Thanks for the elaboration, my "worst fears" trumped my "greatest hopes"
when I read the Wikipedia article...
The first rule of Fight Club is "you do not talk about Fight Club"
> Steve,
>
> I mentioned the Bellamy Clubs then and now, solely as an example of
> spontaneous generation of hundreds of local groups to talk about the
> future. I mentioned before I taught a class with Bellamy's grandson
> who was writing a biography and i was told many a story about the
> clubs and their evolution.
>
> First, they were a self-organized, spontaneous, emergent phenomena.
> Not sponsored, not directed, just one neighbor talking to another,
> "say have you read this?"
>
> It seems inevitable, and it was the case that the clubs became
> "organized" and the discussion "formalized" which killed the whole
> thing. Bellamy was appalled by the eventual "findings" of the club and
> distanced himself from them. And of course they dissipated as fast as
> they arose.
>
> If the generative phase of the clubs were to be replicated, it would
> probably have to be on-line somehow and how you would prevent the
> discussion from prematurely settling on a variation of the current
> general political discussion instead of fully exploring alternatives —
> I have no clue.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2020, at 9:31 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
>>
>> Dave -
>>
>> I do remember your reference to the Bellamyists and probably wrote a
>> long-winded (well-over 300) commentary which I then deleted.
>>
>> What I remember of that (my aborted response) was somewhat
>> reactionary to Utopianism and Nationalism. In the spirit of
>> productive optimism, I realize(d) my reactionaryisms was maybe not
>> very productive. I don't want to devolve into the splitting of
>> hairs we are so fond of here in this forum.
>>
>> With that caveat... I am struggling against those two things I
>> impute to what little I know of "the Bellamyists". "One (hu)man's
>> Utopia is another's Dystopia". And. "Nationalism is (dangerously)
>> out-of-scale Tribalism".
>>
>> I guess I would ask why such a grandiose scale structure would need
>> to be put in place? Would not an emergence from discussions among
>> small groups (such as the threads on FriAM) not be a more practical
>> and perhaps "safer" route? Is such a structure/container required,
>> or perhaps it might be inevitable? But then it would not be
>> Bellamyists, but rather DaveWestist?
>>
>> With that in mind... perhaps it is worth discussing the Bellamyites
>> primary focus (as claimed in the Wikipedia Article that is my only
>> source) of "nationalizing industry". That seems to be what the Left
>> is leaning toward... or at least regulating/taxing industry at the
>> federal level to the point that it IS effectively nationalized?
>> What is the Right's version of that? In the spirit of NeoLiberalism
>> and free-markets of which the Right is most fond, nationalization is
>> anathema.
>>
>> And yet, it seems that the "free market" is best at innovation... and
>> once an industry has been commodified, perhaps the next step IS to
>> nationalization. There might have been a time when gasoline
>> stations had something significantly different to offer, one from the
>> other, but even the detergents and oxygenators seem to have become
>> pretty standard(?lame assertion?) and the only difference is how big
>> is the big-gulp soda in the convenience store, is it filled from the
>> Coca Cola or Pepsi Cola pantheon and are more triggered by a giant
>> yellow clam-shell logo or a green baby brontosaurus?
>>
>> I'm entirely with you on the diversity of foodstuffs referenced
>> earlier... but IF/When I'm going to feed from the same trough of
>> the same hybrids as my fellow piggies, why put so many different (or
>> any?) labels on them? And then why not plant your own garden with
>> seeds exchanged with friends and neighbors, localized to your
>> conditions, and buy/trade what you can't grow from small (tiny) farms
>> within a short drive (walk)?
>>
>> And I agree on the liminal, though I see liminality everywhere at all
>> scales, like the fractality of an estuary and this moment is more
>> acute and offering/demanding more focused/proaction? If we did live
>> in our everyday liminality more-better, then this would just be an
>> extrema(ish) of scale... but since we (mostly) don't, it feels like a
>> change in quality in it's quantity. There I go, splitting hairs?
>>
>> - Steve
>>
>>
>>> Steve,
>>>
>>> This *_should_* be a time between lightning and thunder, liminal, a
>>> time "when all things are possible."
>>>
>>> I would love to be optimistic, even guardedly,
>>>
>>> Prerequisite, perhaps, is for everyone to accept Hywel's dictum,
>>> "Ah, but it is more complicated than that" coupled with a heady dose
>>> of agonizing reappraisal of one's unexamined positions. Healthy
>>> doses, of "you have a point," "errors were made," "our ontology
>>> should incorporate those distinctions," etc.
>>>
>>> A while back I spoke of the Bellamy Clubs as a social / civic/
>>> phenomenon focused on a "constructive way forward." Something of
>>> that sort would be required to instantiate your optimism.
>>>
>>> davew
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 19, 2020, at 7:14 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dave, et al -
>>>>
>>>> These are fecund times. The time between the lightning and the
>>>> thunder - "when all things are possible". Or maybe, if you have a
>>>> more apocalyptic bent, the beginning of the "end of times".
