date:20120914


Hussein -

I hear you...   many of us are challenged to defend the name of our God 
or our Faith or our gender or our cultural or genetic heritage or sexual 
orientation or hair color or set of our jaw. Even when  obviously (but 
superficially?) motivated, these are false challenges and to accept them 
is a fools game.


The shrill voices against Islam (or even "ahem" Mormons) are not 
helping, even if some who act in it's name are doing horrific things.  
Those who paint with a broad brush can only slop their own paint on 
themselves...


From much distance at all, everyone else looks like "other".

I'm often disappointed with this list (myself included) that we invoke 
the terms of Complexity Science but don't often take it anywhere.


Is there a game theoretic model, or more to the point, an agent model 
based on game theoretic principles that might help to illuminate this 
phenomenon?  The phenomena of personal vs shared belief, sectarianism, 
intolerance?   Is there a small subset (in the spirit of the oft-cited 
MOTH strategy for prisoner's dilemma) of the phenomena that can show a 
bit of it?


- Steve











--
Los Alamos Visualization Associates
LAVA-Synergy
4200 W. Jemez rd
Los Alamos, NM 87544
www.lava3d.com
s...@lava3d.com
505-920-0252


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

Steve,  you perhaps accidentally point out what in my opinion is the
primary weakness of this so-called "Complexity" group.  That weakness
being, again solely in my opinion, an inability or perhaps an unwillingness
to face the real substantive, important complexity issues that surround us.

Instead, the group nearly always proposes to study some superficial
abstract, academic side issue.  It doesn't seem to matter what the
particular "complexity" issue du Jour is, the "solution" proposed, but
never implemented by the members of this list is *always* some abstract,
distancing, academic approach.

Not that I am picking on you, really I am not.  But seriously, are you
proposing to use an ABM to explain the societal effects of religious
fundamentalism?  That would be a side show.  It would place a level of
abstraction between the real issue and the observer which would totally
mask the underlying causal issues.

Those issues, of course, being the irrational, hateful, harmful effects of
mass adherence to narrow, fundamental religious dogma, plus whatever the
deep underlying psychological urges are that constantly seem to draw whole
populations into those belief systems.

You don't need an ABM to illustrate that; you need a few good history books.

And if you want to understand why people are so prone to locking themselves
into destructive, exclusive, egocentric world-views, well, good luck with
that.   I suspect however that game theoretics and ABMs are not the proper
tools for the job.

--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Steve Smith  wrote:

>  Hussein -
>
> I hear you...   many of us are challenged to defend the name of our God or
> our Faith or our gender or our cultural or genetic heritage or sexual
> orientation or hair color or set of our jaw.  Even when  obviously (but
> superficially?) motivated, these are false challenges and to accept them is
> a fools game.
>
> The shrill voices against Islam (or even "ahem" Mormons) are not helping,
> even if some who act in it's name are doing horrific things.  Those who
> paint with a broad brush can only slop their own paint on themselves...
>
> From much distance at all, everyone else looks like "other".
>
> I'm often disappointed with this list (myself included) that we invoke the
> terms of Complexity Science but don't often take it anywhere.
>
> Is there a game theoretic model, or more to the point, an agent model
> based on game theoretic principles that might help to illuminate this
> phenomenon?  The phenomena of personal vs shared belief, sectarianism,
> intolerance?   Is there a small subset (in the spirit of the oft-cited MOTH
> strategy for prisoner's dilemma) of the phenomena that can show a bit of it?
>
> - Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  --
> Los Alamos Visualization Associates
> LAVA-Synergy
> 4200 W. Jemez rd
> Los Alamos, NM 87544www.lava3d.comsas@lava3d.com505-920-0252
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

-- 
Doug Roberts
drobe...@rti.org
d...@parrot-farm.net
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

2012-09-14 Thread Prof David West

The problem is not with the Religion - it is with various
interpretations of the religion.  And it is a myth that there is a
"majority" available to counteract or condemn the "minority"

Take the obscene group of "Christians" that like to protest at military
funerals claiming "the death is a good thing because it is God's
punishment for tolerating gays."  Or the group that financed the film
at issue the last few days.  (Or Mel Gibson's father's church.) 

Following Owen's argument we should see almost every other person who
professes to be a Christian denounce this kind of base
misinterpretation of their Religion.  But it does not happen - because
"they" are not "us" and so we do not have to explain, apologize or
denounce.  Only a few political and religious leaders will react - the
Archbishop of Santa Fe, for example, stated that those people are not
following the precepts of the Christian religion and should be
ignored.  Note: no one said they should be expelled, excommunicated,
from Christianity or that Christians were in any way responsible - even
though the extreme position is grounded in another, more mainstream
interpretation of what the Bible may or may not say about
homosexuality.  Hussein Abbas' eloquent response is a personal example
of exactly this kind of phenomenon.

There is an exact parallel evident in the middle east today.  Yesterday
I heard two imams, the president of Egypt, and the president of Yemen
state that Islam provided no excuse for the violence - that blasphemy
is not an excuse for violence, even to the blasphemer. (Homenei's
famous fatwa against Salman Rushdie was denounced by a majority of
other imams.) Also heard were promises to seek out and punish the
perpetrators (hard there and equally hard here because of the rule of
law). In Pakistan, it is the imams that are denouncing the morons that
apparently framed and wanted to put to death a young women with mental
development issues, for blasphemy.

Owen will never see the reaction he seeks - here, there, anywhere -
because sectarianism in every religion means there is no "majority"
that can react and that every sect sees themselves as apart from "those
idiots over there" and therefore Not Responsible.  Nevertheless,
Individual leaders, religious and political, do and are currently doing
exactly what Owen asks - denouncing, pointing out misinterpretations,
apologizing (for faith and for country) for the miscreants, asking for
understanding, and promising all possible corrective action/punishment.

Is it our own insistence to treat a highly diverse group as a
monolithic bloc the real root of the problems?  Coupled, of course,
with our unwillingness to truly examine and understand our own religion
let alone that of someone else.

dave west


On Thu, Sep 13, 2012, at 09:25 PM, Hussein Abbass wrote:

Owen


While I am an IT professor, I am very backward in using
blogs and almost incapable of expressing myself in emails or otherwise.
Your question would be better discussed in a long session with lots of
coffees and chocolates J


I do not normally put my Moslim hat on; almost never
because I see religion as a relationship between me and God that is no
one else business. Therefore, my actions are my responsibilities and if
I do something good I take the reward personally so why when I do
something bad should my religion, or any dimension of my identity be
blamed.


But your question was interesting. Not just from
complexity perspective, from many other dimensions that once more,
writing long emails would not send the right message through.


Sometimes the good Moslims (whatever this means and in
whose eyes) do not respond simply because they do not agree with the
premise. The premise of the religion as the centre for conflict. The
premise that we should be blamed for our belief. The premise that I
should spend my time justifying someone else actions simply because
there is a perception that I and them share something in common because
it is written in my passport or on a system somewhere. If I believe in
doing good, I would like to invest my time in that, and not invest my
time to defend bad when bad was not my action in the first place.


So call it an ego-centric or whatever, this is I. In
Islam, when we do good, we should not talk about it because we are
doing it to fulfil a sacred commitment to God. In fact, there is a
premise that you should hide the good you are doing to get a better
reward from God. This is too complicated to explain in an email!


Some of us just do not wish to be bothered to defend or discuss the bad
because the time and resources to spend on doing good alone are very
limited. The world is full of opportunities to do good, why should we
spend the time to discuss the bad!


Sometimes also if we wish to explain concepts properly,
you would not do it properly in a simple email or a simple discussion.
There are thi

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

Well, as much as I respect your opinion, Dave, I could not possibly
disagree more with you.  Or at least with your opening sentence.

While I choose not to state it as absolute fact, I would like to suggest
that Religion *is* the problem.

Human kind's ongoing attempts to cast one's existence into one or another
particular narrow religious world-view where some or another deity is
responsible for them, for their well being, for their punishment for
failing to follow the tenents of their religion, and for their path to
redemption; this is *the* problem.  Again, just my opinion.  I would not
presume to be a dispenser of absolute truth.

--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Prof David West wrote:

>   The problem is not with the Religion - it is with various
> interpretations of the religion.  And it is a myth that there is a
> "majority" available to counteract or condemn the "minority"
>
>  Take the obscene group of "Christians" that like to protest at military
> funerals claiming "the death is a good thing because it is God's
> punishment for tolerating gays."  Or the group that financed the film at
> issue the last few days.  (Or Mel Gibson's father's church.) 
>
>  Following Owen's argument we should see almost every other person who
> professes to be a Christian denounce this kind of base misinterpretation of
> their Religion.  But it does not happen - because "they" are not "us" and
> so we do not have to explain, apologize or denounce.  Only a few political
> and religious leaders will react - the Archbishop of Santa Fe, for example,
> stated that those people are not following the precepts of the Christian
> religion and should be ignored.  Note: no one said they should be expelled,
> excommunicated, from Christianity or that Christians were in any way
> responsible - even though the extreme position is grounded in another, more
> mainstream *interpretation* of what the Bible may or may not say about
> homosexuality.  Hussein Abbas' eloquent response is a personal example of
> exactly this kind of phenomenon.
>
>  There is an exact parallel evident in the middle east today.  Yesterday I
> heard two imams, the president of Egypt, and the president of Yemen state
> that Islam provided no excuse for the violence - that blasphemy is not an
> excuse for violence, even to the blasphemer. (Homenei's famous fatwa
> against Salman Rushdie was denounced by a majority of other imams.) Also
> heard were promises to seek out and punish the perpetrators (hard there and
> equally hard here because of the rule of law). In Pakistan, it is the imams
> that are denouncing the morons that apparently framed and wanted to put to
> death a young women with mental development issues, for blasphemy.
>
>  Owen will never see the reaction he seeks - here, there, anywhere -
> because sectarianism in every religion means there is no "majority" that
> can react and that every sect sees themselves as apart from "those idiots
> over there" and therefore Not Responsible.  Nevertheless, Individual
> leaders, religious and political, do and are currently doing exactly what
> Owen asks - denouncing, pointing out misinterpretations, apologizing (for
> faith and for country) for the miscreants, asking for understanding, and
> promising all possible corrective action/punishment.
>
>  Is it our own insistence to treat a highly diverse group as a monolithic
> bloc the real root of the problems?  Coupled, of course, with our
> unwillingness to truly examine and understand our own religion let alone
> that of someone else.
>
>  dave west
>
>
>  On Thu, Sep 13, 2012, at 09:25 PM, Hussein Abbass wrote:
>
>  Owen
>
> ** **
>
> While I am an IT professor, I am very backward in using
> blogs and almost incapable of expressing myself in emails or otherwise.
> Your question would be better discussed in a long session with lots of
> coffees and chocolates J
>
> ** **
>
> I do not normally put my Moslim hat on; almost never
> because I see religion as a relationship between me and God that is no one
> else business. Therefore, my actions are my responsibilities and if I do
> something good I take the reward personally so why when I do something bad
> should my religion, or any dimension of my identity be blamed.
>
> ** **
>
> But your question was interesting. Not just from
> complexity perspective, from many other dimensions that once more, writing
> long emails would not send the right message through.
>
> ** **
>
> Sometimes the good Moslims (whatever this means and in
> whose eyes) do not respond simply because they do not agree with the
> premise. The premise of the religion as the centre for conflict. The
> premise that we should be blamed for our belief. The premise that I should
> spend my time justifying someone else actions simply because there is a
> perception that I and them share something in common because it is written
> in my passport or on a syste

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist


Doug -

You may be correct that the tools are insufficient and/or distancing 
through abstraction...  and yes it may be a side show. But as you point 
out, a side show that has not even been mounted.


   /Those issues, of course, being the irrational, hateful, harmful
   effects of mass adherence to narrow, fundamental religious dogma,
   plus whatever the deep underlying psychological urges are that
   constantly seem to draw whole populations into those belief systems.

   /

I don't disagree that these are the *symptoms* we experience/observe.  
But I'm still more than a little curious about the *causes*.  You might 
posit (I think you did! ) that the *cause* of various irrational, 
hateful, harmful effects are "mass adherence to narrow, fundamental, 
religious dogma" and I can't really argue with you on that.  But where 
the hell does *that* come from?   Is it necessary?


My suggestion of a model (at the risk of distancing through abstraction) 
is to seek a more "systematic" answer...   *What* are those underlying 
psychological urges you speak of?  Are there alternative systems of 
thinking and organization that might yield more desirable global 
behaviours?


What *fundamental* aspects of our systems of belief (religious, 
political, economic, social, etc.) are  *guaranteed* to lead us there 
over and over.  Call it Islam, call it Mormonism, call it Logical 
Positivism, but why does it so often lead us back to the same 
self-rightous, intolerant places?  Were not most if not all religions 
founded or evolved or shaped around trying to fix the existing flaws in 
the systems previously in place?


   /You don't need an ABM to illustrate that; you need a few good
   history books./

You may read different history books than I do.  The history books I 
read illustrate *that*  whole populations are drawn into dysfunctional 
behaviours supported by their belief systems (though depending on who 
wrote them, it is always a one-sided story, glorifying  one set of 
dysfunction in contrast to another demonized set.


 I suggested *illumination* not *illustration*.   I can look around, 
from your (existing only in photoshop I suspect) racist bumpersticker or 
just about every conversation I hear to have what we are talking about 
*illustrated*... but what I want to know is *what is it all about?*, is 
there anything to be done!  CAN we get enough distance through 
abstraction to discover actionable or effectual changes in local 
strategy to effect global change?


Or do we just fall (dive headlong?) into a bubbling mass of xenophobic 
blame and/or self-righteous cynicism?  I personally prefer the latter, 
but it really doesn't change anything for the better.


- Steve




Steve,  you perhaps accidentally point out what in my opinion is the 
primary weakness of this so-called "Complexity" group.  That weakness 
being, again solely in my opinion, an inability or perhaps an 
unwillingness to face the real substantive, important complexity 
issues that surround us.


Instead, the group nearly always proposes to study some superficial 
abstract, academic side issue.  It doesn't seem to matter what the 
particular "complexity" issue du Jour is, the "solution" proposed, but 
never implemented by the members of this list is *always* some 
abstract, distancing, academic approach.


Not that I am picking on you, really I am not.  But seriously, are you 
proposing to use an ABM to explain the societal effects of religious 
fundamentalism?  That would be a side show.  It would place a level of 
abstraction between the real issue and the observer which would 
totally mask the underlying causal issues.


Those issues, of course, being the irrational, hateful, harmful 
effects of mass adherence to narrow, fundamental religious dogma, plus 
whatever the deep underlying psychological urges are that constantly 
seem to draw whole populations into those belief systems.


You don't need an ABM to illustrate that; you need a few good history 
books.


And if you want to understand why people are so prone to locking 
themselves into destructive, exclusive, egocentric world-views, well, 
good luck with that.   I suspect however that game theoretics and ABMs 
are not the proper tools for the job.


--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Steve Smith > wrote:


Hussein -

I hear you...   many of us are challenged to defend the name of
our God or our Faith or our gender or our cultural or genetic
heritage or sexual orientation or hair color or set of our jaw. 
Even when  obviously (but superficially?) motivated, these are

false challenges and to accept them is a fools game.

The shrill voices against Islam (or even "ahem" Mormons) are not
helping, even if some who act in it's name are doing horrific
things.  Those who paint with a broad brush can only slop their
own paint on themselves...

From much distance at all, everyone else looks like "other".

I'm often

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

Are physicists guilty of Hiroshima?   Let's say the Japanese had won the war
and Oppenheimer had been hauled before the World Criminal Court in The
Hague.  Would he have been guilty of Crimes Against Humanity?  You are a
judge on that Court.  Write the opinion.  

 

N

 

From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 10:37 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The
Economist

 

Well, as much as I respect your opinion, Dave, I could not possibly disagree
more with you.  Or at least with your opening sentence.

 

While I choose not to state it as absolute fact, I would like to suggest
that Religion *is* the problem.

 

Human kind's ongoing attempts to cast one's existence into one or another
particular narrow religious world-view where some or another deity is
responsible for them, for their well being, for their punishment for failing
to follow the tenents of their religion, and for their path to redemption;
this is the problem.  Again, just my opinion.  I would not presume to be a
dispenser of absolute truth.

 

--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Prof David West 
wrote:

The problem is not with the Religion - it is with various interpretations of
the religion.  And it is a myth that there is a "majority" available to
counteract or condemn the "minority"

 

Take the obscene group of "Christians" that like to protest at military
funerals claiming "the death is a good thing because it is God's  punishment
for tolerating gays."  Or the group that financed the film at issue the last
few days.  (Or Mel Gibson's father's church.) 

 

Following Owen's argument we should see almost every other person who
professes to be a Christian denounce this kind of base misinterpretation of
their Religion.  But it does not happen - because "they" are not "us" and so
we do not have to explain, apologize or denounce.  Only a few political and
religious leaders will react - the Archbishop of Santa Fe, for example,
stated that those people are not following the precepts of the Christian
religion and should be ignored.  Note: no one said they should be expelled,
excommunicated, from Christianity or that Christians were in any way
responsible - even though the extreme position is grounded in another, more
mainstream interpretation of what the Bible may or may not say about
homosexuality.  Hussein Abbas' eloquent response is a personal example of
exactly this kind of phenomenon.

 

There is an exact parallel evident in the middle east today.  Yesterday I
heard two imams, the president of Egypt, and the president of Yemen state
that Islam provided no excuse for the violence - that blasphemy is not an
excuse for violence, even to the blasphemer. (Homenei's famous fatwa against
Salman Rushdie was denounced by a majority of other imams.) Also heard were
promises to seek out and punish the perpetrators (hard there and equally
hard here because of the rule of law). In Pakistan, it is the imams that are
denouncing the morons that apparently framed and wanted to put to death a
young women with mental development issues, for blasphemy.

