date:20170505

It's NOT irrelevant, Frank!

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 3:06 PM, glen ☣  wrote:

>
> Heh, just in case you think my comments about my gratefulness or admission
> of my stupidity are somehow intended as ironic, I'll confirm they are NOT.
> All y'all are way smarter than me.  And I am very grateful for your
> presence, interaction, tolerance, and the very existence of the forum.  I
> suppose that's the best I can do.  If anyone still reads my words as
> disingenuous, that's up to them.
>
> On 05/05/2017 01:28 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> > I have 30+ years experience reading and, rarely, posting to bboards,
> forums, etc.  Use of irony can cause problems.  Even if most people know
> what you mean, there will often be people who think you mean what you say.
> I admit that I have occasionally used irony, such as when I mentioned that
> Ted Kaczinski is an alum of my alma mater.  In that case I was using
> reductio ad absurdum to argue the irrelevancy  of which celebrity went to
> what school.
>
>
> --
> ☣ glen
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove




-- 
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

Visiting Professor in Integrative Peacebuilding
Saint Paul University
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

merlelefk...@gmail.com 
mobile:  (303) 859-5609
skype:  merle.lelfkoff2

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

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

I was talking to someone about a conference they attended and a technical 
discussion they had with an individual at the conference.He said he found 
the individual interesting -- a distinguished-looking older gentleman.  
Eventually he asked him about his affiliation.  He said he was unaffiliated.   
The conclusion of this individual was that he was a kook and he stopped the 
conversation.  Shouldn’t it be possible to identify kooks on the content of 
what they say and the (lack of) substance of their accomplishments?   That’s 
not what most academics do, in my experience.   It is often very much about 
genealogy and affiliation.   The argument from authority is alive and well.

If one thinks like this, then it is only appropriate for them to give more 
credence to the remarks of someone like Kaczynski.  He was a Berkeley man after 
all.That is competed with social pressure in those circles to say that 
smart people demonstrably capable of violence must have “gone crazy”, “lost 
it”, and so on.

Marcus

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2017 2:46 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

No, because it's irrelevant.
Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On May 5, 2017 2:36 PM, "Marcus Daniels" 
> wrote:
Frank writes:

“In that case I was using reductio ad absurdum to argue the irrelevancy  of 
which celebrity went to what school.”

Because he’s a terrorist or because his ideas were wrong?   His ideas resonate 
with whitelash voters.   I find that scary.

Marcus


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

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

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Steve writes:

< ... but "Evil" might be one of 
many things depending on the reserved lexicon of the speaker...   Social  
Conservatives would place LGBT and Abortion Rights and Gun Control on their 
list of "Evil"  .. >

Yeah, overloaded local dictionaries as a lazy cache for a community's preferred 
meaning.  Users of this dictionary are too lazy to even infer it on the fly.  
But I like talking to my dog because she lets me use words just I make up.   
When she hides my slippers I call her snarkle.   One part snark and one part 
sparkle.   

Marcus


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

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Marcus -

I personally am a fan of "late binding" in natural language. If I defer
it too late, it can get me in trouble... Trump got a lot of slack from
me along the way because of this. I can't tell if "Trump is clever to
observe that people ... " or his pattern matching skills lead him to
realize that between (many) people's natural deference to power and his
active use of ambiguity in language lead to a LOT of people ranging from
"giving him the benefit of the doubt" and "actively imputing beliefs or
capabilities to him that he patently does not hold".

It is probably obvious from my presence in this general discussion that
*I TOO* am avoiding an unpleasant task or two. Mine are perhaps more
mundane than your own.

- Steve

On 5/5/17 3:10 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Steve writes:

"I do like the stylization of upper case initiated variables similar to Marcus
PROLOG reference, though if I understand him correctly I use it differently."

Simple logic programs can be nothing but a conjunction of predicates. In this situation the predicates would be the reader's internal
checks on the argument so far. What is nailed down and what is not yet nailed down and certain relationships between the terms. Suppose
that one or two of the terms in the argument is not "over parsed". One can approach that uncertainty not from the bottom-up
building the meaning term by term, but from the top-down and ask: What assignments of the term "evil" will satisfy the predicates
I have? What is Glen really saying? And from that, deduce the meaning of the word, say, that "evil" means "sneaky"
or "clever" or "the property of an individual that for better or worse doesn't show her hand". This is probably not
so different from how natural language is really learned.

If the correspondent can be led into taking this approach, the conversation
could be more interesting (or exhausting) because the discussion isn't about
one topic, but many potential topics. It can also be entertaining if one or
more of correspondents have no awareness of it happening.

There has been some discussion here about how Trump apparently lets his
audience do this. We can call that `evil', but the real evil IMO is that his
audience is stupid and never reconciles their own term bindings. It is quite
clever of Trump to observe that people that are caught in these contradictions
often double down and become even more irrational and committed to them.