>>>> William Gibson's "Jackpot" perhaps (to be more ambiguous).
>>>>
>>>> I think Churchill tried on (in oratorial style):
>>>>
>>>> "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the
>>>> end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
>>>>
>>>> In closing your "trip report" a dozen posts back you referenced
>>>> once again, the likelihood of a violent clash between Left and
>>>> Right or Red and Blue as a next logical/likely step in the path we
>>>> seem to be stumbling (shambling?) down right now.
>>>>
>>>> The recent (armed) protests at state capitals, demanding that the
>>>> Governors "open up the state" do seem foreboding. An almost
>>>> self-abusive desire to trigger a breakdown in social order.
>>>>
>>>> The (""/failing!!!!""/ double-scare-quotes) New York Times opinion
>>>> piece The America We Need
>>>> <https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/09/opinion/sunday/coronavirus-inequality-america.html>
>>>> from 10 days ago (feels much longer in Corona Time) exposes one
>>>> side of the challenge (how modern society/America has been failing)
>>>> and a hopeful response (how this crisis could help galvanize us to
>>>> become who we need to be collectively). I'd love to hear
>>>> something from the Right with an equally constructive perspective.
>>>> Maybe I just have my ear on the wrong rail but I only hear "boom or
>>>> bust" talk from the Right.
>>>>
>>>> Living with one foot in each camp (Red and Blue) I believe that the
>>>> divide we feel is on one hand very real, but on the other
>>>> deliberately aggravated as a way to keep us in dynamic tension (or
>>>> more simply pitted-against one another) while those with most power
>>>> keep stirring us up and raking off the top. Red/Right sees the
>>>> threat of government/wealthy/elite/??? one way while Blue/Left see
>>>> what I think is roughly the same threat very differently. But it
>>>> might very well be the very same threat, and the pointy end is
>>>> designed to keep us divided.
>>>>
>>>> And lest we create a strong "other" to reject/resent/hate/fear:
>>>> "We have met the enemy, and they is us".
>>>>
>>>> The deficit-hawk, small-government GOP has been building up a State
>>>> like none before it, and while they (and the NRA) are encouraging
>>>> their loyal followers to arm themselves to the teeth, double down
>>>> on ammunition, all the while militarizing the police, loading them
>>>> up with armored personnel carriers and fully-automatic weapons
>>>> (opposite the citizen's semi-autos), and bullet-proof vests,
>>>> helmets and shields to maintain overwhelming force. Meanwhile,
>>>> the Dems might be trying to nurture us out of our dysfunction and
>>>> misery, sometimes disabling us more in the process, and the wealthy
>>>> on that side are raking their share off of that, elbow to elbow at
>>>> the same trough.
>>>>
>>>> We ship our (two hybrid strains of tomato and two germ-lines of
>>>> beef) food halfway across the country (add coffee, avocados and
>>>> bananas - world) from agri-industry-chemical soaked feed-lots and
>>>> (formerly) fertile valleys and plains, burning fossil fuels (not
>>>> just in the machines, but to make the hyper-fertilizer now
>>>> needed). Whether we shop at Trader Joes, or Whole Foods, or Bob's
>>>> Butcher or just order up Trump Steaks, we HAVE built a house of
>>>> cards which is bending under the weight of this pandemic.
>>>>
>>>> Why does it feel like a segment of the population just wants to
>>>> knock it down?
>>>>
>>>> Is there a constructive route up and out of this mess? The
>>>> pandemic has exposed a LOT more of the weaknesses in our
>>>> economy/society as this current administration has exposed the
>>>> weaknesses in our government. It seems like an opportunity to try
>>>> to rebuild thoughtfully rather than "tear it down" or "patch it
>>>> back the way it was".
>>>>
>>>> Guardedly Hopeful,
>>>>
>>>> - Steve (574)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Nick,
>>>>>
>>>>> There is truth in what you say, but only a bit.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have certainly spoken as if "Science was a bunch of nasty people with
>>>>> vested interests acting in an exclusionary manner."
>>>>>
>>>>> Hyperbole.
>>>>>
>>>>> A better metaphor / analogy would be the way we have hybridized our food
>>>>> supply; e.g. 90 percent of all dairy cows have one of two bulls in their
>>>>> ancestry, there are one or two tomato hybrids, one or two strains of
>>>>> rice, wheat, corn, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> This creates a huge vulnerability — a novel pest or disease and presto,
>>>>> no food supply.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now imagine that there are multiple species of investigation, thinking,
>>>>> knowledge.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the Age of Enlightenment, the western world has been hell bent on
>>>>> hybridizing but one of them — Formalism (aka, roughly, Science).
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I believe that Formalism has attained such a privileged status that
>>>>> it tolerates no criticism and critics are "excommunicated" with prejudice.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to think of myself as someone interested in growing heritage
>>>>> tomatoes in my garden and marveling at the differences in taste and
>>>>> texture and finding very deep value from the use of them in culinary
>>>>> creations.
