[FRIAM] St John's

[Owen Densmore]

.. is it open tomorrow? There was a big deal a couple of days ago there, so
thought I'd ask.

   -- Owen

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Re: [FRIAM] Here's to the 1%!

[gepr]

This article seems relevant:
http://evonomics.com/how-to-legally-own-another-person/

What he's describing as "employable" seems akin (though antithetic) to the
concept of "taboo". The one element that doesn't mesh is the
responsibility/accountability that accompanies freedom. The risks
associated with an ungrounded freedom, including whatever grounding a
monarch/genius might avoid tying themselves to, are always higher. What
made the tea partiers and "new libertarians" so silly is their
arbitrariness with respect to the authorities they admit and those they
rely upon. When I was a libertarian, most of us admitted the fact we'd
probably end up living in a broken van underneath a bridge. Our freedom was
borne out of our willingness to give everything for the ideal. New
"libertarians" are nothing more than slaves to the benefits they don't want
to pay for.
On Apr 7, 2016 9:15 AM, "glen"  wrote:

> On 04/06/2016 12:50 PM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
> > For those interested in authoritarianism, my favorite read is a classic
> published in 1993 ("The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power"). I'd
> call authors Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad spiritual realists. The book is
> mind-blowing. I thought they were fearless when they later took on
> Buddhism, but I don't think they ever published the essays (I have a copy.)
>
> That's an interesting looking book.  This review makes me want to read
> it:  http://www.johnhorgan.org/the_anti_gurus_15278.htm
>
> On 04/06/2016 02:01 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> > Trade a pope for a supreme court justice for a Nobel Laureate at some
> level it is all the same. Everyone has a price. defining `price’ broadly.
> Sure I’ll pull from the right on that list if push comes to shove. But I’d
> also say authoritarian leaders, or those that like people like them, want
> some agility in their authoritarianism. They want to see the exercise of
> Power; they don’t want to be bogged down in procedure. Get those leaders
> and the led together and sometimes they’ll get behind some strange rituals.
>
> On 04/06/2016 09:19 PM, Carl wrote:
> > Well, constitutions are tools of the current narrative.   Consider
> Article 9.   It's pressed into service depending on the story various
> authorities wants to reify.   One can consider what's on the paper and say
> oh that's pretty cool, but
>
> Right.  Both you and Marcus point out that any system can be gamed. And
> the winners of that game end up being the authority.  And Marcus points out
> that even the authoritarians want the authority to be dynamic in at least
> some sense (each authority and authoritarian may want a different kind of
> dynamism, but that's OK).  But the primary issue is, I think, not that an
> elite set of gamers exists (or will obtain eventually).  The primary issue
> is the _size_ of the elite, either in absolute terms and/or in proportion
> to the rest of the population (including other species and the planet).
>
> David Deutsch made this vague statement about good explanations being
> "hard to vary", in the sense that if you've got it right enough, precise
> enough, etc., then changing any given part of it, probably breaks it.  You
> can't willy nilly change a good theory.  You have to do it intelligently.
> The same would be said about an authority that was derived (as directly as
> possible) from the world, rather than being _imposed_ on the world.
>
> Currently, any constitution is more "derived from the world" than any
> Monarch or Genius because our scientific understanding of the mind is
> paltry.  So, a constitution, being a concrete artifact, allows _anyone_ who
> can make inferences from that artifact to play.  Constitutions allow for a
> large elite class because they're artifacts in the world.  If we could
> continue this process, making our constitutions more and more "of the
> world", then it could allow for larger and larger elite classes until,
> perhaps, the difference between those that can _use_ the law and those that
> are abused by the law is simply one of choice.  If you put in the hours,
> you too can be a law user.
>
>
> --
> --
> ⊥ glen ⊥
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Re: [FRIAM] Smart Cities and Social Enterpreneurship critique

[Gillian Densmore]

Cody raises a valid thing that basically somethings (a fridge) do they need
to do much?

I sort of disagre with the author if I am to understand him right where he
thinks dreeming up potential improvments and the future doesn't help much.