 

Owen will never see the reaction he seeks - here, there, anywhere - because
sectarianism in every religion means there is no "majority" that can react
and that every sect sees themselves as apart from "those idiots over there"
and therefore Not Responsible.  Nevertheless, Individual leaders, religious
and political, do and are currently doing exactly what Owen asks -
denouncing, pointing out misinterpretations, apologizing (for faith and for
country) for the miscreants, asking for understanding, and promising all
possible corrective action/punishment.

 

Is it our own insistence to treat a highly diverse group as a monolithic
bloc the real root of the problems?  Coupled, of course, with our
unwillingness to truly examine and understand our own religion let alone
that of someone else.

 

dave west

 

 

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012, at 09:25 PM, Hussein Abbass wrote:

Owen

 

While I am an IT professor, I am very backward in using
blogs and almost incapable of expressing myself in emails or otherwise. Your
question would be better discussed in a long session with lots of coffees
and chocolates J

 

I do not normally put my Moslim hat on; almost never because
I see religion as a relationship between me and God that is no one else
business. Therefore, my actions are my responsibilities and if I do
something good I take the reward personally so why when I do something bad
should my religion, or any dimension of my identity be blamed.

 

But your question was interesting. Not just from complexity
perspective, from many other dimensions that once more, writing long emails
would not send the right message through.

 

Sometimes the good Moslims (whatever this mean

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

First things first: the bumper sticker.  It is, sadly, real, and not just a
photoshopped artifact:

It came out of Georgia, and the woman who created it was shocked, just
shocked, that people would think it racist.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/don-t-nig-purveyor-paula-smith-says-bumper-185405237.html

More to come...

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Steve Smith  wrote:

>  Doug -
>
> You may be correct that the tools are insufficient and/or distancing
> through abstraction...  and yes it may be a side show.  But as you point
> out, a side show that has not even been mounted.
>
>
>  *Those issues, of course, being the irrational, hateful, harmful effects
> of mass adherence to narrow, fundamental religious dogma, plus whatever the
> deep underlying psychological urges are that constantly seem to draw whole
> populations into those belief systems.
>
> *
>
> I don't disagree that these are the *symptoms* we experience/observe.  But
> I'm still more than a little curious about the *causes*.  You might posit
> (I think you did! ) that the *cause* of various irrational, hateful,
> harmful effects are "mass adherence to narrow, fundamental, religious
> dogma" and I can't really argue with you on that.  But where the hell does
> *that* come from?   Is it necessary?
>
> My suggestion of a model (at the risk of distancing through abstraction)
> is to seek a more "systematic" answer...   *What* are those underlying
> psychological urges you speak of?  Are there alternative systems of
> thinking and organization that might yield more desirable global
> behaviours?
>
> What *fundamental* aspects of our systems of belief (religious, political,
> economic, social, etc.) are  *guaranteed* to lead us there over and over.
> Call it Islam, call it Mormonism, call it Logical Positivism, but why does
> it so often lead us back to the same self-rightous, intolerant places?
> Were not most if not all religions founded or evolved or shaped around
> trying to fix the existing flaws in the systems previously in place?
>
>
>  *You don't need an ABM to illustrate that; you need a few good history
> books.*
>
>  You may read different history books than I do.  The history books I
> read illustrate *that*  whole populations are drawn into dysfunctional
> behaviours supported by their belief systems (though depending on who wrote
> them, it is always a one-sided story, glorifying  one set of dysfunction in
> contrast to another demonized set.
>
>  I suggested *illumination* not *illustration*.   I can look around, from
> your (existing only in photoshop I suspect) racist bumpersticker or just
> about every conversation I hear to have what we are talking about
> *illustrated*... but what I want to know is *what is it all about?*, is
> there anything to be done!  CAN we get enough distance through abstraction
> to discover actionable or effectual changes in local strategy to effect
> global change?
>
>  Or do we just fall (dive headlong?) into a bubbling mass of xenophobic
> blame and/or self-righteous cynicism?  I personally prefer the latter, but
> it really doesn't change anything for the better.
>
> - Steve
>
>
>
>
>  Steve,  you perhaps accidentally point out what in my opinion is the
> primary weakness of this so-called "Complexity" group.  That weakness
> being, again solely in my opinion, an inability or perhaps an unwillingness
> to face the real substantive, important complexity issues that surround us.
>
>  Instead, the group nearly always proposes to study some superficial
> abstract, academic side issue.  It doesn't seem to matter what the
> particular "complexity" issue du Jour is, the "solution" proposed, but
> never implemented by the members of this list is *always* some abstract,
> distancing, academic approach.
>
>  Not that I am picking on you, really I am not.  But seriously, are you
> proposing to use an ABM to explain the societal effects of religious
> fundamentalism?  That would be a side show.  It would place a level of
> abstraction between the real issue and the observer which would totally
> mask the underlying causal issues.
>
>  Those issues, of course, being the irrational, hateful, harmful effects
> of mass adherence to narrow, fundamental religious dogma, plus whatever the
> deep underlying psychological urges are that constantly seem to draw whole
> populations into those belief systems.
>
>  You don't need an ABM to illustrate that; you need a few good history
> books.
>
>  And if you want to understand why people are so prone to locking
> themselves into destructive, exclusive, egocentric world-views, well, good
> luck with that.   I suspect however that game theoretics and ABMs are not
> the proper tools for the job.
>
>  --Doug
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Steve Smith  wrote:
>
>>  Hussein -
>>
>> I hear you...   many of us are challenged to defend the name of our God
>> or our Faith or our gender or our cultural or genetic heritage or sexual
>> orientation or hair color or set of o

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist


Doug -
Well, as much as I respect your opinion, Dave, I could not possibly 
disagree more with you.  Or at least with your opening sentence.


While I choose not to state it as absolute fact, I would like to 
suggest that Religion *is* the problem.
Whether through formal models (requiring complexity science or not) or 
otherwise, this is the crux of what I'm seeking:  Thoughtful, 
introspective ANALYSIS of statements such as this.
Human kind's ongoing attempts to cast one's existence into one or 
another particular narrow religious world-view where some or another 
deity is responsible for them, for their well being, for their 
punishment for failing to follow the tenents of their religion, and 
for their path to redemption; this is *the* problem.
If I am analyzing your statement properly, you are reducing Religion to 
the act of deferring responsibility (and authority) to a deity (and by 
extension a hierarchy of human representatives?) and a prescribed (by 
the deity) set of rules to be enforced by the hierarchy of human 
representatives?  Is that all Religion is?  Is that all it can be?  Is 
there a complementary parallel to "Religion" more aptly called 
"Spirituality"?


Is there a baby in the bathwater?  Do we care?  Is there any way to 
pursue such questions with a modicum of rationality and evidence gathering?
Again, just my opinion.  I would not presume to be a dispenser of 
absolute truth.
Or is it really all just reduced to "opinions" which we can exchange 
endlessly or debate violently but with little if any hope of convergence 
or even agreeing to disagree?


Doug, you and I (and I suspect many others here) may very well have the 
same "sympathies" about Religion but I'm not convinced that it is that 
simple really.


I myself am free of any formal /Religion/ and have no anthropomorphic 
conception of gods or goddesses creating or ordering reality for me.  
But that does not lead me to dismiss it as a harmful conceptual 
structure at the root of all bad human behaviour.   It might well have a 
strong role there in many instances and might even be (as I think you 
posit) a fundamentally destructive element in human society.  But as 
compelling as that is to me (in it's otherness from my point of view) it 
has not been demonstrated to me beyond a long list of examples.


There is no "proof by enumeration" unless that enumeration can be 
demonstrated to be an exhaustive one?So listing off any number of 
transgressions in the name of one Religion or another, might be mildly 
persuasive but it doesn't really take me anywhere real... it just 
becomes the choir preaching to itself through variations of the standard 
hymn?


I'm still jetlagged in contraposition to my avoiding deadlines... so 
maybe I'm just rambling here.


- Steve



--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Prof David West > wrote:


The problem is not with the Religion - it is with various
interpretations of the religion.  And it is a myth that there is a
"majority" available to counteract or condemn the "minority"
Take the obscene group of "Christians" that like to protest at
military funerals claiming "the death is a good thing because it
is God's punishment for tolerating gays."  Or the group that
financed the film at issue the last few days.  (Or Mel Gibson's
father's church.) 
Following Owen's argument we should see almost every other person
who professes to be a Christian denounce this kind of base
misinterpretation of their Religion.  But it does not happen -
because "they" are not "us" and so we do not have to explain,
apologize or denounce.  Only a few political and religious leaders
will react - the Archbishop of Santa Fe, for example, stated that
those people are not following the precepts of the Christian
religion and should be ignored.  Note: no one said they should be
expelled, excommunicated, from Christianity or that Christians
were in any way responsible - even though the extreme position is
grounded in another, more mainstream _interpretation_ of what the
Bible may or may not say about homosexuality.  Hussein Abbas'
eloquent response is a personal example of exactly this kind of
phenomenon.
There is an exact parallel evident in the middle east today. 
Yesterday I heard two imams, the president of Egypt, and the

president of Yemen state that Islam provided no excuse for the
violence - that blasphemy is not an excuse for violence, even to
the blasphemer. (Homenei's famous fatwa against Salman Rushdie was
denounced by a majority of other imams.) Also heard were promises
to seek out and punish the perpetrators (hard there and equally
hard here because of the rule of law). In Pakistan, it is the
imams that are denouncing the morons that apparently framed and
wanted to put to death a young women with mental development
issues, for blasphemy.
Owen wi

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

And she removed the bumper-sticker from her web-site after the interview
with the journalist from Forbes.

Incredible but true, some people start ignorant and become less so.

-- rec --

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

> First things first: the bumper sticker.  It is, sadly, real, and not just
> a photoshopped artifact:
>
> It came out of Georgia, and the woman who created it was shocked, just
> shocked, that people would think it racist.
>
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/don-t-nig-purveyor-paula-smith-says-bumper-185405237.html
>
> More to come...
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Steve Smith  wrote:
>
>>  Doug -
>>
>> You may be correct that the tools are insufficient and/or distancing
>> through abstraction...  and yes it may be a side show.  But as you point
>> out, a side show that has not even been mounted.
>>
>>
>>  *Those issues, of course, being the irrational, hateful, harmful
>> effects of mass adherence to narrow, fundamental religious dogma, plus
>> whatever the deep underlying psychological urges are that constantly seem
>> to draw whole populations into those belief systems.
>>
>> *
>>
>> I don't disagree that these are the *symptoms* we experience/observe.
>> But I'm still more than a little curious about the *causes*.  You might
>> posit (I think you did! ) that the *cause* of various irrational, hateful,
>> harmful effects are "mass adherence to narrow, fundamental, religious
>> dogma" and I can't really argue with you on that.  But where the hell does
>> *that* come from?   Is it necessary?
>>
>> My suggestion of a model (at the risk of distancing through abstraction)
>> is to seek a more "systematic" answer...   *What* are those underlying
>> psychological urges you speak of?  Are there alternative systems of
>> thinking and organization that might yield more desirable global
>> behaviours?
>>
>> What *fundamental* aspects of our systems of belief (religious,
>> political, economic, social, etc.) are  *guaranteed* to lead us there over
>> and over.  Call it Islam, call it Mormonism, call it Logical Positivism,
>> but why does it so often lead us back to the same self-rightous, intolerant
>> places?  Were not most if not all religions founded or evolved or shaped
>> around trying to fix the existing flaws in the systems previously in place?
>>
>>
>>  *You don't need an ABM to illustrate that; you need a few good history
>> books.*
>>
>>  You may read different history books than I do.  The history books I
>> read illustrate *that*  whole populations are drawn into dysfunctional
>> behaviours supported by their belief systems (though depending on who wrote
>> them, it is always a one-sided story, glorifying  one set of dysfunction in
>> contrast to another demonized set.
>>
>>  I suggested *illumination* not *illustration*.   I can look around, from
>> your (existing only in photoshop I suspect) racist bumpersticker or just
>> about every conversation I hear to have what we are talking about
>> *illustrated*... but what I want to know is *what is it all about?*, is
>> there anything to be done!  CAN we get enough distance through abstraction
>> to discover actionable or effectual changes in local strategy to effect
>> global change?
>>
>>  Or do we just fall (dive headlong?) into a bubbling mass of xenophobic
>> blame and/or self-righteous cynicism?  I personally prefer the latter, but
>> it really doesn't change anything for the better.
>>
>> - Steve
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  Steve,  you perhaps accidentally point out what in my opinion is the
>> primary weakness of this so-called "Complexity" group.  That weakness
>> being, again solely in my opinion, an inability or perhaps an unwillingness
>> to face the real substantive, important complexity issues that surround us.
>>
>>  Instead, the group nearly always proposes to study some superficial
>> abstract, academic side issue.  It doesn't seem to matter what the
>> particular "complexity" issue du Jour is, the "solution" proposed, but
>> never implemented by the members of this list is *always* some abstract,
>> distancing, academic approach.
>>
>>  Not that I am picking on you, really I am not.  But seriously, are you
>> proposing to use an ABM to explain the societal effects of religious
>> fundamentalism?  That would be a side show.  It would place a level of
>> abstraction between the real issue and the observer which would totally
>> mask the underlying causal issues.
>>
>>  Those issues, of course, being the irrational, hateful, harmful effects
>> of mass adherence to narrow, fundamental religious dogma, plus whatever the
>> deep underlying psychological urges are that constantly seem to draw whole
>> populations into those belief systems.
>>
>>  You don't need an ABM to illustrate that; you need a few good history
>> books.
>>
>>  And if you want to understand why people are so prone to locking
>> themselves into destructive, exclusive, egocentric world-views, well, good
>> luck with that.   I suspect ho

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

I cannot resist:  a very accurate description of the impact of religion,
via a single word substitution.

In my opinion.

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Roger Critchlow  wrote:

> [...]
>
> *Incredible but true, some people start ignorant and become more so.*
>
> -- rec --
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
>
>> First things first: the bumper sticker.  It is, sadly, real, and not just
>> a photoshopped artifact:
>>
>> It came out of Georgia, and the woman who created it was shocked, just
>> shocked, that people would think it racist.
>>
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/don-t-nig-purveyor-paula-smith-says-bumper-185405237.html
>>
>> More to come...
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Steve Smith  wrote:
>>
>>>  Doug -
>>>
>>> You may be correct that the tools are insufficient and/or distancing
>>> through abstraction...  and yes it may be a side show.  But as you point
>>> out, a side show that has not even been mounted.
>>>
>>>
>>>  *Those issues, of course, being the irrational, hateful, harmful
>>> effects of mass adherence to narrow, fundamental religious dogma, plus
>>> whatever the deep underlying psychological urges are that constantly seem
>>> to draw whole populations into those belief systems.
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> I don't disagree that these are the *symptoms* we experience/observe.
>>> But I'm still more than a little curious about the *causes*.  You might
>>> posit (I think you did! ) that the *cause* of various irrational, hateful,
>>> harmful effects are "mass adherence to narrow, fundamental, religious
>>> dogma" and I can't really argue with you on that.  But where the hell does
>>> *that* come from?   Is it necessary?
>>>
>>> My suggestion of a model (at the risk of distancing through abstraction)
>>> is to seek a more "systematic" answer...   *What* are those underlying
>>> psychological urges you speak of?  Are there alternative systems of
>>> thinking and organization that might yield more desirable global
>>> behaviours?
>>>
>>> What *fundamental* aspects of our systems of belief (religious,
>>> political, economic, social, etc.) are  *guaranteed* to lead us there over
>>> and over.  Call it Islam, call it Mormonism, call it Logical Positivism,
>>> but why does it so often lead us back to the same self-rightous, intolerant
>>> places?  Were not most if not all religions founded or evolved or shaped
>>> around trying to fix the existing flaws in the systems previously in place?
>>>
>>>
>>>  *You don't need an ABM to illustrate that; you need a few good history
>>> books.*
>>>
>>>  You may read different history books than I do.  The history books I
>>> read illustrate *that*  whole populations are drawn into dysfunctional
>>> behaviours supported by their belief systems (though depending on who wrote
>>> them, it is always a one-sided story, glorifying  one set of dysfunction in
>>> contrast to another demonized set.
>>>
>>>  I suggested *illumination* not *illustration*.   I can look around,
>>> from your (existing only in photoshop I suspect) racist bumpersticker or
>>> just about every conversation I hear to have what we are talking about
>>> *illustrated*... but what I want to know is *what is it all about?*, is
>>> there anything to be done!  CAN we get enough distance through abstraction
>>> to discover actionable or effectual changes in local strategy to effect
>>> global change?
>>>
>>>  Or do we just fall (dive headlong?) into a bubbling mass of xenophobic
>>> blame and/or self-righteous cynicism?  I personally prefer the latter, but
>>> it really doesn't change anything for the better.
>>>
>>> - Steve
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  Steve,  you perhaps accidentally point out what in my opinion is the
>>> primary weakness of this so-called "Complexity" group.  That weakness
>>> being, again solely in my opinion, an inability or perhaps an unwillingness
>>> to face the real substantive, important complexity issues that surround us.
>>>
>>>  Instead, the group nearly always proposes to study some superficial
>>> abstract, academic side issue.  It doesn't seem to matter what the
>>> particular "complexity" issue du Jour is, the "solution" proposed, but
>>> never implemented by the members of this list is *always* some abstract,
>>> distancing, academic approach.
>>>
>>>  Not that I am picking on you, really I am not.  But seriously, are you
>>> proposing to use an ABM to explain the societal effects of religious
>>> fundamentalism?  That would be a side show.  It would place a level of
>>> abstraction between the real issue and the observer which would totally
>>> mask the underlying causal issues.
>>>
>>>  Those issues, of course, being the irrational, hateful, harmful
>>> effects of mass adherence to narrow, fundamental religious dogma, plus
>>> whatever the deep underlying psychological urges are that constantly seem
>>> to draw whole populations into those belief systems.
>>>
>>>  You don't need an ABM to illustrate that; you need a few good history

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

Roger -

I grant Doug that the bumpersticker apparently wasn't photoshopped, but
I wouldn't put it past the anti-whatevers to jump the whatevers for
whatever by contriving a "I know this is what they are thinking" device
such as this bumper sticker in question...