>>>>>
>>>>> davew
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, at 8:58 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dave,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, wait a minute! Thou slenderest me! For you, Science is a bunch
>>>>>> of nasty people with vested interests. Science, on that understanding,
>>>>>> has the power to exclude. For me, Science is a set of practices that
>>>>>> lead to understandings of experience that endure the test of time. It
>>>>>> is not the sort of thing that can exclude. If pot smoking in bubble
>>>>>> baths leads to understandings that endure the test of time, then it is
>>>>>> a scientific method. Something like that seemed to have worked for
>>>>>> Archimedes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nick
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nicholas Thompson
>>>>>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>>>>>> Clark University
>>>>>> thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com>
>>>>>> <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of Prof David West
>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 6:31 PM
>>>>>> To: friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of
>>>>>> anthropological observtions
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nick,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I won't lose the argument, because I pre-believe that, IF alternative
>>>>>> means with some kind of criteria for falsifiability and repeatability
>>>>>> THEN they should be incorporated into that which is deemed "Science" —
>>>>>> ergo there is no argument to lose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If there is an argument — and there is clearly a difference of opinion
>>>>>> — it centers on the the issue of why Hermetic Alchemy, Acid
>>>>>> Epistemology, Anthropological Thick Description, Ayurvedic Medicine,
>>>>>> Adams' "rhetorical analysis" et. al. are, at the moment and for the
>>>>>> most part, excluded from Science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> davew
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, at 5:28 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com
>>>>>> <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dave,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're going to lose this argument with me eventually, because any
>>>>>>> investigatory practice that works in the long run I am going to
>>>>>>> declare to be part of "the scientific method." So if you declare that
>>>>>>> discovery is enhanced by lying in a warm suds bath smoking pot, and
>>>>>>> you can describe a repeatable practice which includes that as a
>>>>>>> method, and that method produces enduring intellectual and practical
>>>>>>> structures such as the periodic table, then I will simply say, "That's
>>>>>>> science."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not sure this works with my falsifiability schtik, but that must
>>>>>>> have been at least 4 hours ago. So "before lunch".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nick
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nicholas Thompson
>>>>>>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University
>>>>>>> thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com>
>>>>>>> <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of Prof David West
>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 5:07 PM
>>>>>>> To: friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com>
>>>>>>> Subject: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of
>>>>>>> anthropological observtions
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Consider three entities making 2016 political predictions and their
>>>>>>> predictions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1- "cognoscenti" those citing poll data, Nate Silver (albeit as
>>>>>>> everyone notes, the citation was more interpretation than citation),
>>>>>>> pundits, et. al. — Trump, at various times, has 1/1000 to 1/3 chance of
>>>>>>> winning the election.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2- Scott Adams - Trump "very likely" will win to "almost certain" he
>>>>>>> will win.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3- davew - Trump will win.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> # 3 is a fool because he made no effort whatsoever to hedge his
>>>>>>> prediction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The first group used traditional polling, statistical modelling, etc.
>>>>>>> to come to their conclusions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Scott Adams used none of those methods/tools but, as described in his
>>>>>>> book — Win Bigly — the language and rhetoric analysis tools/techniques
>>>>>>> he did use.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> davew remains coy about how he came to his certainty.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> QUESTIONS: Are there different approaches, different avenues,
>>>>>>> different means, for acquiring "knowledge?" I am being vague here
>>>>>>> because I do not know how to make the question precise. But it would
>>>>>>> have something to do with different definitions of what is considered
>>>>>>> data and different techniques/tools for digesting that data to form
>>>>>>> conclusions — in this instance predictions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there are different approaches, is a comparative analysis of them
>>>>>>> possible? desirable?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Different approaches — useful in different contexts? How to determine
>>>>>>> appropriate contexts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or, is there but one avenue to knowledge — Science — and all else is
>>>>>>> idiosyncratic opinion?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Personally, I think there is use in pursuing this type of question and
>>>>>>> then using the answers / insights to makes sense of the multiple
>>>>>>> conversations concerning COVID and the response thereto.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> davew
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .-
>>>>>>> ... .... . ...
>>>>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>>>>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe
>>>>>>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>>>>>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>>>>>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .-
>>>>>>> ... .... . ...
>>>>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>>>>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>>>>>> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>>>>>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>>>>>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .-
>>>>>> ... .... . ...
>>>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>>>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>>>>> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>>>>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>>>>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .-
>>>>>> ... .... . ...
>>>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>>>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>>>>> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>>>>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>>>>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
>>>>> .... . ...
>>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>>>> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>>>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>>>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -..
>>>> .- ... .... . ...
>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>>> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
>>> .... . ...
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>>
>> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .-
>> ... .... . ...
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>
>
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
> .... . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... ....
. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