Marcus

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

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Steve writes:

"I do like the stylization of upper case initiated variables similar to Marcus 
PROLOG reference, though if I understand him correctly I use it differently."

Simple logic programs can be nothing but a conjunction of predicates.   In this 
situation the predicates would be the reader's internal checks on the argument 
so far.  What is nailed down and what is not yet nailed down and certain 
relationships between the terms.   Suppose that one or two of the terms in the 
argument is not "over parsed".  One can approach that uncertainty not from the 
bottom-up building the meaning term by term, but from the top-down and ask: 
What assignments of the term "evil" will satisfy the predicates I have?   What 
is Glen really saying?   And from that, deduce the meaning of the word, say, 
that "evil" means  "sneaky" or "clever" or "the property of an individual that 
for better or worse doesn't show her hand".   This is probably not so different 
from how natural language is really learned.  

If the correspondent can be led into taking this approach, the conversation 
could be more interesting (or exhausting) because the discussion isn't about 
one topic, but many potential topics.   It can also be entertaining if one or 
more of correspondents have no awareness of it happening.

There has been some discussion here about how Trump apparently lets his 
audience do this.   We can call that `evil', but the real evil IMO is that his 
audience is stupid and never reconciles their own term bindings.   It is quite 
clever of Trump to observe that people that are caught in these contradictions 
often double down and become even more irrational and committed to them. 

Marcus


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

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Heh, just in case you think my comments about my gratefulness or admission of 
my stupidity are somehow intended as ironic, I'll confirm they are NOT.  All 
y'all are way smarter than me.  And I am very grateful for your presence, 
interaction, tolerance, and the very existence of the forum.  I suppose that's 
the best I can do.  If anyone still reads my words as disingenuous, that's up 
to them.

On 05/05/2017 01:28 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> I have 30+ years experience reading and, rarely, posting to bboards, forums, 
> etc.  Use of irony can cause problems.  Even if most people know what you 
> mean, there will often be people who think you mean what you say.  I admit 
> that I have occasionally used irony, such as when I mentioned that Ted 
> Kaczinski is an alum of my alma mater.  In that case I was using reductio ad 
> absurdum to argue the irrelevancy  of which celebrity went to what school.

-- 
☣ glen

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

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)


Glen -

Is this your version of the Serenity Prayer?  If so, it is a nicely 
novel one!


I feel *measureably* (if only fractionally) smarter when I manage to 
(mostly) follow many of the deeply thoughtful discussions here...  
your's and Marcus' most most immediately.   I could easily list a dozen 
others and am tempted to suggest "you know who you are", but in fact 
suspect some of the more valuable contributors to have their own 
(false?) modesty.  Nick, you know who you are.


I do like the stylization of upper case initiated variables similar to 
Marcus PROLOG reference, though if I understand him correctly I use it 
differently.  Initial Upper Caps means to me that the word is in a 
special lexicon... using the example of evil vs Evil... "evil" IS in the 
standard dictionary(ies) of common discourse, but "Evil" might be one of 
many things depending on the reserved lexicon of the speaker...   Social 
Conservatives would place LGBT and Abortion Rights and Gun Control on 
their list of "Evil" while Social Progressives would place restricting 
"Personal Choice" and Racial or Gender or Gender Identity discrimination 
on their "Evil" list for example.   I'm not sure what followers of 
Cthuhlu use the term "Evil" for, it seems to be deliberately obscured or 
skewed?


- Steve


On 5/5/17 2:05 PM, gepr wrote:

And as always I'm tremendously grateful for all my friends, who are 
immeasurably smarter than me, for their tolerance of my nonsensical attempts to 
navigate reality.


On May 5, 2017 12:02:15 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels  wrote:

Glen writes:

< If a listener abstracts their self, they are just as evil as a
speaker abstracting their self. >

Steve writes:

< Firstly, my own throwdown of "rhetoric" was intended to be very
specific.  I believe that you both took it to be a bit more broad than
intended.  I specifically meant rhetoric as "language intended to
persuade".  I hold this specifically distinct from "language intended
to inform" and "language used to think or contemplate".  Unfortunately
I discovered that in fact the formal definition of rhetoric includes
"to inform" as well as "to persuade" >

In PROLOG, free variables are upper case, meaning that the reader
should expect some effort in establishing their values.   If Glen were
forced to write down his arguments and propositions in PROLOG he'd have
to say "Evil" and not "evil" because the latter would be something
constrained by a dictionary.  I tend to use single quotes to highlight
terms where I am encouraging the reader to find a grounding or tolerate
my loose or arbitrary set of constraints in the definition.