I have to ask (just because I'm being argumentative?) if her removal of
the bumper sticker reflects a reduction of her ignorance or just being
intimidated by public outcry?

I myself sometimes suspect myself of not becoming less ignorant over
time, but merely shifting my ignorance from relatively innocent to
rather willful? Am I projecting that experience onto everyone else? I
don't know... it seems possible.

- Steve

And she removed the bumper-sticker from her web-site after the
interview with the journalist from Forbes.

Incredible but true, some people start ignorant and become less so.

-- rec --

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Douglas Roberts > wrote:

First things first: the bumper sticker. It is, sadly, real, and
not just a photoshopped artifact:

It came out of Georgia, and the woman who created it was shocked,
just shocked, that people would think it racist.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/don-t-nig-purveyor-paula-smith-says-bumper-185405237.html

More to come...

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Steve Smith mailto:sasm...@swcp.com>> wrote:

Doug -

You may be correct that the tools are insufficient and/or
distancing through abstraction... and yes it may be a side
show. But as you point out, a side show that has not even
been mounted.

/Those issues, of course, being the irrational, hateful,
harmful effects of mass adherence to narrow, fundamental
religious dogma, plus whatever the deep
underlying psychological urges are that constantly seem to
draw whole populations into those belief systems.

I don't disagree that these are the *symptoms* we
experience/observe. But I'm still more than a little curious
about the *causes*. You might posit (I think you did! ) that
the *cause* of various irrational, hateful, harmful effects
are "mass adherence to narrow, fundamental, religious dogma"
and I can't really argue with you on that. But where the hell
does *that* come from? Is it necessary?

My suggestion of a model (at the risk of distancing through
abstraction) is to seek a more "systematic" answer... *What*
are those underlying psychological urges you speak of? Are
there alternative systems of thinking and organization that
might yield more desirable global behaviours?

What *fundamental* aspects of our systems of belief
(religious, political, economic, social, etc.) are
*guaranteed* to lead us there over and over. Call it Islam,

call it Mormonism, call it Logical Positivism, but why does it
so often lead us back to the same self-rightous, intolerant
places? Were not most if not all religions founded or evolved
or shaped around trying to fix the existing flaws in the
systems previously in place?

/You don't need an ABM to illustrate that; you need a few
good history books./

You may read different history books than I do. The history
books I read illustrate *that* whole populations are drawn
into dysfunctional behaviours supported by their belief
systems (though depending on who wrote them, it is always a
one-sided story, glorifying one set of dysfunction in
contrast to another demonized set.

I suggested *illumination* not *illustration*. I can look
around, from your (existing only in photoshop I suspect)
racist bumpersticker or just about every conversation I hear
to have what we are talking about *illustrated*... but what I
want to know is *what is it all about?*, is there anything to
be done! CAN we get enough distance through abstraction to
discover actionable or effectual changes in local strategy to
effect global change?

Or do we just fall (dive headlong?) into a bubbling mass of
xenophobic blame and/or self-righteous cynicism? I personally
prefer the latter, but it really doesn't change anything for
the better.

- Steve

Steve, you perhaps accidentally point out what in my opinion
is the primary weakness of this so-called "Complexity" group.
That weakness being, again solely in my opinion, an
inability or perhaps an unwillingness to face the real
substantive, important complexity issues that surround us.

Instead, the group nearly always proposes to study some
superficial abstract, academic side issue. It doesn't seem

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

Oh, ok.  I have to stop heckling and take this seriously.  DAMN!

 

First, I yield to no one on this list in my atheism.  I have been an atheist
longer than most of you have been alive.  So there!  My FATHER was an
atheist, my mother was an agnostic.  (For anybody on this list who might
have been a child in the 40's, there was genre of jokes that circulated at
the time called "Little Moron" jokes.  One of my favorites was, 

 

"My father was a moron, my mother was a moron, and [placing the left index
finger in the left ear and making a circle around the right ear with the
right index finger and forefinger] I'm just a little
pencil-sharpener-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r!"

 

Now it suddenly occurs to me that most of the people on this list are too
young to even know what a pencil is, let alone how a manual pencil sharpener
works.  So, ask your parents during your next visit to the retirement
community.  

 

Second, Doug is asserting that religion is a gateway to intolerance (and
other forms of evil) in just the same way that pot is said to be a gateway
to heroin.  It could be, for instance, that the sort of people who smoke pot
are likely to be the sort of people who use heroin.   Or it could be that
almost everybody uses pot, so everybody who has used heroin has previously
used pot.  

 

Third, Doug is intolerant of religion. I am led, thereby to wonder if
software engineering is a gateway to intolerance.  Hmm!  I am going to
have to think that one over.  

 

But I am still heckling.  The deep question here is whether any human being
can live without the kind of faith that religion represents . whether in
fact, ANY human does live without such faith.  I have never met a man fuller
of unreasoned faith than Richard Dawkins.  [He believes, after all, in The
Gene.]  So, given that we are all condemned to a certain sort of
metaphysical craziness, the only interesting point is whether we should be
allowed to  get together and share our craziness with others.  Is organized
craziness the problem?  So, as long as we are all lonely in our craziness,
the world will be safe from intolerance?  Certainly, organized craziness is
more dangerous than solitary craziness.  But on the other hand, organized
sanity is more effective than solitary sanity.  So perhaps "organization" is
orthogonal.  

 

I think I have just proved that software engineers should not be allowed to
organize.  

 

Perhaps I will leave it there. 

 

Nick 

 

 

From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 10:37 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The
Economist

 

Well, as much as I respect your opinion, Dave, I could not possibly disagree
more with you.  Or at least with your opening sentence.

 

While I choose not to state it as absolute fact, I would like to suggest
that Religion *is* the problem.

 

Human kind's ongoing attempts to cast one's existence into one or another
particular narrow religious world-view where some or another deity is
responsible for them, for their well being, for their punishment for failing
to follow the tenents of their religion, and for their path to redemption;
this is the problem.  Again, just my opinion.  I would not presume to be a
dispenser of absolute truth.

 

--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Prof David West 
wrote:

The problem is not with the Religion - it is with various interpretations of
the religion.  And it is a myth that there is a "majority" available to
counteract or condemn the "minority"

 

Take the obscene group of "Christians" that like to protest at military
funerals claiming "the death is a good thing because it is God's  punishment
for tolerating gays."  Or the group that financed the film at issue the last
few days.  (Or Mel Gibson's father's church.) 

 

Following Owen's argument we should see almost every other person who
professes to be a Christian denounce this kind of base misinterpretation of
their Religion.  But it does not happen - because "they" are not "us" and so
we do not have to explain, apologize or denounce.  Only a few political and
religious leaders will react - the Archbishop of Santa Fe, for example,
stated that those people are not following the precepts of the Christian
religion and should be ignored.  Note: no one said they should be expelled,
excommunicated, from Christianity or that Christians were in any way
responsible - even though the extreme position is grounded in another, more
mainstream interpretation of what the Bible may or may not say about
homosexuality.  Hussein Abbas' eloquent response is a personal example of
exactly this kind of phenomenon.

 

There is an exact parallel evident in the middle east today.  Yesterday I
heard two imams, the president of Egypt, and the president of Yemen state
that Islam provided no excuse for the violence - that blasphemy is not an
ex

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

Doug -
I cannot resist: a very accurate description of the impact of
religion, via a single word substitution.
As long as we are being pointed, my last response to Roger's comment and
my ongoing response to yours follows this point:

When does the "Religion of Cynicism" become indistinguishable from all
others?

I don't believe one can become *more* ignorant, merely more willful
about it. I'm (becoming?) living proof (by example) of that methinks.

If this is an "opinion" it is an opinion about the meaning of words, not
about the state of the world. And apparently the dictionary fails to
define "the N word" as racist?

- Steve

In my opinion.

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Roger Critchlow > wrote:

[...]

*Incredible but true, some people start ignorant and become more so.*

-- rec --

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Douglas Roberts
mailto:d...@parrot-farm.net>> wrote:

First things first: the bumper sticker. It is, sadly, real,
and not just a photoshopped artifact:

It came out of Georgia, and the woman who created it was
shocked, just shocked, that people would think it racist.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/don-t-nig-purveyor-paula-smith-says-bumper-185405237.html

More to come...

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Steve Smith mailto:sasm...@swcp.com>> wrote:

Doug -

You may be correct that the tools are insufficient and/or
distancing through abstraction... and yes it may be a
side show. But as you point out, a side show that has not
even been mounted.

/Those issues, of course, being the irrational,
hateful, harmful effects of mass adherence to narrow,
fundamental religious dogma, plus whatever the deep
underlying psychological urges are that constantly
seem to draw whole populations into those belief systems.

I don't disagree that these are the *symptoms* we
experience/observe. But I'm still more than a little
curious about the *causes*. You might posit (I think you
did! ) that the *cause* of various irrational, hateful,
harmful effects are "mass adherence to narrow,
fundamental, religious dogma" and I can't really argue
with you on that. But where the hell does *that* come
from? Is it necessary?

My suggestion of a model (at the risk of distancing
through abstraction) is to seek a more "systematic"
answer... *What* are those underlying psychological
urges you speak of? Are there alternative systems of
thinking and organization that might yield more desirable
global behaviours?

What *fundamental* aspects of our systems of belief
(religious, political, economic, social, etc.) are
*guaranteed* to lead us there over and over. Call it

Islam, call it Mormonism, call it Logical Positivism, but
why does it so often lead us back to the same
self-rightous, intolerant places? Were not most if not all
religions founded or evolved or shaped around trying to
fix the existing flaws in the systems previously in place?

/You don't need an ABM to illustrate that; you need a
few good history books./

You may read different history books than I do. The
history books I read illustrate *that* whole populations
are drawn into dysfunctional behaviours supported by their
belief systems (though depending on who wrote them, it is
always a one-sided story, glorifying one set of
dysfunction in contrast to another demonized set.

I suggested *illumination* not *illustration*. I can
look around, from your (existing only in photoshop I
suspect) racist bumpersticker or just about every
conversation I hear to have what we are talking about
*illustrated*... but what I want to know is *what is it
all about?*, is there anything to be done! CAN we get
enough distance through abstraction to discover actionable
or effectual changes in local strategy to effect global
change?

Or do we just fall (dive headlong?) into a bubbling mass
of xenophobic blame and/or self-righteous cynicism? I
personally prefer the latter, but it really doesn't change
anything for the better.

- Steve

Steve, you perhaps accidentally point out what in my
opinion is the primary weakness of this so-called
"Complexity" group. That weakness being, again solely in
my opinion, an inabili

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

Unsympathetic, perhaps.  Not intolerant, though.  I'm perfectly happy
letting anybody live in whatever delusional world-view they find compelling.

On the other hand, I am decidedly intolerant of
religious proselytizing.  Or religion-based judgmental behavior.  Or
religion-based intolerance.   Or religion-based wars.  Or religion-based
cruelty towards animals.

Other than than, I'm perfectly fine with religion.

--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Nicholas Thompson <
nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[...]

> ** **
>
> Third, Doug is intolerant of religion.
>

[...]

Nick 
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Douglas Roberts
>
> *Sent:* Friday, September 14, 2012 10:37 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya
> | The Economist
>
> ** **
>
> Well, as much as I respect your opinion, Dave, I could not possibly
> disagree more with you.  Or at least with your opening sentence.
>
> ** **
>
> While I choose not to state it as absolute fact, I would like to suggest
> that Religion *is* the problem.
>
> ** **
>
> Human kind's ongoing attempts to cast one's existence into one or another
> particular narrow religious world-view where some or another deity is
> responsible for them, for their well being, for their punishment for
> failing to follow the tenents of their religion, and for their path to
> redemption; this is *the* problem.  Again, just my opinion.  I would not
> presume to be a dispenser of absolute truth.
>
> ** **
>
> --Doug
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Prof David West 
> wrote:
>
> The problem is not with the Religion - it is with various interpretations
> of the religion.  And it is a myth that there is a "majority" available to
> counteract or condemn the "minority"
>
>  
>
> Take the obscene group of "Christians" that like to protest at military
> funerals claiming "the death is a good thing because it is God's
> punishment for tolerating gays."  Or the group that financed the film at
> issue the last few days.  (Or Mel Gibson's father's church.) 
>
>  
>
> Following Owen's argument we should see almost every other person who
> professes to be a Christian denounce this kind of base misinterpretation of
> their Religion.  But it does not happen - because "they" are not "us" and
> so we do not have to explain, apologize or denounce.  Only a few political
> and religious leaders will react - the Archbishop of Santa Fe, for example,
> stated that those people are not following the precepts of the Christian
> religion and should be ignored.  Note: no one said they should be expelled,
> excommunicated, from Christianity or that Christians were in any way
> responsible - even though the extreme position is grounded in another, more
> mainstream *interpretation* of what the Bible may or may not say about
> homosexuality.  Hussein Abbas' eloquent response is a personal example of
> exactly this kind of phenomenon.
>
>  
>
> There is an exact parallel evident in the middle east today.  Yesterday I
> heard two imams, the president of Egypt, and the president of Yemen state
> that Islam provided no excuse for the violence - that blasphemy is not an
> excuse for violence, even to the blasphemer. (Homenei's famous fatwa
> against Salman Rushdie was denounced by a majority of other imams.) Also
> heard were promises to seek out and punish the perpetrators (hard there and
> equally hard here because of the rule of law). In Pakistan, it is the imams
> that are denouncing the morons that apparently framed and wanted to put to
> death a young women with mental development issues, for blasphemy.
>
>  
>
> Owen will never see the reaction he seeks - here, there, anywhere -
> because sectarianism in every religion means there is no "majority" that
> can react and that every sect sees themselves as apart from "those idiots
> over there" and therefore Not Responsible.  Nevertheless, Individual
> leaders, religious and political, do and are currently doing exactly what
> Owen asks - denouncing, pointing out misinterpretations, apologizing (for
> faith and for country) for the miscreants, asking for understanding, and
> promising all possible corrective action/punishment.
>
>  
>
> Is it our own insistence to treat a highly diverse group as a monolithic
> bloc the real root of the problems?  Coupled, of course, with our
> unwillingness to truly examine and understand our own religion let alone
> that of someone else.
>
>  
>
> dave west
>
>  
>
>  
>
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012, at 09:25 PM, Hussein Abbass wrote:
>
> Owen
>
>  
>
> While I am an IT professor, I am very backward in using
> blogs and almost incapable of expressing myself in emails or otherwise.
> Your question would be better discussed in a long session with lots of

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

2012-09-14 Thread Owen Densmore

I do not believe this to be a religious issue at all.  The question is of
groups and institutions.

When a faction of a group becomes apparently insane, do we not expect the
entire group, its leaders and majority, to speak up and to mend?

When civil rights were an issue in the south, many of us (I was at Georgia
Tech) spoke up, and indeed many churches of all stripes did so.  Many NRA
members also speak up about the extreme position the organization takes.
 Examples abound.  And yes, I consider this a Complexity domain, much like
Miller's Applause model.

Isn't this possibly a cultural issue?  Possibly regional?  The largest
Muslim population is not Libya or Egypt or even all of the middle east,
its Indonesia.  They do not appear to have this issue.

So my question stands as Kofi stated:
"Where are the leaders?  Where is the Majority?  Nobody speaks up."
NOT the religious leaders but the leaders of the culture in which the
religion lies.

And Hussein, forgive me, but your inward religious stance has nothing to do
with speaking out against injustice.  It is not a religious issue, but a
civic, cultural one.

   -- Owen

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

Let's see if I understand you correctly, Owen.

There are a bunch of fundamentalist Islamists all up in arms shouting
"Allahu Akhbar" whilst burning down our embassies and killing our diplomats
because there is a film out that is derogatory of the Muslim religion.

And this is not about religion?

I don't see it.

Or you don't see it.

What I do see is that there is one very large disconnect on this particular
issue.

--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Owen Densmore  wrote:

> I do not believe this to be a religious issue at all.  The question is of
> groups and institutions.
>
> When a faction of a group becomes apparently insane, do we not expect the
> entire group, its leaders and majority, to speak up and to mend?
>
> When civil rights were an issue in the south, many of us (I was at Georgia
> Tech) spoke up, and indeed many churches of all stripes did so.  Many NRA
> members also speak up about the extreme position the organization takes.
>  Examples abound.  And yes, I consider this a Complexity domain, much like
> Miller's Applause model.
>
> Isn't this possibly a cultural issue?  Possibly regional?  The largest
> Muslim population is not Libya or Egypt or even all of the middle east,
> its Indonesia.  They do not appear to have this issue.
>
> So my question stands as Kofi stated:
> "Where are the leaders?  Where is the Majority?  Nobody speaks up."
> NOT the religious leaders but the leaders of the culture in which the
> religion lies.
>
> And Hussein, forgive me, but your inward religious stance has nothing to
> do with speaking out against injustice.  It is not a religious issue, but a
> civic, cultural one.
>
>-- Owen
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>



-- 
Doug Roberts
drobe...@rti.org
d...@parrot-farm.net
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist


Re Doug's last comment:


It's about power and control. A justification for them.  They are  
using 'religion' as a potent, unquestionable label to justify their  
behaviour. Much like fundamentalists from all 'religious traditions'
Technically, the word 'religion' derives from 're-linking', as in  
'ligature'.


'Religion' is a form of behaviour that many people use as a structure  
to establish their connection to faith.


Humans are built to believe in something. Linking to a sense of  
something [ larger, more consistent, trustworthy] than our small ego- 
minds is built into our way of conceptualizing our experience.


Science, politics, the earth, the truth, skepticism, god, etc etc -  
all the 'big' words are ideas that humans build into structures to  
support their need to believe.
There is nothing wrong with that. It is not metaphysical craziness,  
just the way we are wired.


Great conversation. Thanks, Hussein.

Tory


On Sep 14, 2012, at 10:24 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:


Let's see if I understand you correctly, Owen.