I'll take my own pet project as example of this where I thought this is
silly, I want something that's better and like x,y z. Oh I said to myself
I'm looking at something kind of like a mix of Klingon and StarFleet
acadmy(from startrek) and the reason why I thought something like that
might be useful was basically system and place for people to exchange ideas
and generally ( I hope) make things a little simpler and way more fun and
make magic happen somehow.--kind of like a nice mix of a school, research
place, and ol'fationed interactive meusum.

I duno I guess if I wasn't a trek geek and didn't think it might be onto
something where swashbuckling alians and humans play well (for example) I
might not want to even persue that dreem. ^_^

 I just think it's silly things are way more complicated than they need to
be. lol

I  also agree with cody about elections being a giant mess and somethings
work as well being dumb than smart. Your fridge being a fine example.lol it
keeps pizza cold for Friday Movie Night.

 I wonder if a Matter Transmogerification and Teleportation Device would be
better. I don't know by how much though.
I think there needs to be a middle ground between constant change (Like
google) for-because reasons. lol compared to say MS's approach of only
sometimes kind of sort of bug fixes.

Somethings might better from the future like Quantum Speed Internet. Or If
anyone read the Vorksagon series they had this super cool thing called a
Halo System where not only could you talk to someone over a phone, they had
this super fun sounding thing called a Omni where you could go to a box or
booth of some sort the Describe to the Omni what your issue is and it'd due
it's best to help fix the problem teleporting in all manner of things from
Wrenches to one time it teleported in a Pirates Ship leading to some
amusing issues.


On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 9:59 AM, cody dooderson  wrote:

> The author of that article seems scared of change. He was scared of the
> crazy hippies, and now he's scared of voting online. He does make some good
> points. I agree that smart refrigerators are really just more complicated
> dumb refrigerators. I disagree with his view on digital democracy. It is
> difficult to imagine a digital redesign of democracy that can be worse than
> the primary, caucus, 2 party, democratic-republic system we a are currently
> spectating.
>
> Cody Smith
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 10:45 PM, Carl  wrote:
>
>> Well, political parties are not government, they are patronage
>> organizations, and in poorer states such as ours the party faithful fall
>> all over themselves with way too early and ill-informed endorsements just
>> to please those who might maybe mobilize future electoral resources on
>> their behalf.  Late or more well considered endorsements, well then maybe
>> not so much.   This weekend The Party is coming to visit; observe the
>> groveling.
>>
>> Hey, I'm not cynical.
>>
>> But I'm a little kid in liking big trucks and construction.   I'll drive
>> Cerrillos every day just to see what's going on.   Cruise-o-tainment.
>>
>> But, back to the article, one of the points is that many of the "new
>> ideas" with regard to cities are more or less clever marketing tropes, and
>> that buying into them inadvertently can reinforce the very processes they
>> seem to try to overthrow.   Maybe that's the case, maybe not.   We should
>> consider
>>
>> Best of luck with the pizza.
>>
>> Carl
>>
>>
>> On 4/6/16 12:58 PM, Gillian Densmore wrote:
>>
>> Arguable THE issue tech in NM is this:
>> Oh you need/want fast internet? screw you take this DSL speed instead!
>> Oh you just want go to the store and get some pizza? Screw you here's
>> some rode construction, plus some dick two inches from your rear bumper
>> instead!
>>
>> Those are the kinds of crap that's wrong. end of story.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Gillian Densmore <
>> gil.densm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Great find carl!
>>>
>>> MY issue is that all this crap is overly complicated. I just want it to
>>> be both easy, and fun to do things.
>>>
>>> lol that article is great but to many fancy words just to say yeah
>>> things these days are to complicated, and I haven't a clue why.
>>> Lets see today alone I'm trying out a few different weby-web page makers
>>> because I ran into a gocha with wordpress it's kind of not all that simple
>>> to make small changes to a wordpress theme. I duno I don't think its as
>>> simple as it could be. On the other hand lots of people use it, and
>>> suposedly Automatix said: uh yeah does this suck, lets try to fix it.
>>>
>>>  My Cellphone has off and on reception. (Kind of the nature of the beast
>>> with hills and vallies and no antenta's for a ways. My interne

[FRIAM] [ SPAM ] Re: Here's to the 1%!