Sure, Glen's crypto-obsfucation is a sort of rhetoric.  He forces you
to both consume and actively doubt every single one of his words.
Advertisements have a similar effect over time.   I can appreciate Flo
and the Gecko, but then I don't purchase Progressive or Geico insurance
either.  I become immune to many of their tricks! For many years
I've believed the purpose of this is to make arguments robust to
perturbation.   You can reject all the parts of his argument but still
be forced to accept the conclusion.  :-)




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

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

2017-05-05 Thread Frank Wimberly

No, because it's irrelevant.

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On May 5, 2017 2:36 PM, "Marcus Daniels"  wrote:

> Frank writes:
>
>
>
> “In that case I was using reductio ad absurdum to argue the irrelevancy
>  of which celebrity went to what school.”
>
>
>
> Because he’s a terrorist or because his ideas were wrong?   His ideas
> resonate with whitelash voters.   I find that scary.
>
>
>
> Marcus
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

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

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Frank writes:

“In that case I was using reductio ad absurdum to argue the irrelevancy  of 
which celebrity went to what school.”

Because he’s a terrorist or because his ideas were wrong?   His ideas resonate 
with whitelash voters.   I find that scary.

Marcus

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

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

2017-05-05 Thread Frank Wimberly

I have 30+ years experience reading and, rarely, posting to bboards,
forums, etc.  Use of irony can cause problems.  Even if most people know
what you mean, there will often be people who think you mean what you say.
I admit that I have occasionally used irony, such as when I mentioned that
Ted Kaczinski is an alum of my alma mater.  In that case I was using
reductio ad absurdum to argue the irrelevancy  of which celebrity went to
what school.

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On May 5, 2017 2:05 PM, "gepr"  wrote:

> And as always I'm tremendously grateful for all my friends, who are
> immeasurably smarter than me, for their tolerance of my nonsensical
> attempts to navigate reality.
>
>
> On May 5, 2017 12:02:15 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels 
> wrote:
> >Glen writes:
> >
> >< If a listener abstracts their self, they are just as evil as a
> >speaker abstracting their self. >
> >
> >Steve writes:
> >
> >< Firstly, my own throwdown of "rhetoric" was intended to be very
> >specific.  I believe that you both took it to be a bit more broad than
> >intended.  I specifically meant rhetoric as "language intended to
> >persuade".  I hold this specifically distinct from "language intended
> >to inform" and "language used to think or contemplate".  Unfortunately
> >I discovered that in fact the formal definition of rhetoric includes
> >"to inform" as well as "to persuade" >
> >
> >In PROLOG, free variables are upper case, meaning that the reader
> >should expect some effort in establishing their values.   If Glen were
> >forced to write down his arguments and propositions in PROLOG he'd have
> >to say "Evil" and not "evil" because the latter would be something
> >constrained by a dictionary.  I tend to use single quotes to highlight
> >terms where I am encouraging the reader to find a grounding or tolerate
> >my loose or arbitrary set of constraints in the definition.
> >
> >Sure, Glen's crypto-obsfucation is a sort of rhetoric.  He forces you
> >to both consume and actively doubt every single one of his words.
> >Advertisements have a similar effect over time.   I can appreciate Flo
> >and the Gecko, but then I don't purchase Progressive or Geico insurance
> >either.  I become immune to many of their tricks! For many years
> >I've believed the purpose of this is to make arguments robust to
> >perturbation.   You can reject all the parts of his argument but still
> >be forced to accept the conclusion.  :-)
>
> --
> ⛧glen⛧
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Now would be a good time for a long conversation about the dimensionality of 
reality and its navigation, because I just can't bear the next thing I have to 
do.  That danged REPL loop is just blinking at me now.  Lower case evil and all 
that is fine.   

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of gepr
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2017 2:05 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

And as always I'm tremendously grateful for all my friends, who are 
immeasurably smarter than me, for their tolerance of my nonsensical attempts to 
navigate reality.

On May 5, 2017 12:02:15 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels  wrote:
>Glen writes:
>
>< If a listener abstracts their self, they are just as evil as a 
>speaker abstracting their self. >
>
>Steve writes:
>
>< Firstly, my own throwdown of "rhetoric" was intended to be very 
>specific.  I believe that you both took it to be a bit more broad than 
>intended.  I specifically meant rhetoric as "language intended to 
>persuade".  I hold this specifically distinct from "language intended 
>to inform" and "language used to think or contemplate".  Unfortunately 
>I discovered that in fact the formal definition of rhetoric includes 
>"to inform" as well as "to persuade" >
>
>In PROLOG, free variables are upper case, meaning that the reader
>should expect some effort in establishing their values.   If Glen were
>forced to write down his arguments and propositions in PROLOG he'd have 
>to say "Evil" and not "evil" because the latter would be something 
>constrained by a dictionary.  I tend to use single quotes to highlight 
>terms where I am encouraging the reader to find a grounding or tolerate 
>my loose or arbitrary set of constraints in the definition.
>
>Sure, Glen's crypto-obsfucation is a sort of rhetoric.  He forces you 
>to both consume and actively doubt every single one of his words.
>Advertisements have a similar effect over time.   I can appreciate Flo
>and the Gecko, but then I don't purchase Progressive or Geico insurance
>either.  I become immune to many of their tricks! For many years
>I've believed the purpose of this is to make arguments robust to
>perturbation.   You can reject all the parts of his argument but still
>be forced to accept the conclusion.  :-)

--
⛧glen⛧

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

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

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

2017-05-05 Thread gepr

And as always I'm tremendously grateful for all my friends, who are 
immeasurably smarter than me, for their tolerance of my nonsensical attempts to 
navigate reality.