There are a bunch of fundamentalist Islamists all up in arms  
shouting "Allahu Akhbar" whilst burning down our embassies and  
killing our diplomats because there is a film out that is derogatory  
of the Muslim religion.


And this is not about religion?

I don't see it.

Or you don't see it.

What I do see is that there is one very large disconnect on this  
particular issue.


--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Owen Densmore  
 wrote:
I do not believe this to be a religious issue at all.  The question  
is of groups and institutions.


When a faction of a group becomes apparently insane, do we not  
expect the entire group, its leaders and majority, to speak up and  
to mend?


When civil rights were an issue in the south, many of us (I was at  
Georgia Tech) spoke up, and indeed many churches of all stripes did  
so.  Many NRA members also speak up about the extreme position the  
organization takes.  Examples abound.  And yes, I consider this a  
Complexity domain, much like Miller's Applause model.


Isn't this possibly a cultural issue?  Possibly regional?  The  
largest Muslim population is not Libya or Egypt or even all of the  
middle east, its Indonesia.  They do not appear to have this issue.


So my question stands as Kofi stated:
"Where are the leaders?  Where is the Majority?  Nobody speaks  
up."
NOT the religious leaders but the leaders of the culture in which  
the religion lies.


And Hussein, forgive me, but your inward religious stance has  
nothing to do with speaking out against injustice.  It is not a  
religious issue, but a civic, cultural one.


   -- Owen


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org



--
Doug Roberts
drobe...@rti.org
d...@parrot-farm.net
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

One semi-final note from me about culture and religion:  I lived in Libya
for a year in 1976 when I was a consultant to Occidental Petroleum.
 I traveled extensively between Tripoli, Benghazi, and several points about
900 miles southeast of Tripoli in the northern tip of the Sahara during
that year.  I quickly learned that the culture of the Arabic half of Libya
(as compared to the Berber Bedouin culture that comprises the eastern half
of the country) is dominated by the Islamic religion.  You cannot separate
them.  Religion is interwoven into every aspect of their culture.  Any
attempt to exclude the impact of religion on their culture will fail.

--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

> Let's see if I understand you correctly, Owen.
>
> There are a bunch of fundamentalist Islamists all up in arms shouting
> "Allahu Akhbar" whilst burning down our embassies and killing our diplomats
> because there is a film out that is derogatory of the Muslim religion.
>
> And this is not about religion?
>
> I don't see it.
>
> Or you don't see it.
>
> What I do see is that there is one very large disconnect on this
> particular issue.
>
> --Doug
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:
>
>> I do not believe this to be a religious issue at all.  The question is of
>> groups and institutions.
>>
>> When a faction of a group becomes apparently insane, do we not expect the
>> entire group, its leaders and majority, to speak up and to mend?
>>
>> When civil rights were an issue in the south, many of us (I was at
>> Georgia Tech) spoke up, and indeed many churches of all stripes did so.
>>  Many NRA members also speak up about the extreme position the organization
>> takes.  Examples abound.  And yes, I consider this a Complexity domain,
>> much like Miller's Applause model.
>>
>> Isn't this possibly a cultural issue?  Possibly regional?  The largest
>> Muslim population is not Libya or Egypt or even all of the middle east,
>> its Indonesia.  They do not appear to have this issue.
>>
>> So my question stands as Kofi stated:
>> "Where are the leaders?  Where is the Majority?  Nobody speaks up."
>> NOT the religious leaders but the leaders of the culture in which the
>> religion lies.
>>
>> And Hussein, forgive me, but your inward religious stance has nothing to
>> do with speaking out against injustice.  It is not a religious issue, but a
>> civic, cultural one.
>>
>>-- Owen
>>
>> 
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Doug Roberts
> drobe...@rti.org
> d...@parrot-farm.net
> http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins
> 
> 505-455-7333 - Office
> 505-670-8195 - Cell
>
>


-- 
Doug Roberts
drobe...@rti.org
d...@parrot-farm.net
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

2012-09-14 Thread Robert J. Cordingley

Or there's a bunch of irate terrorists/loonies/freedom fighters that 
hijack the Islamic cause because they can't stand America(ns) and want 
to hurt us as much as possible - pursuing 'death by a thousand cuts' and 
know they can rile up the locals to act/riot/revolt.


Or has this theory been discredited.

Robert C

On 9/14/12 10:24 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

Let's see if I understand you correctly, Owen.

There are a bunch of fundamentalist Islamists all up in arms shouting 
"Allahu Akhbar" whilst burning down our embassies and killing our 
diplomats because there is a film out that is derogatory of the Muslim 
religion.


And this is not about religion?

I don't see it.

Or you don't see it.

What I do see is that there is one very large disconnect on this 
particular issue.


--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Owen Densmore > wrote:


I do not believe this to be a religious issue at all.  The
question is of groups and institutions.

When a faction of a group becomes apparently insane, do we not
expect the entire group, its leaders and majority, to speak up and
to mend?

When civil rights were an issue in the south, many of us (I was at
Georgia Tech) spoke up, and indeed many churches of all stripes
did so.  Many NRA members also speak up about the extreme position
the organization takes.  Examples abound.  And yes, I consider
this a Complexity domain, much like Miller's Applause model.

Isn't this possibly a cultural issue?  Possibly regional?  The
largest Muslim population is not Libya or Egypt or even all of the
middle east, its Indonesia.  They do not appear to have this issue.

So my question stands as Kofi stated:
  "Where are the leaders?  Where is the Majority?  Nobody speaks up."
NOT the religious leaders but the leaders of the culture in which
the religion lies.

And Hussein, forgive me, but your inward religious stance has
nothing to do with speaking out against injustice.  It is not a
religious issue, but a civic, cultural one.

 -- Owen


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org




--
Doug Roberts
drobe...@rti.org 
d...@parrot-farm.net 
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

The Fixation of Belief, Charles S. Peirce, Popular Science Monthly,
November 1877.

http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html

I was going to paraphrase another part of this, but looking at it again I
realize my feeble bowdlerization wouldn't do it justice.  [Emphasis added]

Let the will of the state act, then, instead of that of the individual. Let
an institution be created which shall have for its object to keep correct
doctrines before the attention of the people, to reiterate them
perpetually, and to teach them to the young; having at the same time power
to prevent contrary doctrines from being taught, advocated, or expressed.
Let all possible causes of a change of mind be removed from men's
apprehensions. Let them be kept ignorant, lest they should learn of some
reason to think otherwise than they do. Let their passions be enlisted, so
that they may regard private and unusual opinions with hatred and horror.
Then, let all men who reject the established belief be terrified into
silence. Let the people turn out and tar-and-feather such men, or let
inquisitions be made into the manner of thinking of suspected persons, and
when they are found guilty of forbidden beliefs, let them be subjected to
some signal punishment.* When complete agreement could not otherwise be
reached, a general massacre of all who have not thought in a certain way
has proved a very effective means of settling opinion in a country.* If the
power to do this be wanting, let a list of opinions be drawn up, to which
no man of the least independence of thought can assent, and let the
faithful be required to accept all these propositions, in order to
segregate them as radically as possible from the influence of the rest of
the world.


This isn't Peirce's solution to the question.  And it doesn't really matter
whether you let the religious fringe, the religious moderates, the
rationalists, or the state enforce correct doctrines, the doctrines are
never completely correct, and you always get unfortunate errors in the
enforcement.

-- rec --

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

2012-09-14 Thread Belinda Wong-Swanson

Great discussion, everyone.

To Owen's point about speaking out against injustice, perhaps we should start a 
world-wide organization of the "6-Sigma Peaceful Majority", speaking out 
against violence and hatred for any reason. May be it's time for the grass-root 
majority to be the leaders of peace and tolerance.

Belinda


On Sep 14, 2012, at 10:44 AM, Robert J. Cordingley wrote:

> Or there's a bunch of irate terrorists/loonies/freedom fighters that hijack 
> the Islamic cause because they can't stand America(ns) and want to hurt us as 
> much as possible - pursuing 'death by a thousand cuts' and know they can rile 
> up the locals to act/riot/revolt.
> 
> Or has this theory been discredited. 
> 
> Robert C
> 
> On 9/14/12 10:24 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
>> Let's see if I understand you correctly, Owen. 
>> 
>> There are a bunch of fundamentalist Islamists all up in arms shouting 
>> "Allahu Akhbar" whilst burning down our embassies and killing our diplomats 
>> because there is a film out that is derogatory of the Muslim religion.
>> 
>> And this is not about religion?
>> 
>> I don't see it.
>> 
>> Or you don't see it.
>> 
>> What I do see is that there is one very large disconnect on this particular 
>> issue.
>> 
>> --Doug
>> 
>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Owen Densmore  wrote:
>> I do not believe this to be a religious issue at all.  The question is of 
>> groups and institutions.
>> 
>> When a faction of a group becomes apparently insane, do we not expect the 
>> entire group, its leaders and majority, to speak up and to mend?
>> 
>> When civil rights were an issue in the south, many of us (I was at Georgia 
>> Tech) spoke up, and indeed many churches of all stripes did so.  Many NRA 
>> members also speak up about the extreme position the organization takes.  
>> Examples abound.  And yes, I consider this a Complexity domain, much like 
>> Miller's Applause model.
>> 
>> Isn't this possibly a cultural issue?  Possibly regional?  The largest 
>> Muslim population is not Libya or Egypt or even all of the middle east, its 
>> Indonesia.  They do not appear to have this issue.
>> 
>> So my question stands as Kofi stated:
>> "Where are the leaders?  Where is the Majority?  Nobody speaks up."
>> NOT the religious leaders but the leaders of the culture in which the 
>> religion lies.
>> 
>> And Hussein, forgive me, but your inward religious stance has nothing to do 
>> with speaking out against injustice.  It is not a religious issue, but a 
>> civic, cultural one.
>> 
>>-- Owen
>> 
>> 
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Doug Roberts
>> drobe...@rti.org
>> d...@parrot-farm.net
>> http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins
>> 
>> 505-455-7333 - Office
>> 505-670-8195 - Cell
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> 
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist



Religion is not inherently bad. It is the use of it for mundane power  
that is the problem.
All religious traditions began with a prophet / visionary / mystic who  
urged tolerance, peace and self-awareness. Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha...  
In most cases, that person's initial followers began to leverage their  
own closeness and supposed 'superior understanding' to that original  
figure to justify behaviour that benefited their mundane activities.


Every religion has gone through this. Every creed of any kind has gone  
through this. The challenge is our use of belief.


Nick could speak to this too: there are developmental lines in the  
psychology of individuals, groups, nations, tribes, etc: and these  
will use powerful innate tools (like the human need to believe in  
something) for different purposes, depending on their development.


And there is nothing inherently wrong or flawed in the things in which  
people embed their beliefs. Science, truth, the divine, all those have  
positive beneficial elements. Again, it is the use of those concepts  
as tools to persuade others into actions that destroy that is the  
problem.


Self-awareness in all this is the key.

Tory

On Sep 14, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

One semi-final note from me about culture and religion:  I lived in  
Libya for a year in 1976 when I was a consultant to Occidental  
Petroleum.  I traveled extensively between Tripoli, Benghazi, and  
several points about 900 miles southeast of Tripoli in the northern  
tip of the Sahara during that year.  I quickly learned that the  
culture of the Arabic half of Libya (as compared to the Berber  
Bedouin culture that comprises the eastern half of the country) is  
dominated by the Islamic religion.  You cannot separate them.   
Religion is interwoven into every aspect of their culture.  Any  
attempt to exclude the impact of religion on their culture will fail.


--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Douglas Roberts > wrote:

Let's see if I understand you correctly, Owen.

There are a bunch of fundamentalist Islamists all up in arms  
shouting "Allahu Akhbar" whilst burning down our embassies and  
killing our diplomats because there is a film out that is derogatory  
of the Muslim religion.


And this is not about religion?

I don't see it.

Or you don't see it.

What I do see is that there is one very large disconnect on this  
particular issue.


--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Owen Densmore  
 wrote:
I do not believe this to be a religious issue at all.  The question  
is of groups and institutions.


When a faction of a group becomes apparently insane, do we not  
expect the entire group, its leaders and majority, to speak up and  
to mend?


When civil rights were an issue in the south, many of us (I was at  
Georgia Tech) spoke up, and indeed many churches of all stripes did  
so.  Many NRA members also speak up about the extreme position the  
organization takes.  Examples abound.  And yes, I consider this a  
Complexity domain, much like Miller's Applause model.


Isn't this possibly a cultural issue?  Possibly regional?  The  
largest Muslim population is not Libya or Egypt or even all of the  
middle east, its Indonesia.  They do not appear to have this issue.


So my question stands as Kofi stated:
"Where are the leaders?  Where is the Majority?  Nobody speaks  
up."
NOT the religious leaders but the leaders of the culture in which  
the religion lies.


And Hussein, forgive me, but your inward religious stance has  
nothing to do with speaking out against injustice.  It is not a  
religious issue, but a civic, cultural one.


   -- Owen


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org



--
Doug Roberts
drobe...@rti.org
d...@parrot-farm.net
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell




--
Doug Roberts
drobe...@rti.org
d...@parrot-farm.net
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org






FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist


Exactly.
Thanks, Roger.


On Sep 14, 2012, at 10:47 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote:

The Fixation of Belief, Charles S. Peirce, Popular Science Monthly,  
November 1877.


http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html

I was going to paraphrase another part of this, but looking at it  
again I realize my feeble bowdlerization wouldn't do it justice.   
[Emphasis added]


Let the will of the state act, then, instead of that of the  
individual. Let an institution be created which shall have for its  
object to keep correct doctrines before the attention of the people,  
to reiterate them perpetually, and to teach them to the young;  
having at the same time power to prevent contrary doctrines from  
being taught, advocated, or expressed. Let all possible causes of a  
change of mind be removed from men's apprehensions. Let them be kept  
ignorant, lest they should learn of some reason to think otherwise  
than they do. Let their passions be enlisted, so that they may  
regard private and unusual opinions with hatred and horror. Then,  
let all men who reject the established belief be terrified into  
silence. Let the people turn out and tar-and-feather such men, or  
let inquisitions be made into the manner of thinking of suspected  
persons, and when they are found guilty of forbidden beliefs, let  
them be subjected to some signal punishment. When complete agreement  
could not otherwise be reached, a general massacre of all who have  
not thought in a certain way has proved a very effective means of  
settling opinion in a country. If the power to do this be wanting,  
let a list of opinions be drawn up, to which no man of the least  
independence of thought can assent, and let the faithful be required  
to accept all these propositions, in order to segregate them as  
radically as possible from the influence of the rest of the world.


This isn't Peirce's solution to the question.  And it doesn't really  
matter whether you let the religious fringe, the religious  
moderates, the rationalists, or the state enforce correct doctrines,  
the doctrines are never completely correct, and you always get  
unfortunate errors in the enforcement.


-- rec --

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

Well see, here we go again.

To which I come back again with the point of view that any philosophy, or
religion that is human-centric in nature as both Christianity or Islam are,
is inherently bad.  A narrow world view, enabled, promoted, and enforced
with even narrower strict fundamentalist practitioners is by definition
destructive.

There can be no greater moral deficiency than having been born with an
intellect and then refusing to use it.

Blind faith is exactly that: blind.  "Faith" in religion is defined as
having accepted, unquestioningly, what someone else has told you is the one
true way.

I personally have no respect for religious faith.

I respect people's right to chose to live that way, right up to the point
where they attempt to influence how I live and think. But not their
decision to unquestioningly commit to a dogma.

Religion, because it requires "faith" to become a subscriber, is inherently
bad.

And as long as we're on the subject, if religion is bad for the reasons
described above, then the opposite of religion is cosmology: the science of
trying to *understand* the universe rather than attempting to explain it
away with fairy tales.

--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Victoria Hughes
wrote:

>
> *Religion is not inherently bad. *It is the use of it for mundane power
> that is the problem.
> All religious traditions began with a prophet / visionary / mystic who
> urged tolerance, peace and self-awareness. Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha... In
> most cases, that person's initial followers began to leverage their own
> closeness and supposed 'superior understanding' to that original figure to
> justify behaviour that benefited their mundane activities.
>
> Every religion has gone through this. Every creed of any kind has gone
> through this. The challenge is our use of belief.
>
> Nick could speak to this too: there are developmental lines in the
> psychology of individuals, groups, nations, tribes, etc: and these will use
> powerful innate tools (like the human need to believe in something) for
> different purposes, depending on their development.
>
> And there is nothing inherently wrong or flawed in the things in which
> people embed their beliefs. Science, truth, the divine, all those have
> positive beneficial elements. Again, it is the use of those concepts as
> tools to persuade others into actions that destroy that is the problem.
>
> Self-awareness in all this is the key.
>
> Tory
>
> On Sep 14, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
>
> One semi-final note from me about culture and religion:  I lived in Libya
> for a year in 1976 when I was a consultant to Occidental Petroleum.
>  I traveled extensively between Tripoli, Benghazi, and several points about
> 900 miles southeast of Tripoli in the northern tip of the Sahara during
> that year.  I quickly learned that the culture of the Arabic half of Libya
> (as compared to the Berber Bedouin culture that comprises the eastern half
> of the country) is dominated by the Islamic religion.  You cannot separate
> them.  Religion is interwoven into every aspect of their culture.  Any
> attempt to exclude the impact of religion on their culture will fail.
>
> --Doug
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
>
>> Let's see if I understand you correctly, Owen.
>>
>> There are a bunch of fundamentalist Islamists all up in arms shouting
>> "Allahu Akhbar" whilst burning down our embassies and killing our diplomats
>> because there is a film out that is derogatory of the Muslim religion.
>>
>> And this is not about religion?
>>
>> I don't see it.
>>
>> Or you don't see it.
>>
>> What I do see is that there is one very large disconnect on this
>> particular issue.
>>
>> --Doug
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:
>>
>>> I do not believe this to be a religious issue at all.  The question is
>>> of groups and institutions.
>>>
>>> When a faction of a group becomes apparently insane, do we not expect
>>> the entire group, its leaders and majority, to speak up and to mend?
>>>
>>> When civil rights were an issue in the south, many of us (I was at
>>> Georgia Tech) spoke up, and indeed many churches of all stripes did so.
>>>  Many NRA members also speak up about the extreme position the organization
>>> takes.  Examples abound.  And yes, I consider this a Complexity domain,
>>> much like Miller's Applause model.
>>>
>>> Isn't this possibly a cultural issue?  Possibly regional?  The largest
>>> Muslim population is not Libya or Egypt or even all of the middle east,
>>> its Indonesia.  They do not appear to have this issue.
>>>
>>> So my question stands as Kofi stated:
>>> "Where are the leaders?  Where is the Majority?  Nobody speaks up."
>>> NOT the religious leaders but the leaders of the culture in which the
>>> religion lies.
>>>
>>> And Hussein, forgive me, but your inward religious stance has nothing to
>>> do with speaking out against injustice.  It is not a religious issue, but a
>>> civic

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

Roger, 

 

I am always stunned by your ability to mine the web for wonderful stuff.  