[Robert J. Cordingley]

Seems the question revolves around societies' morals. Jesse Prinz (a 
Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the City University of New 
York) writing 
 
in Philosophy Now suggests that societies do not converge on a universal 
set of morals (unless driven by outside forces). Prof. Prinz goes on to 
discuss moral objectivism vs moral relativism and to justify the latter. 
So (it seems) what kind of state we tolerate depends on our shared and 
inculcated morality.

Robert C

On 4/6/16 10:19 PM, Carl wrote:
Well, constitutions are tools of the current narrative.   Consider 
Article 9.   It's pressed into service depending on the story various 
authorities wants to reify.   One can consider what's on the paper and 
say oh that's pretty cool, but


On 4/6/16 1:36 PM, gepr wrote:


It seems to me that authoritarianism can be fostered without an 
organismic authority (like a king or priest class). Isn't the "rule 
of law" or a constitution intended to objectify the authority? If 
that's the case, then the psychological manipulation from things like 
religion or capital punishment can/could eventually become 
unnecessary to achieve an authoritarian state.







FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com


--
Cirrillian
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)
Member Design Corps of Santa Fe


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Re: [FRIAM] Here's to the 1%!

[glen]

On 04/06/2016 12:50 PM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
> For those interested in authoritarianism, my favorite read is a classic 
> published in 1993 ("The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power"). I'd call 
> authors Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad spiritual realists. The book is 
> mind-blowing. I thought they were fearless when they later took on Buddhism, 
> but I don't think they ever published the essays (I have a copy.)

That's an interesting looking book.  This review makes me want to read it:  
http://www.johnhorgan.org/the_anti_gurus_15278.htm

On 04/06/2016 02:01 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Trade a pope for a supreme court justice for a Nobel Laureate at some level 
> it is all the same. Everyone has a price. defining `price’ broadly. Sure I’ll 
> pull from the right on that list if push comes to shove. But I’d also say 
> authoritarian leaders, or those that like people like them, want some agility 
> in their authoritarianism. They want to see the exercise of Power; they don’t 
> want to be bogged down in procedure. Get those leaders and the led together 
> and sometimes they’ll get behind some strange rituals.

On 04/06/2016 09:19 PM, Carl wrote:
> Well, constitutions are tools of the current narrative.   Consider Article 9. 
>   It's pressed into service depending on the story various authorities wants 
> to reify.   One can consider what's on the paper and say oh that's pretty 
> cool, but

Right.  Both you and Marcus point out that any system can be gamed. And the 
winners of that game end up being the authority.  And Marcus points out that 
even the authoritarians want the authority to be dynamic in at least some sense 
(each authority and authoritarian may want a different kind of dynamism, but 
that's OK).  But the primary issue is, I think, not that an elite set of gamers 
exists (or will obtain eventually).  The primary issue is the _size_ of the 
elite, either in absolute terms and/or in proportion to the rest of the 
population (including other species and the planet).

David Deutsch made this vague statement about good explanations being "hard to 
vary", in the sense that if you've got it right enough, precise enough, etc., 
then changing any given part of it, probably breaks it.  You can't willy nilly 
change a good theory.  You have to do it intelligently.  The same would be said 
about an authority that was derived (as directly as possible) from the world, 
rather than being _imposed_ on the world.

Currently, any constitution is more "derived from the world" than any Monarch 
or Genius because our scientific understanding of the mind is paltry.  So, a 
constitution, being a concrete artifact, allows _anyone_ who can make 
inferences from that artifact to play.  Constitutions allow for a large elite 
class because they're artifacts in the world.  If we could continue this 
process, making our constitutions more and more "of the world", then it could 
allow for larger and larger elite classes until, perhaps, the difference 
between those that can _use_ the law and those that are abused by the law is 
simply one of choice.  If you put in the hours, you too can be a law user.