On May 5, 2017 12:02:15 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels  wrote:
>Glen writes:
>
>< If a listener abstracts their self, they are just as evil as a
>speaker abstracting their self. >
>
>Steve writes:
>
>< Firstly, my own throwdown of "rhetoric" was intended to be very
>specific.  I believe that you both took it to be a bit more broad than
>intended.  I specifically meant rhetoric as "language intended to
>persuade".  I hold this specifically distinct from "language intended
>to inform" and "language used to think or contemplate".  Unfortunately
>I discovered that in fact the formal definition of rhetoric includes
>"to inform" as well as "to persuade" >
>
>In PROLOG, free variables are upper case, meaning that the reader
>should expect some effort in establishing their values.   If Glen were
>forced to write down his arguments and propositions in PROLOG he'd have
>to say "Evil" and not "evil" because the latter would be something
>constrained by a dictionary.  I tend to use single quotes to highlight
>terms where I am encouraging the reader to find a grounding or tolerate
>my loose or arbitrary set of constraints in the definition.
>
>Sure, Glen's crypto-obsfucation is a sort of rhetoric.  He forces you
>to both consume and actively doubt every single one of his words.  
>Advertisements have a similar effect over time.   I can appreciate Flo
>and the Gecko, but then I don't purchase Progressive or Geico insurance
>either.  I become immune to many of their tricks! For many years
>I've believed the purpose of this is to make arguments robust to
>perturbation.   You can reject all the parts of his argument but still
>be forced to accept the conclusion.  :-)

-- 
⛧glen⛧


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

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Glen writes:

< If a listener abstracts their self, they are just as evil as a speaker 
abstracting their self. >

Steve writes:

< Firstly, my own throwdown of "rhetoric" was intended to be very specific.  I 
believe that you both took it to be a bit more broad than intended.  I 
specifically meant rhetoric as "language intended to persuade".  I hold this 
specifically distinct from "language intended to inform" and "language used to 
think or contemplate".  Unfortunately I discovered that in fact the formal 
definition of rhetoric includes "to inform" as well as "to persuade" >

In PROLOG, free variables are upper case, meaning that the reader should expect 
some effort in establishing their values.   If Glen were forced to write down 
his arguments and propositions in PROLOG he'd have to say "Evil" and not "evil" 
because the latter would be something constrained by a dictionary.  I tend to 
use single quotes to highlight terms where I am encouraging the reader to find 
a grounding or tolerate my loose or arbitrary set of constraints in the 
definition.

Sure, Glen's crypto-obsfucation is a sort of rhetoric.  He forces you to both 
consume and actively doubt every single one of his words.   Advertisements have 
a similar effect over time.   I can appreciate Flo and the Gecko, but then I 
don't purchase Progressive or Geico insurance either.  I become immune to many 
of their tricks! For many years I've believed the purpose of this is to 
make arguments robust to perturbation.   You can reject all the parts of his 
argument but still be forced to accept the conclusion.  :-)

Marcus





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

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

FWIW, I would try not to over-parse "rhetoric" any more than I over-parse 
"abstract".  All informational language is persuasive and all persuasive 
language is informative.  The distinction is false, I think.  We see this most 
egregiously in the saying: If you want to learn something, read about it. If 
you want to understand something, write about it. If you want to master 
something, teach it.

As in the argument with Vladimyr, I take the same position.  There is no stable 
"you".  There is no such thing as the "mind".  What does exist, however, is the 
real stuff around you, including your fingers, your tongue, your ears, etc.  As 
you write down your rhetoric, you (as Eric suggested) reconfigure yourself.  In 
my own personal experience, the act of saying or writing something can either 
verify or decohere whatever physiological state I was in before.  (Note these 
acts address logical validity, not soundness.  That has to be done 
interpersonally, through a more isotropic medium.)  Another example is when 
you, say, write code and then have to read that code 10 years later.  The 
writing is both persuasive and informative.  In fact, to emphasize the false 
distinction is to engage in the very abstraction I'm ranting against.  Yes, 
Steve, you are as evil as the rest of us. 8^)

Similarly, in direct response to Marcus' "listeners bear responsibility" ... I 
was reared to avoid stating the obvious.  But as I die, it becomes more obvious 
that one person's obvious is another's occult.  So, to be clear, I'm arguing 
that all these things are tightly coupled.  S ... yes, of course the 
listener bears some responsibility.  If a listener abstracts their self, they 
are just as evil as a speaker abstracting their self.