 

I happen to have the Peirce paper sitting on my table, so let me draw his
argument out a bit further.  Piece describes 4 ways of fixing belief . This
one he calls authority.  The two others he disapproves of are essentially
stubbornness . pick something and run with it . and forming a school -
getting together with a bunch of people and agreeing on something to run
with.  He thinks that all of these means have some benefits, but that the
only beliefs that will endure are scientific beliefs, i.e., beliefs that are
formed through organized scientific truth-seeking . experimentation,
replication, theory, criticism, argument, instrument building, etc., etc.
But even scientific beliefs are only fated to be true in the very long run,
and nothing that we believe now can be counted on to be true.   Also, truth
is DEFINED in Perce to be just that which we are, in the very long fated to
believe.  So, instead of justifying the scientific method as that which
takes us to the truth, he defines the truth as that which the scientific
method [broadly understood] takes us to.  It's a very strange philosophy,
and it is classically pragmatic.  Just as Holmes defined justice as what
good judges do in the long run, Peirce defined truth as what good scientists
produce, in the long run.  In the short run, you're on you own.  And bad
scientists, just like other people, are prone to fixing belief on one of the
other, less enduring, ways.  

 

Nick 

 

From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-b oun...@redfish.com] On
Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 12:47 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The
Economist

 

The Fixation of Belief, Charles S. Peirce, Popular Science Monthly, November
1877.

 

http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html

 

I was going to paraphrase another part of this, but looking at it again I
realize my feeble bowdlerization wouldn't do it justice.  [Emphasis added]

 

Let the will of the state act, then, instead of that of the individual. Let
an institution be created which shall have for its object to keep correct
doctrines before the attention of the people, to reiterate them perpetually,
and to teach them to the young; having at the same time power to prevent
contrary doctrines from being taught, advocated, or expressed. Let all
possible causes of a change of mind be removed from men's apprehensions. Let
them be kept ignorant, lest they should learn of some reason to think
otherwise than they do. Let their passions be enlisted, so that they may
regard private and unusual opinions with hatred and horror. Then, let all
men who reject the established belief be terrified into silence. Let the
people turn out and tar-and-feather such men, or let inquisitions be made
into the manner of thinking of suspected persons, and when they are found
guilty of forbidden beliefs, let them be subjected to some signal
punishment. When complete agreement could not otherwise be reached, a
general massacre of all who have not thought in a certain way has proved a
very effective means of settling opinion in a country. If the power to do
this be wanting, let a list of opinions be drawn up, to which no man of the
least independence of thought can assent, and let the faithful be required
to accept all these propositions, in order to segregate them as radically as
possible from the influence of the rest of the world.

 

This isn't Peirce's solution to the question.  And it doesn't really matter
whether you let the religious fringe, the religious moderates, the
rationalists, or the state enforce correct doctrines, the doctrines are
never completely correct, and you always get unfortunate errors in the
enforcement.

 

-- rec --


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

Here we go again, indeed. 

 

"Blind faith" is a redundancy, right?  All faith is blind.  We do not have
faith in what we doubt.  As  Peirce would say:  Doubt is not a guest.  We do
not entertain it.  When it moves in, it sleeps in our bed, eats at our
table, goes to work with us, and listens to NPR with us when we drive home
in the car.Ditto belief.  Descartes notion that we doubt everything that
we cannot assert with certainty was . to coin a phrase . crap.  

 

So we are talking about faith, full stop.  And we are talking about the
claim, made by a single man, Doug Roberts, as it happens, although it could
be any man, that he lives without faith.  

 

I stipulate that I am wrong if it can be shown that Doug Roberts lives
without faith.  

 

How to test such a proposition?  I could put the burden on Doug.  I could
say, "Doug, show me that every proposition you believe is founded in
explicit premises for which you know the evidence, which evidentiary
premises are themselves founded on explicit premises for which you know the
evidence.  Etc. "  In other words, prove the null.  This seems harsh, but
just, given the boldness of the claim.   

 

I would predict that whatever belief Doug (or any other human) might choose
to hold, if we walk him backward through his premises, we will eventually
find a place where he appeals to stubbornness ("I have always believed
that"), authority ("my orals committee told me it was true"), or consensus
("the guys in  the lab all agree it's true"), and these, in my book, are all
forms of faith.  We are all capable of thinking scientifically for a bit.
After that, Sahib, it's turtles all the way down.  

 

I think it's fair to say that the sooner such a place is reached in some
person's thinking on a subject, the less interesting that person's thinking
on that subject is..  For that reason, I would assume that Doug shares my
distaste for "short loop" explanations such as "God's will" or "because the
spirit moved me".   If this is what he means by faith, then I absolutely
agree with him.  But the problem here is not faith, itself, which always
lies somewhere down there amongst the turtles, but the rapidity to which a
shallow thinker appeals to it.

 

Coming back to Santa Fe in a couple of weeks.  Aren't you guys GLAD?!  I am
excited. 

 

Nick 

 

 

From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 1:19 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The
Economist

 

Well see, here we go again. 

 

To which I come back again with the point of view that any philosophy, or
religion that is human-centric in nature as both Christianity or Islam are,
is inherently bad.  A narrow world view, enabled, promoted, and enforced
with even narrower strict fundamentalist practitioners is by definition
destructive.

 

There can be no greater moral deficiency than having been born with an
intellect and then refusing to use it.

 

Blind faith is exactly that: blind.  "Faith" in religion is defined as
having accepted, unquestioningly, what someone else has told you is the one
true way.  

 

I personally have no respect for religious faith.  

 

I respect people's right to chose to live that way, right up to the point
where they attempt to influence how I live and think. But not their decision
to unquestioningly commit to a dogma.

 

Religion, because it requires "faith" to become a subscriber, is inherently
bad.

 

And as long as we're on the subject, if religion is bad for the reasons
described above, then the opposite of religion is cosmology: the science of
trying to understand the universe rather than attempting to explain it away
with fairy tales.

 

--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Victoria Hughes 
wrote:

 

Religion is not inherently bad. It is the use of it for mundane power that
is the problem. 

All religious traditions began with a prophet / visionary / mystic who urged
tolerance, peace and self-awareness. Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha... In most
cases, that person's initial followers began to leverage their own closeness
and supposed 'superior understanding' to that original figure to justify
behaviour that benefited their mundane activities.

 

Every religion has gone through this. Every creed of any kind has gone
through this. The challenge is our use of belief. 

 

Nick could speak to this too: there are developmental lines in the
psychology of individuals, groups, nations, tribes, etc: and these will use
powerful innate tools (like the human need to believe in something) for
different purposes, depending on their development. 

 

And there is nothing inherently wrong or flawed in the things in which
people embed their beliefs. Science, truth, the divine, all those have
positive beneficial elements. Again, it is the use of those concepts as
tools to persuade others into actions that destroy

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

Absolutely to Steve, and whiskey and a talk about all this. I would  
LOVE to.

Just tell me the time and place.

Tory



On Sep 14, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:


Victoria,

I was speaking from the perspective of two religions with which I  
have first-hand familiarity: Christianity and Islam.  Both of which  
require faith as a prerequisite of membership.


But yes, I'd enjoy drinking whiskey with you and, if I may suggest,  
Steve S. to discuss further.


--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Victoria Hughes > wrote:

Doug -
You are defining religion differently than I am. I said nothing  
about blind faith. That was your term.
I was talking about belief. You have belief (blind faith?) in your  
intellectual objectivism.


Buddha said very clearly and consistently "Do not do this because I  
tell you to. Try this and see if it works for you, and then do it or  
not."


I am happy to continue this until the cows come home, but I suspect  
this list is not the place.

If you want to meet over whisky, and get into this, let me know.

Tory






Tory Hughes
unusual objects and unique adornments
www.toryhughes.com
www.toryhughes-galleryshop.com
www.facebook.com/tory.hughes1






On Sep 14, 2012, at 11:18 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:


Well see, here we go again.

To which I come back again with the point of view that any  
philosophy, or religion that is human-centric in nature as both  
Christianity or Islam are, is inherently bad.  A narrow world view,  
enabled, promoted, and enforced with even narrower strict  
fundamentalist practitioners is by definition destructive.


There can be no greater moral deficiency than having been born with  
an intellect and then refusing to use it.


Blind faith is exactly that: blind.  "Faith" in religion is defined  
as having accepted, unquestioningly, what someone else has told you  
is the one true way.


I personally have no respect for religious faith.

I respect people's right to chose to live that way, right up to the  
point where they attempt to influence how I live and think. But not  
their decision to unquestioningly commit to a dogma.


Religion, because it requires "faith" to become a subscriber, is  
inherently bad.


And as long as we're on the subject, if religion is bad for the  
reasons described above, then the opposite of religion is  
cosmology: the science of trying to understand the universe rather  
than attempting to explain it away with fairy tales.


--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Victoria Hughes > wrote:


Religion is not inherently bad. It is the use of it for mundane  
power that is the problem.
All religious traditions began with a prophet / visionary / mystic  
who urged tolerance, peace and self-awareness. Muhammad, Jesus,  
Buddha... In most cases, that person's initial followers began to  
leverage their own closeness and supposed 'superior understanding'  
to that original figure to justify behaviour that benefited their  
mundane activities.


Every religion has gone through this. Every creed of any kind has  
gone through this. The challenge is our use of belief.


Nick could speak to this too: there are developmental lines in the  
psychology of individuals, groups, nations, tribes, etc: and these  
will use powerful innate tools (like the human need to believe in  
something) for different purposes, depending on their development.


And there is nothing inherently wrong or flawed in the things in  
which people embed their beliefs. Science, truth, the divine, all  
those have positive beneficial elements. Again, it is the use of  
those concepts as tools to persuade others into actions that  
destroy that is the problem.


Self-awareness in all this is the key.

Tory

On Sep 14, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

One semi-final note from me about culture and religion:  I lived  
in Libya for a year in 1976 when I was a consultant to Occidental  
Petroleum.  I traveled extensively between Tripoli, Benghazi, and  
several points about 900 miles southeast of Tripoli in the  
northern tip of the Sahara during that year.  I quickly learned  
that the culture of the Arabic half of Libya (as compared to the  
Berber Bedouin culture that comprises the eastern half of the  
country) is dominated by the Islamic religion.  You cannot  
separate them.  Religion is interwoven into every aspect of their  
culture.  Any attempt to exclude the impact of religion on their  
culture will fail.


--Doug


On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Douglas Roberts > wrote:

Let's see if I understand you correctly, Owen.

There are a bunch of fundamentalist Islamists all up in arms  
shouting "Allahu Akhbar" whilst burning down our embassies and  
killing our diplomats because there is a film out that is  
derogatory of the Muslim religion.


And this is not about religion?

I don't see it.

Or you don't see it.

What I do see is that there is one very large disconnect on this  
particular issue.


--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 20

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

2012-09-14 Thread glen


It always surprises me the extent to which people (yes!  people in
general) over-simplify complex things.  One of my pet peeves is the
conviction that religion is identical with belief or doctrine.

Most religion is an individualized convolution of belief and practice.
It's not merely belief and it's not merely practice.  The extent to
which any individual's religion is belief vs. practice varies dramatically.

So, to people like Doug, I can justifiably counter that religion is not
(merely) reducible to belief or faith.  And we know he already knows
this by his statement that Islam was tightly woven into the fabric of
western Libya.  Yet, he contradicts himself almost immediately and
claims that religion (yes, all religion, everywhere and everyone)
requires faith.  Which is it?  Can religion be woven deeply into one's
actions?  Or not?  And if not, then how deeply can a religion be woven
into the actions of animals?  What is the most habitual, instinctively,
epigenetic(?) action into which religion can be woven?

The answer is simple: some of us weave thought into our actions more
than others.  Some religious people hold faith more central to their
religion and some hold practice as more central.

I posit that those scientists who self identify as religious hold
doctrine as _less_ central to their religion than practice.  Interacting
with the real world probably takes precedence over navel-gazing.  I.e.
Hanging out with their group singing songs and eating cookies is more
important than the definition of God.  (I'd contrast this with, say,
mathematicians who self identify as religious. ;-)

Anyway, this is why I chose to quote Nick's comment. ;-)  Faith is just
an idea ... a thought.  To claim that faith always lies somewhere down
there is to claim that our universe is somehow _rooted_ in or at least
heavily dependent on thought.  I disagree completely.  I believe in
zombies.  I believe animals exist who either have no thoughts or in whom
thought is purely epiphenomenal.  These animals do not require faith at
any layer.

Nicholas Thompson wrote at 09/14/2012 11:31 AM:
> But the problem here is not faith, itself, which always
> lies somewhere down there amongst the turtles, but the rapidity to which a
> shallow thinker appeals to it.


-- 
glen


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[FRIAM] Is my government too big?

This graph shows the government employees in the US, all levels of
government, divided by the population of the US.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=87170

Color me surprised.  The government/capita has been 0.0725+/-0.0025 since
1982.  Variation in the last digit, 0.0001, represents ~31500 employees in
our current population of ~315 million, so there's room for a lot of wiggle
there.  But it looks like a resource limited growth curve that met its
limit 30 years ago and has danced around the limit since then.

This graph shows the federal government employees in the US divided by the
population of the US.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=87182

The federal/capita fell from 0.016 to 0.009 over these 60 years, most
steeply under the Clinton administration.  The only federal/capita
increases in the last 60 years were during Johnson's "Great Society" and
Reagan's administration.  The most recent federal contraction started under
Bush1 in 1988 and has brought us from 0.013 to 0.009 federal
employees/capita.  Obama's stimulus started to reverse the trend, but he's
now running the leanest federal/capita in the last 60 years.

The rough constancy overall since 1988 is a crowd sourced result combining
decisions made by 50 state and ~87000 local governments while the federal
government shrank.

So, what's a big government?  Are there any other national statistics for
comparison?

-- rec --

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

If your conversations go on past the first of October, I would love to join
you.  N

From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Victoria Hughes
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 2:42 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The
Economist

Absolutely to Steve, and whiskey and a talk about all this. I would LOVE to.

Just tell me the time and place. 

Tory

On Sep 14, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

Victoria,

I was speaking from the perspective of two religions with which I have
first-hand familiarity: Christianity and Islam.  Both of which require faith
as a prerequisite of membership.

But yes, I'd enjoy drinking whiskey with you and, if I may suggest, Steve S.
to discuss further.

--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Victoria Hughes 
wrote:

Doug -

You are defining religion differently than I am. I said nothing about blind
faith. That was your term. 

I was talking about belief. You have belief (blind faith?) in your
intellectual objectivism.

Buddha said very clearly and consistently "Do not do this because I tell you
to. Try this and see if it works for you, and then do it or not."

I am happy to continue this until the cows come home, but I suspect this
list is not the place.  

If you want to meet over whisky, and get into this, let me know. 

Tory

Tory Hughes

unusual objects and unique adornments 

www.toryhughes.com

www.toryhughes-galleryshop.com

www.facebook.com/tory.hughes1

On Sep 14, 2012, at 11:18 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

Well see, here we go again. 

To which I come back again with the point of view that any philosophy, or
religion that is human-centric in nature as both Christianity or Islam are,
is inherently bad.  A narrow world view, enabled, promoted, and enforced
with even narrower strict fundamentalist practitioners is by definition
destructive.

There can be no greater moral deficiency than having been born with an
intellect and then refusing to use it.

Blind faith is exactly that: blind.  "Faith" in religion is defined as
having accepted, unquestioningly, what someone else has told you is the one
true way.  

I personally have no respect for religious faith.  

I respect people's right to chose to live that way, right up to the point
where they attempt to influence how I live and think. But not their decision
to unquestioningly commit to a dogma.

Religion, because it requires "faith" to become a subscriber, is inherently
bad.

And as long as we're on the subject, if religion is bad for the reasons
described above, then the opposite of religion is cosmology: the science of
trying to understand the universe rather than attempting to explain it away
with fairy tales.

--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Victoria Hughes 
wrote:

Religion is not inherently bad. It is the use of it for mundane power that
is the problem. 

All religious traditions began with a prophet / visionary / mystic who urged
tolerance, peace and self-awareness. Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha... In most
cases, that person's initial followers began to leverage their own closeness
and supposed 'superior understanding' to that original figure to justify
behaviour that benefited their mundane activities.

Every religion has gone through this. Every creed of any kind has gone
through this. The challenge is our use of belief. 

Nick could speak to this too: there are developmental lines in the
psychology of individuals, groups, nations, tribes, etc: and these will use
powerful innate tools (like the human need to believe in something) for
different purposes, depending on their development. 

And there is nothing inherently wrong or flawed in the things in which
people embed their beliefs. Science, truth, the divine, all those have
positive beneficial elements. Again, it is the use of those concepts as
tools to persuade others into actions that destroy that is the problem. 

Self-awareness in all this is the key.

