Eric -
You are to me as you indicate Packer is to you in this matter. You have
articulated well what I was only able to intuit.
I also feel vindicated (if only in the company of myself) in having
"mathematized" or "geometrized" this business of human nature/intention
as existing within differing basis spaces (Glen asked me directly at one
point "but why do you have to do that?", to which I had no answer, good
or lame at the time). Your own attempt here (as I measure it) to tease
out more dimensions that might have been compressed/projected/collapsed
into Packers's 4 (or as you point out, roughly 2x2).
I like your extension beyond dimensionality into actual material
substance with the addition of "visible fractures along the first two
pinciple components of stress", though as Glen likes to point out, this
is likely burdened by *some* kind of excess meaning, especially if I
were to try to carry it further.
Nothing more satisfying than being generously lapped by another
bumper-car driver with your signature style.
On Oct 29, 2021, at 4:32 PM, Steve Smith <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote:
excellent reference/article... thanks.
I agree, Marcus; thanks. I was struck that not only do I wish I could
write that way; I wish I could _think_ that way. There are few
thoughts I have had that aren’t already contained in Packer’s
synthesis, in forms compatible with or better than the ones I would
have given. (Usually those with which I overlap aren’t different
enough that I consider his take on them a lot “better”: mostly I think
he chooses well the things I would front. The “better” part mostly
comes from a view that goes well beyond any that I could have
commanded, and much better ability to arrange it all into a coherent
layout.)
Is it a 4 component spring model, or is a four body problem in the
orbital mechanics sense... probably no harder than the three body
problem?
But I think the whole core of Packer’s article is that it is not
merely 4, but 2.x 2.
There are axes of stress, and visible fractures along the first two
principle components of stress.
The Left-Right axis has resolved itself, in the current era, into a
kind of cultural-status axis, with educational markers being a big
part. But the axis is somehow more and different than only that, as
it has historically moved through primacy of other dichotomies that
can still be seen, while retaining its essential nature: Open vs.
Closed, Cosmopolitan vs. Parochial, Communitarian vs.
Dominance-ordered. None of these seems quite adequate as I write
them, but something along that line.
The Up-Down axis is probably about winners versus losers, itself
existing along several dimensions that have become correlated. It can
be conditions of living, or hope versus despair w.r.t. power or agency
as well as wealth or safety. That is why Packer sets the Just up as
an uprising against the Smart, and the Real as an uprising against the
Free. The nature of the uprising and the stress driving it is in a
sense the same, and the establishment and the insurgency sort of
remain within whichever silos they started in. Mostly because that
phase is still fairly young.
Anything that becomes organized, it seems, becomes available as a tool
to entrench advantage in a setting where competition never relents.
Eric
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
5/2017 thru presenthttps://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