And you're right that it bears directly on the obvious false equivalence 
between intelligence and AI, specific or general.  It would be great fun to use 
AI to craft a new political philosophy.  Of course, I like stochasticity, so 
I'd simply train an Eddington typewriter on Marx, Ghandi, Hitler, Roosevelt, 
etc. and see what popped out.  That would probably be as effective as any body 
of rhetoric that popped out of any one "mind".

On 05/05/2017 10:55 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> As usual, I am enjoying watching your semantic and conceptual fencing match 
> here.  The flash of parry, riposte, counter-riposte can be blinding but 
> engaging.   The content, when I feel I have parsed it down all the way is 
> usually enlightening and informative.
> 
> Rather than try to join in and thus create a bit of a melee, I will try to 
> stand back and lob a few things onto the ground of the discussion.
> 
> Firstly, my own throwdown of "rhetoric" was intended to be very specific.  I 
> believe that you both took it to be a bit more broad than intended.  I 
> specifically meant rhetoric as "language intended to persuade".  I hold this 
> specifically distinct from "language intended to inform" and "language used 
> to think or contemplate".  Unfortunately I discovered that in fact the formal 
> definition of rhetoric includes "to inform" as well as "to persuade"
> 
> I believe that both of you are primarily using language intended to inform in 
> this (and most if not all) discussions in this forum.   But I also believe 
> that MOST public discourse is fundamentally rhetorical.   Noam Chomsky might 
> be the closest to a public figure outside of hard sciences who seems able to 
> refrain from deliberately conflating persuasive and informational language.
> 
> My point in this pivots around Marcus' point here of "Listeners, bear some 
> responsibility too".  In my general experience, but acutely informed by our 
> recent elections, MOST listeners seek out persuasive rhetoric which supports 
> their existing beliefs... and ignore or at least are fairly unaware of the 
> difference of that from informational rhetoric.   They are not seeking to 
> understand or even learn more, they are seeking to confirm existing biases 
> and to adopt convincing rhetoric to flail their opponents with.
> 
> I particularly appreciate the discussions the two of you share with the rest 
> of us here, but there are many (or at least several) others who seem to 
> maintain a similar level of honest intent to inform and/or explore rather 
> than simply persuade.
> 
> Touching briefly onthe OP or is it OT, I thnk that both SAI and GAI may be a 
> severe travesty in our culture to whatever extent we "listeners" don't take 
> responsibility.   Will AI become the new speechwriters?   Have they already?  
>  I think that Artificial Wisdom will come much later than effective 
> Artificial Intelligence and would seem to need to grow out of GAI rathr than 
> SAI.

-- 
☣ glen

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

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)


Glen/Marcus -

As usual, I am enjoying watching your semantic and conceptual fencing 
match here.  The flash of parry, riposte, counter-riposte can be 
blinding but engaging.   The content, when I feel I have parsed it down 
all the way is usually enlightening and informative.


Rather than try to join in and thus create a bit of a melee, I will try 
to stand back and lob a few things onto the ground of the discussion.


Firstly, my own throwdown of "rhetoric" was intended to be very 
specific.  I believe that you both took it to be a bit more broad than 
intended.  I specifically meant rhetoric as "language intended to 
persuade".  I hold this specifically distinct from "language intended to 
inform" and "language used to think or contemplate".  Unfortunately I 
discovered that in fact the formal definition of rhetoric includes "to 
inform" as well as "to persuade"


I believe that both of you are primarily using language intended to 
inform in this (and most if not all) discussions in this forum.   But I 
also believe that MOST public discourse is fundamentally rhetorical.   
Noam Chomsky might be the closest to a public figure outside of hard 
sciences who seems able to refrain from deliberately conflating 
persuasive and informational language.


My point in this pivots around Marcus' point here of "Listeners, bear 
some responsibility too".  In my general experience, but acutely 
informed by our recent elections, MOST listeners seek out persuasive 
rhetoric which supports their existing beliefs... and ignore or at least 
are fairly unaware of the difference of that from informational 
rhetoric.   They are not seeking to understand or even learn more, they 
are seeking to confirm existing biases and to adopt convincing rhetoric 
to flail their opponents with.


I particularly appreciate the discussions the two of you share with the 
rest of us here, but there are many (or at least several) others who 
seem to maintain a similar level of honest intent to inform and/or 
explore rather than simply persuade.


Touching briefly onthe OP or is it OT, I thnk that both SAI and GAI may 
be a severe travesty in our culture to whatever extent we "listeners" 
don't take responsibility.   Will AI become the new speechwriters?   
Have they already?   I think that Artificial Wisdom will come much later 
than effective Artificial Intelligence and would seem to need to grow 
out of GAI rathr than SAI.