-- 
--
⊥ glen ⊥


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Re: [FRIAM] Smart Cities and Social Enterpreneurship critique

[cody dooderson]

The author of that article seems scared of change. He was scared of the
crazy hippies, and now he's scared of voting online. He does make some good
points. I agree that smart refrigerators are really just more complicated
dumb refrigerators. I disagree with his view on digital democracy. It is
difficult to imagine a digital redesign of democracy that can be worse than
the primary, caucus, 2 party, democratic-republic system we a are currently
spectating.

Cody Smith

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 10:45 PM, Carl  wrote:

> Well, political parties are not government, they are patronage
> organizations, and in poorer states such as ours the party faithful fall
> all over themselves with way too early and ill-informed endorsements just
> to please those who might maybe mobilize future electoral resources on
> their behalf.  Late or more well considered endorsements, well then maybe
> not so much.   This weekend The Party is coming to visit; observe the
> groveling.
>
> Hey, I'm not cynical.
>
> But I'm a little kid in liking big trucks and construction.   I'll drive
> Cerrillos every day just to see what's going on.   Cruise-o-tainment.
>
> But, back to the article, one of the points is that many of the "new
> ideas" with regard to cities are more or less clever marketing tropes, and
> that buying into them inadvertently can reinforce the very processes they
> seem to try to overthrow.   Maybe that's the case, maybe not.   We should
> consider
>
> Best of luck with the pizza.
>
> Carl
>
>
> On 4/6/16 12:58 PM, Gillian Densmore wrote:
>
> Arguable THE issue tech in NM is this:
> Oh you need/want fast internet? screw you take this DSL speed instead!
> Oh you just want go to the store and get some pizza? Screw you here's some
> rode construction, plus some dick two inches from your rear bumper instead!
>
> Those are the kinds of crap that's wrong. end of story.
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Gillian Densmore <
> gil.densm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Great find carl!
>>
>> MY issue is that all this crap is overly complicated. I just want it to
>> be both easy, and fun to do things.
>>
>> lol that article is great but to many fancy words just to say yeah things
>> these days are to complicated, and I haven't a clue why.
>> Lets see today alone I'm trying out a few different weby-web page makers
>> because I ran into a gocha with wordpress it's kind of not all that simple
>> to make small changes to a wordpress theme. I duno I don't think its as
>> simple as it could be. On the other hand lots of people use it, and
>> suposedly Automatix said: uh yeah does this suck, lets try to fix it.
>>
>>  My Cellphone has off and on reception. (Kind of the nature of the beast
>> with hills and vallies and no antenta's for a ways. My internet sucks , the
>> place I use to try out some options is ludicrously slow. However  The
>> options are Affordable or Comcast. I mention all this because I am puzzled
>>  Why the heck are these basic things even a issue oO
>> The way I see it is this: bad news is NM failed. End of story.
>> Politicians just pointing fingers epically failed as well. End of story.
>> The good news is it seems like many of the day to day issues can be
>> solved, NM  has a some kind of nice village charm.
>>
>> Personally I've had about enough of people saying john has coodies, Fred
>> has a large eyebrow, Sally's smile is to big or what ever silly things they
>> say, use  to many fancy words just to say  Oy hey lets see if X can be done
>> better, and not make it so darn complicated.
>>
>> The way I see it the questions should be limited as much as possible:
>> Does it work? and is it simple to do or use?, and useful and mabie even
>> kind fun and cool to do or use? these should be about the only questions at
>> least as far as I'm concerned- lol but hey what do I know. ^_^
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Merle Lefkoff < 
>> merlelefk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Carl.  Don't have to tell you how much this resonated with our
>>> work!
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 9:28 PM, Carl < 
>>> c...@plektyx.com> wrote:
>>>
 An inspired rant possibly of interest to FRIAM denizens; found the link
 through Bruce Sterling.

 http://amsterdamalternative.nl/articles/1890

 Can't say I disagree.   Mainly since the sort of things he's critiquing
 are increasingly coming our way and any sort of expanded perspective may be
 useful.

 Carl


 
 FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
 Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
 to unsubscribe 
 http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
>>> President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
>>> Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
>>> merlelef...@gmail.com
>>> mobile:  (303) 859-5609 <%28303%29%20859-5609>
>>> skype:  merle.lelfkoff2
>>>