Tory

On Sep 14, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

One semi-final note from me about culture and religion:  I lived in Libya
for a year in 1976 when I was a consultant to Occidental Petroleum.  I
traveled extensively between Tripoli, Benghazi, and several points about 900
miles southeast of Tripoli in the northern tip of the Sahara during that
year.  I quickly learned that the culture of the Arabic half of Libya (as
compared to the Berber Bedouin culture that comprises the eastern half of
the country) is dominated by the Islamic religion.  You cannot separate
them.  Religion is interwoven into every aspect of their culture.  Any
attempt to exclude the impact of religion on their culture will fail.

--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Douglas Roberts 
wrote:

Let's see if I understand you correctly, Owen. 

There are a bunch o

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

Nick, you're in fine form.  Can't wait until you come back to Santa Fe so
that I may better experience it once again in person.

It's been a rather full Friday of trying to get my work done while
communicating with my colleagues on the off-topics of politics and religion.

One closing note, however on the latter selection:  you may have faith that
when it comes to religion, I am totally faithless.  I didn't buy into the
concept while they were trying to brainwash it into me at the tender age of
8 in Sunday school at the United Church in Los Alamos, and I'm still not
buying.

But thank you for once again taking such an interest in my own particular
world view!

--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Nicholas Thompson <
nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Here we go again, indeed. 
>
> ** **
>
> “Blind faith” is a redundancy, right?  All faith is blind.  We do not have
> faith in what we doubt.  As  Peirce would say:  Doubt is not a guest.  We
> do not entertain it.  When it moves in, it sleeps in our bed, eats at our
> table, goes to work with us, and listens to NPR with us when we drive home
> in the car.Ditto belief.  Descartes notion that we doubt everything
> that we cannot assert with certainty was … to coin a phrase … crap.  
>
> ** **
>
> So we are talking about faith, full stop.  And we are talking about the
> claim, made by a single man, Doug Roberts, as it happens, although it could
> be any man, *that he lives without faith*.  
>
> ** **
>
> I stipulate that I am wrong if it can be shown that Doug Roberts lives
> without faith.  
>
> ** **
>
> How to test such a proposition?  I could put the burden on Doug.  I could
> say, “Doug, show me that every proposition you believe is founded in
> explicit premises for which you know the evidence, which evidentiary
> premises are themselves founded on explicit premises for which you know the
> evidence.  Etc. ”  In other words, prove the null.  This seems harsh, but
> just, given the boldness of the claim.   
>
> ** **
>
> I would predict that whatever belief Doug (or any other human) might
> choose to hold, if we walk him backward through his premises, we will
> eventually find a place where he appeals to stubbornness (“I have always
> believed that”), authority (“my orals committee told me it was true”), or
> consensus (“the guys in  the lab all agree it’s true”), and these, in my
> book, are all forms of faith.  We are all capable of thinking
> scientifically for a bit.  After that, Sahib, it’s turtles all the way
> down.  
>
> ** **
>
> I think it’s fair to say that the sooner such a place is reached in some
> person’s thinking on a subject, the less interesting that person’s thinking
> on that subject is..  For that reason, I would assume that Doug shares my
> distaste for “short loop” explanations such as “God’s will” or “because the
> spirit moved me”.   If this is what he means by faith, then I absolutely
> agree with him.  But the problem here is not faith, itself, which always
> lies somewhere down there amongst the turtles, but the rapidity to which a
> shallow thinker appeals to it.
>
> ** **
>
> Coming back to Santa Fe in a couple of weeks.  Aren’t you guys GLAD?!  I
> am excited. 
>
> ** **
>
> Nick 
>
> ** **
>
> 
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Douglas Roberts
> *Sent:* Friday, September 14, 2012 1:19 PM
>
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya
> | The Economist
>
> ** **
>
> Well see, here we go again. 
>
> ** **
>
> To which I come back again with the point of view that any philosophy, or
> religion that is human-centric in nature as both Christianity or Islam are,
> is inherently bad.  A narrow world view, enabled, promoted, and enforced
> with even narrower strict fundamentalist practitioners is by definition
> destructive.
>
> ** **
>
> There can be no greater moral deficiency than having been born with an
> intellect and then refusing to use it.
>
> ** **
>
> Blind faith is exactly that: blind.  "Faith" in religion is defined as
> having accepted, unquestioningly, what someone else has told you is the one
> true way.  
>
> ** **
>
> I personally have no respect for religious faith.  
>
> ** **
>
> I respect people's right to chose to live that way, right up to the point
> where they attempt to influence how I live and think. But not their
> decision to unquestioningly commit to a dogma.
>
> ** **
>
> Religion, because it requires "faith" to become a subscriber, is
> inherently bad.
>
> ** **
>
> And as long as we're on the subject, if religion is bad for the reasons
> described above, then the opposite of religion is cosmology: the science of
> trying to *understand* the universe rather than attempting to explain it
> away with fairy tales.
>
> ** **
>
> --Doug
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 20

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

Qué viva el simposio!

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Victoria Hughes
wrote:

> Absolutely to Steve, and whiskey and a talk about all this. I would LOVE
> to.
> Just tell me the time and place.
>
> Tory
>
>
>
> On Sep 14, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
>
> Victoria,
>
> I was speaking from the perspective of two religions with which I have
> first-hand familiarity: Christianity and Islam.  Both of which require
> faith as a prerequisite of membership.
>
> But yes, I'd enjoy drinking whiskey with you and, if I may suggest, Steve
> S. to discuss further.
>
> --Doug
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Victoria Hughes  > wrote:
>
>> Doug -
>> You are defining religion differently than I am. I said nothing about
>> blind faith. That was your term.
>> I was talking about belief. You have belief (blind faith?) in your
>> intellectual objectivism.
>>
>> Buddha said very clearly and consistently "Do not do this because I tell
>> you to. Try this and see if it works for you, and then do it or not."
>>
>> I am happy to continue this until the cows come home, but I suspect this
>> list is not the place.
>> If you want to meet over whisky, and get into this, let me know.
>>
>> Tory
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> Tory Hughes
>> unusual objects and unique adornments
>> www.toryhughes.com
>> www.toryhughes-galleryshop.com
>> www.facebook.com/tory.hughes1
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 14, 2012, at 11:18 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
>>
>> Well see, here we go again.
>>
>> To which I come back again with the point of view that any philosophy, or
>> religion that is human-centric in nature as both Christianity or Islam are,
>> is inherently bad.  A narrow world view, enabled, promoted, and enforced
>> with even narrower strict fundamentalist practitioners is by definition
>> destructive.
>>
>> There can be no greater moral deficiency than having been born with an
>> intellect and then refusing to use it.
>>
>> Blind faith is exactly that: blind.  "Faith" in religion is defined as
>> having accepted, unquestioningly, what someone else has told you is the one
>> true way.
>>
>> I personally have no respect for religious faith.
>>
>> I respect people's right to chose to live that way, right up to the point
>> where they attempt to influence how I live and think. But not their
>> decision to unquestioningly commit to a dogma.
>>
>> Religion, because it requires "faith" to become a subscriber, is
>> inherently bad.
>>
>> And as long as we're on the subject, if religion is bad for the reasons
>> described above, then the opposite of religion is cosmology: the science of
>> trying to *understand* the universe rather than attempting to explain it
>> away with fairy tales.
>>
>> --Doug
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Victoria Hughes <
>> victo...@toryhughes.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> *Religion is not inherently bad. *It is the use of it for mundane power
>>> that is the problem.
>>> All religious traditions began with a prophet / visionary / mystic who
>>> urged tolerance, peace and self-awareness. Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha... In
>>> most cases, that person's initial followers began to leverage their own
>>> closeness and supposed 'superior understanding' to that original figure to
>>> justify behaviour that benefited their mundane activities.
>>>
>>> Every religion has gone through this. Every creed of any kind has gone
>>> through this. The challenge is our use of belief.
>>>
>>> Nick could speak to this too: there are developmental lines in the
>>> psychology of individuals, groups, nations, tribes, etc: and these will use
>>> powerful innate tools (like the human need to believe in something) for
>>> different purposes, depending on their development.
>>>
>>> And there is nothing inherently wrong or flawed in the things in which
>>> people embed their beliefs. Science, truth, the divine, all those have
>>> positive beneficial elements. Again, it is the use of those concepts as
>>> tools to persuade others into actions that destroy that is the problem.
>>>
>>> Self-awareness in all this is the key.
>>>
>>> Tory
>>>
>>> On Sep 14, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
>>>
>>> One semi-final note from me about culture and religion:  I lived in
>>> Libya for a year in 1976 when I was a consultant to Occidental Petroleum.
>>>  I traveled extensively between Tripoli, Benghazi, and several points about
>>> 900 miles southeast of Tripoli in the northern tip of the Sahara during
>>> that year.  I quickly learned that the culture of the Arabic half of Libya
>>> (as compared to the Berber Bedouin culture that comprises the eastern half
>>> of the country) is dominated by the Islamic religion.  You cannot separate
>>> them.  Religion is interwoven into every aspect of their culture.  Any
>>> attempt to exclude the impact of religion on their culture will fail.
>>>
>>> --Doug
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Douglas Roberts 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Let's see if I understand you correctly, Owen.

 There are a bunch of

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

Glen, 

Comments below, if you care to scroll down.  

Nick 

-Original Message-
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of glen
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 2:56 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The
Economist


It always surprises me the extent to which people (yes!  people in
general) over-simplify complex things.  One of my pet peeves is the
conviction that religion is identical with belief or doctrine.
[NST ==>] one'mans oversimplification is another's clarification. 

Most religion is an individualized convolution of belief and practice.
It's not merely belief and it's not merely practice.  The extent to which
any individual's religion is belief vs. practice varies dramatically.
[NST ==>] Well, I really don't distinguish between belief and practice.  If
I believe that my child will die if and only if it is God's will AND I
believe that it is a sin to oppose god's will, then I will not give my child
anti-biotics.  If I give my child antibiotics, I don't believe that.
Beliefs are what we act on. 

So, to people like Doug, I can justifiably counter that religion is not
(merely) reducible to belief or faith.  And we know he already knows this by
his statement that Islam was tightly woven into the fabric of western Libya.
Yet, he contradicts himself almost immediately and claims that religion
(yes, all religion, everywhere and everyone) requires faith.  Which is it?
Can religion be woven deeply into one's actions?  Or not?  And if not, then
how deeply can a religion be woven into the actions of animals?  What is the
most habitual, instinctively,
epigenetic(?) action into which religion can be woven?
[NST ==>] Is it possible Doug and I agree on something?  That the
distinction between belief and action is ill drawn?  

The answer is simple: some of us weave thought into our actions more than
others.  Some religious people hold faith more central to their religion and
some hold practice as more central.

I posit that those scientists who self identify as religious hold doctrine
as _less_ central to their religion than practice.  Interacting with the
real world probably takes precedence over navel-gazing.
[NST ==>] I see, Glen, that you want to perjoratize one kind of intellectual
behavior and prioritize another, but why?  On what grounds.  If navels is
what I want to learn about, some navel gazing might be really useful.  
  I.e.
Hanging out with their group singing songs and eating cookies is more
important than the definition of God.  (I'd contrast this with, say,
mathematicians who self identify as religious. ;-)

Anyway, this is why I chose to quote Nick's comment. ;-)  Faith is just an
idea ... a thought.  To claim that faith always lies somewhere down there is
to claim that our universe is somehow _rooted_ in or at least heavily
dependent on thought.  I disagree completely.  I believe in zombies.  I
believe animals exist who either have no thoughts or in whom thought is
purely epiphenomenal.  These animals do not require faith at any layer.
[NST ==>] 
Ok.  Our horns are nicely locked here,  let's push a bit and see where we
get.  That on a moonless night I reach out for my glasses on the bedstand is
evidence for my belief that that the glasses are on the bedstand?  (for
myself, I would put it even more strongly:  that I reach out CONSTITUTES my
belief that the glasses are on the bedstand.  There is no separate idea
followed by an act.  If anything, the act creates the idea.  

But I thought I was having a different sort of conversation with Doug.  I
thought he and I were discussing the justification of belief.  And
justification I took to be something we do with words and propositions.  And
all I was doing was making the [obvious] point that eventually, in any
argument, no matter how fairly and well conducted, we reach a point where we
have to appeal to a proposition we cannot justify.  

In haste, 

Nick, 

Nicholas Thompson wrote at 09/14/2012 11:31 AM:
> But the problem here is not faith, itself, which always lies somewhere 
> down there amongst the turtles, but the rapidity to which a
> shallow thinker appeals to it.


--
glen


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives,
unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

Doug, 

 

I promise you, it's not personal. 

 

To me, you are, Universal Man. 

 

But the question does interest me:  What IS the difference, in principle,
between the kind of faith for which you and I would let people off the hook,
and the kind of faith that makes us kind of nauseous.  .   They believe in
God and somewhere, way down, you and I believe in turtles.  For some reason,
you and I believe that their belief in God is not as good as our belief in
turtles.  Why is that.  Right now, I beginning to think that belief is like
soil.  Soil is a lot better if you can dig deep before you hit bedrock.   

 

Nick 

 

From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 3:06 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The
Economist

 

Nick, you're in fine form.  Can't wait until you come back to Santa Fe so
that I may better experience it once again in person.

 

It's been a rather full Friday of trying to get my work done while
communicating with my colleagues on the off-topics of politics and religion.

 

One closing note, however on the latter selection:  you may have faith that
when it comes to religion, I am totally faithless.  I didn't buy into the
concept while they were trying to brainwash it into me at the tender age of
8 in Sunday school at the United Church in Los Alamos, and I'm still not
buying.

 

But thank you for once again taking such an interest in my own particular
world view!

 

--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Nicholas Thompson
 wrote:

Here we go again, indeed. 

 

"Blind faith" is a redundancy, right?  All faith is blind.  We do not have
faith in what we doubt.  As  Peirce would say:  Doubt is not a guest.  We do
not entertain it.  When it moves in, it sleeps in our bed, eats at our
table, goes to work with us, and listens to NPR with us when we drive home
in the car.Ditto belief.  Descartes notion that we doubt everything that
we cannot assert with certainty was . to coin a phrase . crap.  

 

So we are talking about faith, full stop.  And we are talking about the
claim, made by a single man, Doug Roberts, as it happens, although it could
be any man, that he lives without faith.  

 

I stipulate that I am wrong if it can be shown that Doug Roberts lives
without faith.  

 

How to test such a proposition?  I could put the burden on Doug.  I could
say, "Doug, show me that every proposition you believe is founded in
explicit premises for which you know the evidence, which evidentiary
premises are themselves founded on explicit premises for which you know the
evidence.  Etc. "  In other words, prove the null.  This seems harsh, but
just, given the boldness of the claim.   

 

I would predict that whatever belief Doug (or any other human) might choose
to hold, if we walk him backward through his premises, we will eventually
find a place where he appeals to stubbornness ("I have always believed
that"), authority ("my orals committee told me it was true"), or consensus
("the guys in  the lab all agree it's true"), and these, in my book, are all
forms of faith.  We are all capable of thinking scientifically for a bit.
After that, Sahib, it's turtles all the way down.  

 

I think it's fair to say that the sooner such a place is reached in some
person's thinking on a subject, the less interesting that person's thinking
on that subject is..  For that reason, I would assume that Doug shares my
distaste for "short loop" explanations such as "God's will" or "because the
spirit moved me".   If this is what he means by faith, then I absolutely
agree with him.  But the problem here is not faith, itself, which always
lies somewhere down there amongst the turtles, but the rapidity to which a
shallow thinker appeals to it.

 

Coming back to Santa Fe in a couple of weeks.  Aren't you guys GLAD?!  I am
excited. 

 

Nick 

 

 

From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 1:19 PM


To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The
Economist

 

Well see, here we go again. 

 

To which I come back again with the point of view that any philosophy, or
religion that is human-centric in nature as both Christianity or Islam are,
is inherently bad.  A narrow world view, enabled, promoted, and enforced
with even narrower strict fundamentalist practitioners is by definition
destructive.

 

There can be no greater moral deficiency than having been born with an
intellect and then refusing to use it.

 

Blind faith is exactly that: blind.  "Faith" in religion is defined as
having accepted, unquestioningly, what someone else has told you is the one
true way.  

 

I personally have no respect for religious faith.  

 

I respect people's right to chose to li

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

2012-09-14 Thread glen

Nicholas Thompson wrote at 09/14/2012 12:18 PM:
> gepr wrote:
>> It always surprises me the extent to which people (yes!  people in
>> general) over-simplify complex things.  One of my pet peeves is the
>> conviction that religion is identical with belief or doctrine.
>>
> [NST ==>] one'mans oversimplification is another's clarification.

Exactly!  Such is the plight of people who believe thought plays a role
in action.  Those of us who never think, only act don't have that
problem.  There are no (accurate) compressions or models that do a good
enough job of looking ahead.  (Can you tell I make my living building
simulations? ;-)

>> Most religion is an individualized convolution of belief and practice.
>> It's not merely belief and it's not merely practice.  The extent to which
>> any individual's religion is belief vs. practice varies dramatically.
>>
> [NST ==>] Well, I really don't distinguish between belief and practice.  If
> I believe that my child will die if and only if it is God's will AND I
> believe that it is a sin to oppose god's will, then I will not give my child
> anti-biotics.  If I give my child antibiotics, I don't believe that.
> Beliefs are what we act on.

No, we act on the previous state of our bodies and the rules that govern
the transition from one state to another ... no thoughts or beliefs are
required, only memory.

If you do not give your child antibiotics, it is because your history
pre-programmed you to not do that and vice versa.

>> So, to people like Doug, I can justifiably counter that religion is not
>> (merely) reducible to belief or faith.  And we know he already knows this by
>> his statement that Islam was tightly woven into the fabric of western Libya.
>> Yet, he contradicts himself almost immediately and claims that religion
>> (yes, all religion, everywhere and everyone) requires faith.  Which is it?
>> Can religion be woven deeply into one's actions?  Or not?  And if not, then
>> how deeply can a religion be woven into the actions of animals?  What is the
>> most habitual, instinctively,
>> epigenetic(?) action into which religion can be woven?
>>
> [NST ==>] Is it possible Doug and I agree on something?  That the
> distinction between belief and action is ill drawn?  