Carry On,

 - Steve



Glen write:

"Their interpretation of their distributed artifact is decoupled from, abstracted 
from, their audience's interpretation of the same artifact.  And they bear some 
responsibility for that decoupling."

Listeners bear responsibility too.

Marcus

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




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

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

"Linux is useless without a shell like GNU.  But that doesn't mean those 
artifacts are somehow abstractions."

There's abstract as "existing in thought or as an idea but not having a 
physical or concrete existence".   A computer program not really physical.   It 
can be represented as physical state as in neural tissue.   DRAM charge 
conditions or magnetic fields on a hard disk. 

There's abstract as "consider (something) theoretically or separately from 
something else".   Linux is abstract in this sense as it enables users not to 
think about certain issues.

There's abstract as "extract or remove (something)" as one does when 
refactoring.   To capture the essence or to generalize over alternative 
implementations.

I make no distinction between mathematical abstractions and computer programs.  
Most people think of computer programs as operational and imperative, but the 
artifact of a Mathematica code and a derivation in front of a whiteboard can be 
the same referent.   

Marcus

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

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Glen write:

"Their interpretation of their distributed artifact is decoupled from, 
abstracted from, their audience's interpretation of the same artifact.  And 
they bear some responsibility for that decoupling."

Listeners bear responsibility too. 

Marcus

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

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

But that's not what you said.  You said they distribute abstractions, which 
they clearly do not ... cannot because that's nonsense.  One cannot distribute 
an abstraction.  The reason one can _experience_ discovering an unintended 
_use_ for an artifact is because these things that get distributed are 
personally experience-able, local.  Sure, if you don't use it, you can call it 
abstract if you want.  But it's not.  It's concrete.  And the more you use it, 
the more tightly coupled to it you get.

I don't disagree that whatever artifact is being distributed (bits on a disk, 
flyers outside a church, etc.) can be 
executed/interpreted/experienced/personalized differently.  Linux is useless 
without a shell like GNU.  But that doesn't mean those artifacts are somehow 
abstractions.

And my original point was that if the artifacts these thoughtful anarchists 
distribute are open to wildly diverse interpretation, then perhaps they should 
spend less time _thinking_ and more time running with the Black Bloc and 
steering the BB toward more constructive action. (Eg perhaps don't vandalize 
the struggling small business owner.  Or in Wikileaks case, perhaps don't act 
as an unwitting tool of a dictator.) Their interpretation of their distributed 
artifact is decoupled from, abstracted from, their audience's interpretation of 
the same artifact.  And they bear some responsibility for that decoupling.

On 05/05/2017 09:49 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> These local representations are not necessarily the same or even similar and 
> interesting insights come about from the simple act of distribution.   
> Assange is arrogant, but he is not so arrogant to think that someone else may 
> be able to profoundly contextualize the documents he distributes.   
> Similarly, anyone that has worked with component-oriented software has had 
> the experience of discovering a new unintended use for an artifact.   Whether 
> any given distribution act is constructive or destructive is arguable, but 
> there are certainly examples where millions of people would agree that it was 
> constructive, e.g. the Linux kernel.   

-- 
☣ glen

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

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Glen writes:

< I disagree.  These tools are personal (I'm OK if you'd prefer a different 
term... "local" perhaps, "concrete"?) and are definitely not abstract.  When 
you put your life (as you know it) at risk submitting classified information to 
Wikileaks, that's personal.  When you spend 1/2 your day futzing with 
dependencies so you can use open source tools to edit the ROM on your phone, 
that 1/2 day is personal.  And when you spend hours reading through really 
boring e-mails from and to someone like Podesta or some banker in the Cook 
Islands, that's personal. >

These local representations are not necessarily the same or even similar and 
interesting insights come about from the simple act of distribution.   Assange 
is arrogant, but he is not so arrogant to think that someone else may be able 
to profoundly contextualize the documents he distributes.   Similarly, anyone 
that has worked with component-oriented software has had the experience of 
discovering a new unintended use for an artifact.   Whether any given 
distribution act is constructive or destructive is arguable, but there are 
certainly examples where millions of people would agree that it was 
constructive, e.g. the Linux kernel.   

Marcus

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

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

On 05/05/2017 09:24 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I intended to make a different point than what I think you may have concluded.

Heh, yes, I know.  That was partly the point of referring to it in this 
context. >8^D  Nonetheless, the point I inferred is still there.

