The question arises of whether the layering of symbolic compression > (renaming sets of same-layer attributes) is merely type (1) or does it > become type (2). To me, mere _renaming_ doesn't cut it. There must be a > somewhat objectively defined difference, a name-independent difference. > So, if we changed all the words we use (don't use "narcissism", > "personality", "disorder", "emptiness", etc. ... use booga1, booga2, > booga3, etc.), would we _still_ see a cross-trophic effect? Note that > mathematics has elicited lots of such demonstrations of irreducible > layering ... e.g. various no-go theorems. But those are syntactic > _demonstrations_ ... without the vagaries introduced by natural language > and scientific grounding. To assert that problems like natural selection > vs. adaptation or the diagnosis of NPD also demonstrate such cross-trophic > properties would _require_ complete formalization into math. Wolpert did > this (I think) to some extent. But I doubt it's been done in evolutionary > theory and I'm fairly confident it hasn't been done in psychiatry. (I > admit my ignorance, of course... doubt is a good mistress but a bad master.) > > > > More importantly, though, I personally don't believe a recursive cycle is > _any_ different from a flat cycle. Who was it that said all deductive > inference is tautology? I have it in a book somewhere, cited by John > Woods. Unless there is some significantly different chunk of reasoning > somewhere in one of the layers, all the layers perfectly _reduce_ to a > single layer. > > > > Hence, my answer to Nick's quiz (at the pub after class) is that _all_ > cycles are "vicious" (if vicious means single layer), but if we take my > concept of "vicious", then only those cycles that _hide_ behind (false) > layers are vicious. > > > > > > [*] I think a cycle is vicious iff it causes problems. Tautologies don't > cause problems. They don't solve them. But they don't cause them either. > So a vicious cycle must have more than 1 layer. > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > 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: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 4:57 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: > Any non-biological complex systems? > > > > +1 > > > > Having been called a "troll" for most of my adult life, I'd love to hear > why Owen lobs the insult. > > > > > > On 06/07/2017 01:54 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > > > Owen, > > > > > > > > > > > > I don’t understand this comment. Who’s a troll? Are you trolling, > here? Is this irony? I don’t follow. > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com > <friam-boun...@redfish.com>] On Behalf Of Owen > > > Densmore > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 4:40 PM > > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > > <friam@redfish.com> > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] IS: Does Complexity have a circularity problem WAS: > Any non-biological complex systems? > > > > > > > > > > > > Troll > > > > -- > > ☣ 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 >
============================================================ 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