If so, we'd all agree that the distinction is ill-drawn.  But we'd
probably disagree on where it should properly be drawn. ;-)

>> I posit that those scientists who self identify as religious hold doctrine
>> as _less_ central to their religion than practice.  Interacting with the
>> real world probably takes precedence over navel-gazing.
>>
> [NST ==>] I see, Glen, that you want to perjoratize one kind of intellectual
> behavior and prioritize another, but why?  On what grounds.  If navels is
> what I want to learn about, some navel gazing might be really useful.  

Well, the real reason I chose to pejoratize (?) what I did is to make
the argument interesting.  I have faith that Doug believes he is not a
zombie.  Yet he argues in one context that he is a zombie and in another
context that he is not a zombie.  You are consistent in your denial of
the existence of zombies, yet you argue vociferously in defense of
behaviorism.  (Not that there's a contradiction there ... but it is
curious.)

As for the type of intellectual behavior the generalized "scientist"
holds dear and distinguishing it from religious doctrine, I really don't
intend to draw that distinction.  I am equally against both.  (Yet,
magically, I will defend the idea that philosophy is useful!  So, I am
not free of my own contradictions.)

>> Anyway, this is why I chose to quote Nick's comment. ;-)  Faith is just an
>> idea ... a thought.  To claim that faith always lies somewhere down there is
>> to claim that our universe is somehow _rooted_ in or at least heavily
>> dependent on thought.  I disagree completely.  I believe in zombies.  I
>> believe animals exist who either have no thoughts or in whom thought is
>> purely epiphenomenal.  These animals do not require faith at any layer.

> [NST ==>] 
> Ok.  Our horns are nicely locked here,  let's push a bit and see where we
> get.  That on a moonless night I reach out for my glasses on the bedstand is
> evidence for my belief that that the glasses are on the bedstand?  (for
> myself, I would put it even more strongly:  that I reach out CONSTITUTES my
> belief that the glasses are on the bedstand.  There is no separate idea
> followed by an act.  If anything, the act creates the idea.  

I disagree.  I believe you reach out for your glasses because the t-1
state of your body forces you to do so, not because your mind (whatever
that is) holds a belief that they are there.  Often, when I sleep in a
strange place, I do things like reach out for my phone, or the door
knob, or whatever without having thought about whether it's there at
all.  My body is just used to such motorized actions producing good result.

I am open to the idea that the concept of a "belief" is a kind of
short-cut or

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

Nick, I enjoy our little interactions as well, in no small part due to the
fact that you are (usually) charm personified.

But to answer your question:  in my case it's cosmology.  Religion, or at
least most traditional religions, are simply to small-minded and
human-centric to garner any respect from me.

When you study cosmology, you are per force made to recognize not only the
true scale of existence, but also of the true magnitude of human
egocentricity.

Cosmology is humbling all by itself, and not just for the sheer scale of
the observable universe, and the time frames represented by it, but for the
magnitude of what we do not yet know about it.

I have a backup answer as well, just in case the one above is not
satisfying.  Get ready, it's one of those two word answers:  common sense.

Some people have it, some don't.  Wouldn't even know what to do with it if
it bit them on the ass.  I don't get people like that, but there it is.

--Doug
On Sep 14, 2012 4:02 PM, "Nicholas Thompson" 
wrote:

> Doug, 
>
> ** **
>
> I promise you, it’s not personal. 
>
> ** **
>
> To me, you are, Universal Man. 
>
> ** **
>
> But the question does interest me:  What IS the difference, in principle,
> between the kind of faith for which you and I would let people off the
> hook, and the kind of faith that makes us kind of nauseous.  .   They
> believe in God and somewhere, way down, you and I believe in turtles.  For
> some reason, you and I believe that their belief in God is not as good as
> our belief in turtles.  Why is that.  Right now, I beginning to think that
> belief is like soil.  Soil is a lot better if you can dig deep before you
> hit bedrock.   
>
> ** **
>
> Nick 
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Douglas Roberts
> *Sent:* Friday, September 14, 2012 3:06 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya
> | The Economist
>
> ** **
>
> Nick, you're in fine form.  Can't wait until you come back to Santa Fe so
> that I may better experience it once again in person.
>
> ** **
>
> It's been a rather full Friday of trying to get my work done while
> communicating with my colleagues on the off-topics of politics and religion.
> 
>
> ** **
>
> One closing note, however on the latter selection:  you may have faith
> that when it comes to religion, I am totally faithless.  I didn't buy into
> the concept while they were trying to brainwash it into me at the tender
> age of 8 in Sunday school at the United Church in Los Alamos, and I'm still
> not buying.
>
> ** **
>
> But thank you for once again taking such an interest in my own particular
> world view!
>
> ** **
>
> --Doug
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Nicholas Thompson <
> nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Here we go again, indeed. 
>
>  
>
> “Blind faith” is a redundancy, right?  All faith is blind.  We do not have
> faith in what we doubt.  As  Peirce would say:  Doubt is not a guest.  We
> do not entertain it.  When it moves in, it sleeps in our bed, eats at our
> table, goes to work with us, and listens to NPR with us when we drive home
> in the car.Ditto belief.  Descartes notion that we doubt everything
> that we cannot assert with certainty was … to coin a phrase … crap.  
>
>  
>
> So we are talking about faith, full stop.  And we are talking about the
> claim, made by a single man, Doug Roberts, as it happens, although it could
> be any man, *that he lives without faith*.  
>
>  
>
> I stipulate that I am wrong if it can be shown that Doug Roberts lives
> without faith.  
>
>  
>
> How to test such a proposition?  I could put the burden on Doug.  I could
> say, “Doug, show me that every proposition you believe is founded in
> explicit premises for which you know the evidence, which evidentiary
> premises are themselves founded on explicit premises for which you know the
> evidence.  Etc. ”  In other words, prove the null.  This seems harsh, but
> just, given the boldness of the claim.   
>
>  
>
> I would predict that whatever belief Doug (or any other human) might
> choose to hold, if we walk him backward through his premises, we will
> eventually find a place where he appeals to stubbornness (“I have always
> believed that”), authority (“my orals committee told me it was true”), or
> consensus (“the guys in  the lab all agree it’s true”), and these, in my
> book, are all forms of faith.  We are all capable of thinking
> scientifically for a bit.  After that, Sahib, it’s turtles all the way
> down.  
>
>  
>
> I think it’s fair to say that the sooner such a place is reached in some
> person’s thinking on a subject, the less interesting that person’s thinking
> on that subject is..  For that reason, I would assume that Doug shares my
> distaste for “short loop” explanations such as “God’s will

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

2012-09-14 Thread Owen Densmore

My interest is not the extremists, but the fact that the leaders and
majority do not protest against them, do not make themselves heard.

So it is about religion, but it could equally be about the NRA or racism or
human rights or whatever.  Where the majority is silent.  And the leaders
do not lead.

Not that I don't understand the religious issues, and your clear points
against them (and with which I am sympathetic), but that I'm looking at
another, broader issue that seems to appear not only in religions but many
other areas.

Is it not striking to you that the leaders and majority are silent?  We
know many Muslims here in Santa Fe who are sane and gracious.  They deplore
the extreme events. But they have not yet found a platform for inserting
Islam, the Good Parts, and their deploring the extremists, into the public
discourse.

   -- Owen

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

> Let's see if I understand you correctly, Owen.
>
> There are a bunch of fundamentalist Islamists all up in arms shouting
> "Allahu Akhbar" whilst burning down our embassies and killing our diplomats
> because there is a film out that is derogatory of the Muslim religion.
>
> And this is not about religion?
>
> I don't see it.
>
> Or you don't see it.
>
> What I do see is that there is one very large disconnect on this
> particular issue.
>
> --Doug
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:
>
>> I do not believe this to be a religious issue at all.  The question is of
>> groups and institutions.
>>
>> When a faction of a group becomes apparently insane, do we not expect the
>> entire group, its leaders and majority, to speak up and to mend?
>>
>> When civil rights were an issue in the south, many of us (I was at
>> Georgia Tech) spoke up, and indeed many churches of all stripes did so.
>>  Many NRA members also speak up about the extreme position the organization
>> takes.  Examples abound.  And yes, I consider this a Complexity domain,
>> much like Miller's Applause model.
>>
>> Isn't this possibly a cultural issue?  Possibly regional?  The largest
>> Muslim population is not Libya or Egypt or even all of the middle east,
>> its Indonesia.  They do not appear to have this issue.
>>
>> So my question stands as Kofi stated:
>> "Where are the leaders?  Where is the Majority?  Nobody speaks up."
>> NOT the religious leaders but the leaders of the culture in which the
>> religion lies.
>>
>> And Hussein, forgive me, but your inward religious stance has nothing to
>> do with speaking out against injustice.  It is not a religious issue, but a
>> civic, cultural one.
>>
>>-- Owen
>>
>> 
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Doug Roberts
> drobe...@rti.org
> d...@parrot-farm.net
> http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins
> 
> 505-455-7333 - Office
> 505-670-8195 - Cell
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

Well, I'd like to suggest that if in fact they really do deplore the
fundamentalist Islamic violence that has been raging around the globe since
9/11 and before, and yet they are not speaking out against it, there are
several possible explanations:

- They're cowards
- They're terrified of retribution (not necessarily the same thing as above)
- The deplore violence, but deplore Americans more.
- Oops!  They don't really deplore the acts of violence being carried out
in the name of their beloved religion.

--Doug
On Sep 14, 2012 4:30 PM, "Owen Densmore"  wrote:

> My interest is not the extremists, but the fact that the leaders and
> majority do not protest against them, do not make themselves heard.
>
> So it is about religion, but it could equally be about the NRA or racism
> or human rights or whatever.  Where the majority is silent.  And the
> leaders do not lead.
>
> Not that I don't understand the religious issues, and your clear points
> against them (and with which I am sympathetic), but that I'm looking at
> another, broader issue that seems to appear not only in religions but many
> other areas.
>
> Is it not striking to you that the leaders and majority are silent?  We
> know many Muslims here in Santa Fe who are sane and gracious.  They deplore
> the extreme events. But they have not yet found a platform for inserting
> Islam, the Good Parts, and their deploring the extremists, into the public
> discourse.
>
>-- Owen
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
>
>> Let's see if I understand you correctly, Owen.
>>
>> There are a bunch of fundamentalist Islamists all up in arms shouting
>> "Allahu Akhbar" whilst burning down our embassies and killing our diplomats
>> because there is a film out that is derogatory of the Muslim religion.
>>
>> And this is not about religion?
>>
>> I don't see it.
>>
>> Or you don't see it.
>>
>> What I do see is that there is one very large disconnect on this
>> particular issue.
>>
>> --Doug
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:
>>
>>> I do not believe this to be a religious issue at all.  The question is
>>> of groups and institutions.
>>>
>>> When a faction of a group becomes apparently insane, do we not expect
>>> the entire group, its leaders and majority, to speak up and to mend?
>>>
>>> When civil rights were an issue in the south, many of us (I was at
>>> Georgia Tech) spoke up, and indeed many churches of all stripes did so.
>>>  Many NRA members also speak up about the extreme position the organization
>>> takes.  Examples abound.  And yes, I consider this a Complexity domain,
>>> much like Miller's Applause model.
>>>
>>> Isn't this possibly a cultural issue?  Possibly regional?  The largest
>>> Muslim population is not Libya or Egypt or even all of the middle east,
>>> its Indonesia.  They do not appear to have this issue.
>>>
>>> So my question stands as Kofi stated:
>>> "Where are the leaders?  Where is the Majority?  Nobody speaks up."
>>> NOT the religious leaders but the leaders of the culture in which the
>>> religion lies.
>>>
>>> And Hussein, forgive me, but your inward religious stance has nothing to
>>> do with speaking out against injustice.  It is not a religious issue, but a
>>> civic, cultural one.
>>>
>>>-- Owen
>>>
>>> 
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Doug Roberts
>> drobe...@rti.org
>> d...@parrot-farm.net
>> http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins
>> 
>> 505-455-7333 - Office
>> 505-670-8195 - Cell
>>
>>
>> 
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

2012-09-14 Thread glen e. p. ropella


Or they believe that "speaking out against" it is useless.


Douglas Roberts wrote at 09/14/2012 03:45 PM:
> Well, I'd like to suggest that if in fact they really do deplore the
> fundamentalist Islamic violence that has been raging around the globe since
> 9/11 and before, and yet they are not speaking out against it, there are
> several possible explanations:
> 
> - They're cowards
> - They're terrified of retribution (not necessarily the same thing as above)
> - The deplore violence, but deplore Americans more.
> - Oops!  They don't really deplore the acts of violence being carried out
> in the name of their beloved religion.


-- 
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

2012-09-14 Thread Joshua Thorp

But how do we know this?  How would you expect a non-extemist to be heard?  Its 
not like a non-extremist is going to blow up an extremist group…  Sort of by 
definition.

Plenty of people have spoken out against the events this week.  But what more 
can they do?  The bombs are news worthy.  The people speaking out against the 
bombs just don't have the same bang.

Goes of course for catholics as well.  I constantly hear about another priest 
having raped another set of children.  I don't hear much about the good acts of 
catholics,  though I assume their must be plenty -- just doesn't make the news 
the same way.  

Where have the leadership and majority been on that issue?  I keep hearing 
about Bishops that have covered up for this or that bad priest,  but are there 
Bishops speaking out against this behavior?  I bet there are but I don't hear 
it very often.  And when I do it is said almost matter-of-fact-ly like, 'of 
course this is wrong'.  

Very much in the same way we hear muslims speaking about extremist violence, 
'of course this wrong'.  It just doesn't stick the same way as the images of 
violence.  

--joshua

On Sep 14, 2012, at 4:29 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:

> My interest is not the extremists, but the fact that the leaders and majority 
> do not protest against them, do not make themselves heard.
> 
> So it is about religion, but it could equally be about the NRA or racism or 
> human rights or whatever.  Where the majority is silent.  And the leaders do 
> not lead.
> 
> Not that I don't understand the religious issues, and your clear points 
> against them (and with which I am sympathetic), but that I'm looking at 
> another, broader issue that seems to appear not only in religions but many 
> other areas.
> 
> Is it not striking to you that the leaders and majority are silent?  We know 
> many Muslims here in Santa Fe who are sane and gracious.  They deplore the 
> extreme events. But they have not yet found a platform for inserting Islam, 
> the Good Parts, and their deploring the extremists, into the public discourse.
> 
>-- Owen
> 
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Douglas Roberts  
> wrote:
> Let's see if I understand you correctly, Owen. 
> 
> There are a bunch of fundamentalist Islamists all up in arms shouting "Allahu 
> Akhbar" whilst burning down our embassies and killing our diplomats because 
> there is a film out that is derogatory of the Muslim religion.
> 
> And this is not about religion?
> 
> I don't see it.
> 
> Or you don't see it.
> 
> What I do see is that there is one very large disconnect on this particular 
> issue.
> 
> --Doug
> 
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Owen Densmore  wrote:
> I do not believe this to be a religious issue at all.  The question is of 
> groups and institutions.
> 
> When a faction of a group becomes apparently insane, do we not expect the 
> entire group, its leaders and majority, to speak up and to mend?
> 
> When civil rights were an issue in the south, many of us (I was at Georgia 
> Tech) spoke up, and indeed many churches of all stripes did so.  Many NRA 
> members also speak up about the extreme position the organization takes.  
> Examples abound.  And yes, I consider this a Complexity domain, much like 
> Miller's Applause model.
> 
> Isn't this possibly a cultural issue?  Possibly regional?  The largest Muslim 
> population is not Libya or Egypt or even all of the middle east, its 
> Indonesia.  They do not appear to have this issue.
> 
> So my question stands as Kofi stated:
> "Where are the leaders?  Where is the Majority?  Nobody speaks up."
> NOT the religious leaders but the leaders of the culture in which the 
> religion lies.
> 
> And Hussein, forgive me, but your inward religious stance has nothing to do 
> with speaking out against injustice.  It is not a religious issue, but a 
> civic, cultural one.
> 
>-- Owen
> 
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Doug Roberts
> drobe...@rti.org
> d...@parrot-farm.net
> http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins
> 
> 505-455-7333 - Office
> 505-670-8195 - Cell
> 
> 
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> 
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

Yes, that goes on the list.
On Sep 14, 2012 4:52 PM, "glen e. p. ropella"  wrote:

>
> Or they believe that "speaking out against" it is useless.
>
>
> Douglas Roberts wrote at 09/14/2012 03:45 PM:
> > Well, I'd like to suggest that if in fact they really do deplore the
> > fundamentalist Islamic violence that has been raging around the globe
> since
> > 9/11 and before, and yet they are not speaking out against it, there are
> > several possible explanations:
> >
> > - They're cowards
> > - They're terrified of retribution (not necessarily the same thing as
> above)
> > - The deplore violence, but deplore Americans more.
> > - Oops!  They don't really deplore the acts of violence being carried out
> > in the name of their beloved religion.
>
>
> --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

Of course, Owen, we could be asking the same thing about the "good"
Catholic community regarding all the years of child sex abuse and coverups
in that religion.