> To certain technologists, there is the view that our culture is made up of 
> rule-based parts that act much like software.  They are not personal (in your 
> terminology), they are abstractions that take on a significance of their own. 
>   If one can get voters to embrace a set of slogans, or go to a building on 
> Sunday to hold their head down periodically, or throw someone in prison 
> because of an interpretation of a law, then it is not personal.  It's a 
> generalized abstraction that some advocate like a priest or legislator 
> threw-up and managed to get to stick.  The view that "knowledge is power" is 
> another form.   Free software advocates like Stallman are well-aware of the 
> thinking of scholars like Chomsky.   And certainly folks like Assange crossed 
> paths with the free software movement (in the Stallman sense) on several 
> occasions.   So, rather than handing out weapons, they hand out tools and 
> information because these technologists believe that is the basis for power 
> in the world, or soon will be.

I disagree.  These tools are personal (I'm OK if you'd prefer a different 
term... "local" perhaps, "concrete"?) and are definitely not abstract.  When 
you put your life (as you know it) at risk submitting classified information to 
Wikileaks, that's personal.  When you spend 1/2 your day futzing with 
dependencies so you can use open source tools to edit the ROM on your phone, 
that 1/2 day is personal.  And when you spend hours reading through really 
boring e-mails from and to someone like Podesta or some banker in the Cook 
Islands, that's personal.

That these certain technologists _think_ such tools are somehow reified, 
self-extant, abstractions is a fundamental flaw in their thinking ... and 
provides evidence for my position.  Tools are only tools if they are used.  And 
there is a tight coupling between tool and 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
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Glen writes:

" But what I didn't get from his talk (yet it's mirrored in Marcus' post about 
open source communities) is the tight coupling that's needed."

I intended to make a different point than what I think you may have concluded.  
To certain technologists, there is the view that our culture is made up of 
rule-based parts that act much like software.  They are not personal (in your 
terminology), they are abstractions that take on a significance of their own.   
If one can get voters to embrace a set of slogans, or go to a building on 
Sunday to hold their head down periodically, or throw someone in prison because 
of an interpretation of a law, then it is not personal.  It's a generalized 
abstraction that some advocate like a priest or legislator threw-up and managed 
to get to stick.  The view that "knowledge is power" is another form.   Free 
software advocates like Stallman are well-aware of the thinking of scholars 
like Chomsky.   And certainly folks like Assange crossed paths with the free 
software movement (in the Stallman sense) on several occasions.   So, rather 
than handing out weapons, they hand out tools and information becaus
 e these technologists believe that is the basis for power in the world, or 
soon will be.

Marcus

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

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Hm.  But enlightenment (IMO) only happens in a personal sense.  And "personal" 
implies tight couplings.  Eg Dick Cheney being OK with gay people because his 
daughter is gay, despite him being evil in every other non-personal aspect of 
his decades in power.  Or Milo _finally_ realizing how bad abstract rhetoric is 
when a recording surfaces about his tolerance of pederasty ... or internet 
trolls being contacted by phone or f2f by their victims.

If your rhetoric (and remotely felt actions) are _transitive_ ... if they 
percolate out, intact, from you to the listener, then the listener can be 
enlightened.  But if all the personal elements are eliminated by abstraction, 
then that can't happen.

There is no abstract truth.  All truth is personal.  Hence, it cannot stand or 
fail on its own.  That's just nonsensical.  We see this in science, quite 
clearly.  It's not the scientific "law" that is true.  What's true are the 
experimental protocols that take you from initial to final conditions, 
everywhere and always.  And experiments are personal, not abstract.

On 05/05/2017 09:06 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Speaking truth to power implies that the truth stands on its own (or can be 
> falsified).   There's no obligation to model the listener.   There's the 
> possibility the listener can be enlightened.

-- 
☣ glen

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

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Glen writes:

"Being _in_ the world means being tightly coupled to it so that you feel the 
immediate consequences of your words and hear your own words repeated from 
others' mouths.  If you're not tightly coupled, then you're at risk."

Speaking truth to power implies that the truth stands on its own (or can be 
falsified).   There's no obligation to model the listener.   There's the 
possibility the listener can be enlightened.

Marcus

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

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Well, I did get a chance to listen to CArne Ross' TED talk after Marcus pointed 
him out.  (Nothing further, yet.)  And he made one comment in that talk that I 
like, yet completely disagree with ... something like "it's up to each and 
every person to implement policy" ... or diplomacy  or something like that.  
The point is great.  The steady, progressive, dissolution of "the state" has 
been exploited, especially by corporations, but also by well- and 
ill-intentioned individuals and groups for awhile, now.

But what I didn't get from his talk (yet it's mirrored in Marcus' post about 
open source communities) is the tight coupling that's needed.  Both rhetoric 
and action are tempered (both ill- and good effects) by their embedding.  It's 
the distance and abstraction that causes the problem.  (As Lakoff pointed out 
with Trump's speaking style.)  If your rhetoric is like poetry, ambiguous, 
parsimonious, or elegant, so that it can be re-interpreted, re-applied 
regardless of your situation, then it's EVIL.  Likewise, if your actions affect 
not only your immediate neighbors in some topological space, but _everyone_ 
(like spitting carbon into the air or launching a nuclear missile), then it's 
evil.