--Doug
On Sep 14, 2012 4:30 PM, "Owen Densmore"  wrote:

> My interest is not the extremists, but the fact that the leaders and
> majority do not protest against them, do not make themselves heard.
>
> So it is about religion, but it could equally be about the NRA or racism
> or human rights or whatever.  Where the majority is silent.  And the
> leaders do not lead.
>
> Not that I don't understand the religious issues, and your clear points
> against them (and with which I am sympathetic), but that I'm looking at
> another, broader issue that seems to appear not only in religions but many
> other areas.
>
> Is it not striking to you that the leaders and majority are silent?  We
> know many Muslims here in Santa Fe who are sane and gracious.  They deplore
> the extreme events. But they have not yet found a platform for inserting
> Islam, the Good Parts, and their deploring the extremists, into the public
> discourse.
>
>-- Owen
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
>
>> Let's see if I understand you correctly, Owen.
>>
>> There are a bunch of fundamentalist Islamists all up in arms shouting
>> "Allahu Akhbar" whilst burning down our embassies and killing our diplomats
>> because there is a film out that is derogatory of the Muslim religion.
>>
>> And this is not about religion?
>>
>> I don't see it.
>>
>> Or you don't see it.
>>
>> What I do see is that there is one very large disconnect on this
>> particular issue.
>>
>> --Doug
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:
>>
>>> I do not believe this to be a religious issue at all.  The question is
>>> of groups and institutions.
>>>
>>> When a faction of a group becomes apparently insane, do we not expect
>>> the entire group, its leaders and majority, to speak up and to mend?
>>>
>>> When civil rights were an issue in the south, many of us (I was at
>>> Georgia Tech) spoke up, and indeed many churches of all stripes did so.
>>>  Many NRA members also speak up about the extreme position the organization
>>> takes.  Examples abound.  And yes, I consider this a Complexity domain,
>>> much like Miller's Applause model.
>>>
>>> Isn't this possibly a cultural issue?  Possibly regional?  The largest
>>> Muslim population is not Libya or Egypt or even all of the middle east,
>>> its Indonesia.  They do not appear to have this issue.
>>>
>>> So my question stands as Kofi stated:
>>> "Where are the leaders?  Where is the Majority?  Nobody speaks up."
>>> NOT the religious leaders but the leaders of the culture in which the
>>> religion lies.
>>>
>>> And Hussein, forgive me, but your inward religious stance has nothing to
>>> do with speaking out against injustice.  It is not a religious issue, but a
>>> civic, cultural one.
>>>
>>>-- Owen
>>>
>>> 
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Doug Roberts
>> drobe...@rti.org
>> d...@parrot-farm.net
>> http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins
>> 
>> 505-455-7333 - Office
>> 505-670-8195 - Cell
>>
>>
>> 
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

2012-09-14 Thread Hussein Abbass



Joshua, You are spot on.

I am not sure what we are comparing here. Are we equating bad actions to good 
actions? Of course this is misleading, because this discussion can only 
demonstrate our ignorance of all the good actions, Moslims, Christians and all 
those use Religion to drive them to do good things, are doing allover the 
world, and our biased attention focus on bad actions.

Maybe the real disagreement in this discussion is on how to lead and leadership 
models. It seems this is where the problem lies to me and some of us "believe" 
in one leadership model, while others believe in an opposite model. Some think 
that leaders should stand in front of bad, while others think that leaders need 
to focus on growing the good and with conservation laws, the bad shrinks 
naturally. Maybe we should revisit natural selection and if necessarily make it 
artificial selection.

Owen: is not it by definition that if you are convinced that there exists a 
majority of good people that this majority succeeded already to make itself 
visible to counteract minorities! Or was your talk about majority a mere 
hypothesis that is yet to be proven?

Cheers
Hussein

On 15/09/2012, at 8:52 AM, "Joshua Thorp" 
mailto:jth...@redfish.com>> wrote:

But how do we know this?  How would you expect a non-extemist to be heard?  Its 
not like a non-extremist is going to blow up an extremist group…  Sort of by 
definition.

Plenty of people have spoken out against the events this week.  But what more 
can they do?  The bombs are news worthy.  The people speaking out against the 
bombs just don't have the same bang.

Goes of course for catholics as well.  I constantly hear about another priest 
having raped another set of children.  I don't hear much about the good acts of 
catholics,  though I assume their must be plenty -- just doesn't make the news 
the same way.

Where have the leadership and majority been on that issue?  I keep hearing 
about Bishops that have covered up for this or that bad priest,  but are there 
Bishops speaking out against this behavior?  I bet there are but I don't hear 
it very often.  And when I do it is said almost matter-of-fact-ly like, 'of 
course this is wrong'.

Very much in the same way we hear muslims speaking about extremist violence, 
'of course this wrong'.  It just doesn't stick the same way as the images of 
violence.

--joshua

On Sep 14, 2012, at 4:29 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:

My interest is not the extremists, but the fact that the leaders and majority 
do not protest against them, do not make themselves heard.

So it is about religion, but it could equally be about the NRA or racism or 
human rights or whatever.  Where the majority is silent.  And the leaders do 
not lead.

Not that I don't understand the religious issues, and your clear points against 
them (and with which I am sympathetic), but that I'm looking at another, 
broader issue that seems to appear not only in religions but many other areas.

Is it not striking to you that the leaders and majority are silent?  We know 
many Muslims here in Santa Fe who are sane and gracious.  They deplore the 
extreme events. But they have not yet found a platform for inserting Islam, the 
Good Parts, and their deploring the extremists, into the public discourse.

   -- Owen

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Douglas Roberts 
mailto:d...@parrot-farm.net>> wrote:
Let's see if I understand you correctly, Owen.

There are a bunch of fundamentalist Islamists all up in arms shouting "Allahu 
Akhbar" whilst burning down our embassies and killing our diplomats because 
there is a film out that is derogatory of the Muslim religion.

And this is not about religion?

I don't see it.

Or you don't see it.

What I do see is that there is one very large disconnect on this particular 
issue.

--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Owen Densmore 
mailto:o...@backspaces.net>> wrote:
I do not believe this to be a religious issue at all.  The question is of 
groups and institutions.

When a faction of a group becomes apparently insane, do we not expect the 
entire group, its leaders and majority, to speak up and to mend?

When civil rights were an issue in the south, many of us (I was at Georgia 
Tech) spoke up, and indeed many churches of all stripes did so.  Many NRA 
members also speak up about the extreme position the organization takes.  
Examples abound.  And yes, I consider this a Complexity domain, much like 
Miller's Applause model.

Isn't this possibly a cultural issue?  Possibly regional?  The largest Muslim 
population is not Libya or Egypt or even all of the middle east, its Indonesia. 
 They do not appear to have this issue.

So my question stands as Kofi stated:
"Where are the leaders?  Where is the Majority?  Nobody speaks up."
NOT the religious leaders but the leaders of the culture in which the religion 
lies.

And Hussein, forgive me, but your inward religious stance has nothing to do 
with speaking out against injustice.  It is not

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

Ok, owen.  Let's say I put on a bomb vest, put my FRIAM T-shirt on over it,
and blew myself up and 30 soldiers at the military base where that poor
schmuk Bradley Manning is being held.  Let's say, I leave an email circular
claiming that I did it in the name of a Free Internet.   The reporter comes
to your door, and asks you 3 questions:  "Mr. Densmore: as one of the
founding members of FRIAM, how do you respond to this Thompson's action?
AND, "Mr. Densmore, what is your position on the imprisonment (without
trial, visitors, etc.) of Bradley Manning?" and "what is FRIAM's official
position on internet freedom?"  I think if you go through this exercise, you
will have a hard time NOT sounding one of those Muslim clerics asked about
the death of the Ambassador to Libya.  

 

Nick  

 

From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 7:00 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The
Economist

 

Of course, Owen, we could be asking the same thing about the "good" Catholic
community regarding all the years of child sex abuse and coverups in that
religion.

--Doug

On Sep 14, 2012 4:30 PM, "Owen Densmore"  wrote:

My interest is not the extremists, but the fact that the leaders and
majority do not protest against them, do not make themselves heard.

 

So it is about religion, but it could equally be about the NRA or racism or
human rights or whatever.  Where the majority is silent.  And the leaders do
not lead.

 

Not that I don't understand the religious issues, and your clear points
against them (and with which I am sympathetic), but that I'm looking at
another, broader issue that seems to appear not only in religions but many
other areas.

 

Is it not striking to you that the leaders and majority are silent?  We know
many Muslims here in Santa Fe who are sane and gracious.  They deplore the
extreme events. But they have not yet found a platform for inserting Islam,
the Good Parts, and their deploring the extremists, into the public
discourse.

 

   -- Owen

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Douglas Roberts 
wrote:

Let's see if I understand you correctly, Owen. 

 

There are a bunch of fundamentalist Islamists all up in arms shouting
"Allahu Akhbar" whilst burning down our embassies and killing our diplomats
because there is a film out that is derogatory of the Muslim religion.

 

And this is not about religion?

 

I don't see it.

 

Or you don't see it.

 

What I do see is that there is one very large disconnect on this particular
issue.

 

--Doug

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Owen Densmore  wrote:

I do not believe this to be a religious issue at all.  The question is of
groups and institutions.

 

When a faction of a group becomes apparently insane, do we not expect the
entire group, its leaders and majority, to speak up and to mend?

 

When civil rights were an issue in the south, many of us (I was at Georgia
Tech) spoke up, and indeed many churches of all stripes did so.  Many NRA
members also speak up about the extreme position the organization takes.
Examples abound.  And yes, I consider this a Complexity domain, much like
Miller's Applause model.

 

Isn't this possibly a cultural issue?  Possibly regional?  The largest
Muslim population is not Libya or Egypt or even all of the middle east, its
Indonesia.  They do not appear to have this issue.

 

So my question stands as Kofi stated:

"Where are the leaders?  Where is the Majority?  Nobody speaks up."

NOT the religious leaders but the leaders of the culture in which the
religion lies.

 

And Hussein, forgive me, but your inward religious stance has nothing to do
with speaking out against injustice.  It is not a religious issue, but a
civic, cultural one.

 

   -- Owen

 


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org





 

-- 
Doug Roberts
drobe...@rti.org
d...@parrot-farm.net

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins


505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

 



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

 



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

Glen, 

I thought I believed that we we are ALL zombies.  

Maybe I don't know what a zombie is.  

N

-Original Message-
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of glen
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 6:16 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The
Economist

Nicholas Thompson wrote at 09/14/2012 12:18 PM:
> gepr wrote:
>> It always surprises me the extent to which people (yes!  people in
>> general) over-simplify complex things.  One of my pet peeves is the 
>> conviction that religion is identical with belief or doctrine.
>>
> [NST ==>] one'mans oversimplification is another's clarification.

Exactly!  Such is the plight of people who believe thought plays a role in
action.  Those of us who never think, only act don't have that problem.
There are no (accurate) compressions or models that do a good enough job of
looking ahead.  (Can you tell I make my living building simulations? ;-)

>> Most religion is an individualized convolution of belief and practice.
>> It's not merely belief and it's not merely practice.  The extent to 
>> which any individual's religion is belief vs. practice varies
dramatically.
>>
> [NST ==>] Well, I really don't distinguish between belief and 
> practice.  If I believe that my child will die if and only if it is 
> God's will AND I believe that it is a sin to oppose god's will, then I 
> will not give my child anti-biotics.  If I give my child antibiotics, I
don't believe that.
> Beliefs are what we act on.

No, we act on the previous state of our bodies and the rules that govern the
transition from one state to another ... no thoughts or beliefs are
required, only memory.

If you do not give your child antibiotics, it is because your history
pre-programmed you to not do that and vice versa.

>> So, to people like Doug, I can justifiably counter that religion is 
>> not
>> (merely) reducible to belief or faith.  And we know he already knows 
>> this by his statement that Islam was tightly woven into the fabric of
western Libya.
>> Yet, he contradicts himself almost immediately and claims that 
>> religion (yes, all religion, everywhere and everyone) requires faith.
Which is it?
>> Can religion be woven deeply into one's actions?  Or not?  And if 
>> not, then how deeply can a religion be woven into the actions of 
>> animals?  What is the most habitual, instinctively,
>> epigenetic(?) action into which religion can be woven?
>>
> [NST ==>] Is it possible Doug and I agree on something?  That the 
> distinction between belief and action is ill drawn?

If so, we'd all agree that the distinction is ill-drawn.  But we'd probably
disagree on where it should properly be drawn. ;-)

>> I posit that those scientists who self identify as religious hold 
>> doctrine as _less_ central to their religion than practice.  
>> Interacting with the real world probably takes precedence over
navel-gazing.
>>
> [NST ==>] I see, Glen, that you want to perjoratize one kind of 
> intellectual behavior and prioritize another, but why?  On what 
> grounds.  If navels is what I want to learn about, some navel gazing might
be really useful.

Well, the real reason I chose to pejoratize (?) what I did is to make the
argument interesting.  I have faith that Doug believes he is not a zombie.
Yet he argues in one context that he is a zombie and in another context that
he is not a zombie.  You are consistent in your denial of the existence of
zombies, yet you argue vociferously in defense of behaviorism.  (Not that
there's a contradiction there ... but it is
curious.)

As for the type of intellectual behavior the generalized "scientist"
holds dear and distinguishing it from religious doctrine, I really don't
intend to draw that distinction.  I am equally against both.  (Yet,
magically, I will defend the idea that philosophy is useful!  So, I am not
free of my own contradictions.)

>> Anyway, this is why I chose to quote Nick's comment. ;-)  Faith is 
>> just an idea ... a thought.  To claim that faith always lies 
>> somewhere down there is to claim that our universe is somehow 
>> _rooted_ in or at least heavily dependent on thought.  I disagree 
>> completely.  I believe in zombies.  I believe animals exist who 
>> either have no thoughts or in whom thought is purely epiphenomenal.
These animals do not require faith at any layer.

> [NST ==>]
> Ok.  Our horns are nicely locked here,  let's push a bit and see where 
> we get.  That on a moonless night I reach out for my glasses on the 
> bedstand is evidence for my belief that that the glasses are on the 
> bedstand?  (for myself, I would put it even more strongly:  that I 
> reach out CONSTITUTES my belief that the glasses are on the bedstand.  
> There is no separate idea followed by an act.  If anything, the act
creates the idea.

I disagree.  I believe you reach out for your glasses because the t-1 state
of your body f

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist

2012-09-14 Thread glen

Nicholas Thompson wrote at 09/14/2012 05:57 PM:
> I thought I believed that we we are ALL zombies.

Maybe you do.  I don't know.  But I infer from your words in these
e-mails that you believe beliefs are real things, are constituted by
real things, result from and result in real things.

> Maybe I don't know what a zombie is.  

   http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/

(Yes, I have been _called_ a master of the non sequitur ... but that's
not because I make unjustified inferences.  It's because I don't take
the time to show my work. ;-)

-- 
glen


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Is my government too big?

2012-09-14 Thread Owen Densmore

>
> So, what's a big government?  Are there any other national statistics for
> comparison?


The real question is: Why in hell does no one know just how good a job
Obama is doing?  He's mute!  Why?

The best speech at the DNC was Clinton, and then Michelle!  Why is Obama so
unwilling to defend what good he has done?

Makes me not want to vote for him.  Sigh!

   -- Owen

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Roger Critchlow  wrote:

> This graph shows the government employees in the US, all levels of
> government, divided by the population of the US.
>
> http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=87170
>
> Color me surprised.  The government/capita has been 0.0725+/-0.0025 since
> 1982.  Variation in the last digit, 0.0001, represents ~31500 employees in
> our current population of ~315 million, so there's room for a lot of wiggle
> there.  But it looks like a resource limited growth curve that met its
> limit 30 years ago and has danced around the limit since then.
>
> This graph shows the federal government employees in the US divided by the
> population of the US.
>
> http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=87182
>
> The federal/capita fell from 0.016 to 0.009 over these 60 years, most
> steeply under the Clinton administration.  The only federal/capita
> increases in the last 60 years were during Johnson's "Great Society" and
> Reagan's administration.  The most recent federal contraction started under
> Bush1 in 1988 and has brought us from 0.013 to 0.009 federal
> employees/capita.  Obama's stimulus started to reverse the trend, but he's
> now running the leanest federal/capita in the last 60 years.
>
> The rough constancy overall since 1988 is a crowd sourced result combining
> decisions made by 50 state and ~87000 local governments while the federal
> government shrank.
>
> So, what's a big government?  Are there any other national statistics for
> comparison?
>
> -- rec --
>
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Is my government too big?

2012-09-14 Thread Russ Abbott

Michael Lew has a very nice
profileof
Obama in Vanity Fair.

*-- Russ Abbott*
*_*
***  Professor, Computer Science*
*  California State University, Los Angeles*

*  My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688*
*  Google voice: 747-*999-5105
  Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/
*  vita:  *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
  CS Wiki  and the courses I teach
*_*



On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Owen Densmore  wrote:

> So, what's a big government?  Are there any other national statistics for
>> comparison?
>
>
> The real question is: Why in hell does no one know just how good a job
> Obama is doing?  He's mute!  Why?
>
> The best speech at the DNC was Clinton, and then Michelle!  Why is Obama
> so unwilling to defend what good he has done?
>
> Makes me not want to vote for him.  Sigh!
>
>-- Owen
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Roger Critchlow  wrote:
>
>> This graph shows the government employees in the US, all levels of
>> government, divided by the population of the US.
>>
>> http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=87170
>>
>> Color me surprised.  The government/capita has been 0.0725+/-0.0025 since
>> 1982.  Variation in the last digit, 0.0001, represents ~31500 employees in
>> our current population of ~315 million, so there's room for a lot of wiggle
>> there.  But it looks like a resource limited growth curve that met its
>> limit 30 years ago and has danced around the limit since then.
>>
>> This graph shows the federal government employees in the US divided by
>> the population of the US.
>>
>> http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=87182
>>
>> The federal/capita fell from 0.016 to 0.009 over these 60 years, most
>> steeply under the Clinton administration.  The only federal/capita
>> increases in the last 60 years were during Johnson's "Great Society" and
>> Reagan's administration.  The most recent federal contraction started under
>> Bush1 in 1988 and has brought us from 0.013 to 0.009 federal
>> employees/capita.  Obama's stimulus started to reverse the trend, but he's
>> now running the leanest federal/capita in the last 60 years.
>>
>> The rough constancy overall since 1988 is a crowd sourced result
>> combining decisions made by 50 state and ~87000 local governments while the
>> federal government shrank.
>>
>> So, what's a big government?  Are there any other national statistics for
>> comparison?
>>
>> -- rec --
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Is my government too big?