What's not evil, regardless of the content, is anything spoken or done _small_ 
and close.  I can tell off color jokes and not be misinterpreted as long as I'm 
amongst my friends.  I can brag about pussy-grabbing as long as it's on a bus 
with one other guy and I'm not being recorded ... or never plan to represent a 
large population of diverse people.  Etc.  Where such things become evil is 
when you, your words or actions, are being used as a "model", an abstraction.  
Language and actions for distal audiences are different (in kind) from language 
and actions for proximal audiences.

Your quote from Rumi applies, but again with my own private interpretation.  
Being _in_ the world means being tightly coupled to it so that you feel the 
immediate consequences of your words and hear your own words repeated from 
others' mouths.  If you're not tightly coupled, then you're at risk.

On 05/05/2017 08:31 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> I know what you are saying here is intended to be more pointed, but doesn't 
> it come down to the simple definition of rhetoric? Persuasive speech 
> (including writing, posturing, gesturing in public) is intended to *persuade* 
> and if one is effective in their rhetoric (persuasion), then they are 
> responsible for the consequences of their persuasion.
> 
> I have a strong identification with the ideals of anarchism, as I do with 
> libertarianism, and to a lesser extent conservative and progressive ideals.   
> I am not eager, however, to proseletyze on any of those subjects overmuch 
> *lest* I persuade someone to act on those ideals,  Action, also by it's very 
> nature, is intrinsically irresponsible.   We can never know the full 
> consequences of our actions, so we take them based on a lick and a promise 
> that they won't go totally and unexpectedly bad.
> 
> Talking and acting are a risky business it seems.   But it is the stuff of 
> being in the world.  I believe it was Rumi who suggested we "be IN but not OF 
> the world".   Subtle business.
> 
> I appreciate your use of the term "elite sophists" here.   It is the place I 
> retreat to and feel that is what most of the discussion here (about religion, 
> politics, social, economic theory) is... the use of sophist(icated) language 
> to try to understand complex and subtle phenomena but from a somewhat 
> distanced perspective allowed by our various circumstance.

-- 
☣ glen

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

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Glen -

I know what you are saying here is intended to be more pointed, but
doesn't it come down to the simple definition of rhetoric? Persuasive
speech (including writing, posturing, gesturing in public) is intended
to *persuade* and if one is effective in their rhetoric (persuasion),
then they are responsible for the consequences of their persuasion.

I have a strong identification with the ideals of anarchism, as I do
with libertarianism, and to a lesser extent conservative and progressive
ideals. I am not eager, however, to proseletyze on any of those
subjects overmuch *lest* I persuade someone to act on those ideals,
Action, also by it's very nature, is intrinsically irresponsible. We
can never know the full consequences of our actions, so we take them
based on a lick and a promise that they won't go totally and
unexpectedly bad.

Talking and acting are a risky business it seems. But it is the stuff
of being in the world. I believe it was Rumi who suggested we "be IN
but not OF the world". Subtle business.

I appreciate your use of the term "elite sophists" here. It is the
place I retreat to and feel that is what most of the discussion here
(about religion, politics, social, economic theory) is... the use of
sophist(icated) language to try to understand complex and subtle
phenomena but from a somewhat distanced perspective allowed by our
various circumstance.

- Steve

On 5/5/17 9:03 AM, ┣glen┫ wrote:

OK. So, the answer is "No". Those non-violent anarchists are NOT willing to take responsibility
for the actions of others who call themselves "anarchists". Nor, it seems, are they willing to
take responsibility for the damage their rhetoric might cause. So it is with Islam, libertarians, Trump,
etc. Same effect, different demagoguery. We elite sophists can preen and pick at the language all day. But
unless it "boils down", intact, to the language and actions of the laity, it's just as culpable as
every other well-paved road to hell.

To be clear, I'm not trying to "shame" anyone. I just want to be clear about
the self-contradictory nature of such things.

On 05/05/2017 07:28 AM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:

Glen, you have a choice to assume that anarchists, like all political
groups, come with a more nuanced spectrum of strategies than outsiders are
able to discern. And many that I know understand that in the long run,
non-violence is the winning strategy.

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 4:37 PM, glen ☣ wrote:

So, how do they feel about policing the other self-described
"anarchists"? I.e. calling out groups like the black bloc as "outsiders"
or whatnot?

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Well said, Glen.  At the same time, some of us who are not anarchists (I'm
still on the journey) understand that the actions of many who call
themselves Democrats, or Republicans, or President or Congressmen or
CEOs--just a few seemingly less extreme examples--all exemplify the
"different demagoguery" you mention.  (Thanks for including Trump.)  The
question of responsibility for collective action is a big one.  At some
level I actually do feel a sense of responsibility for the people around
the world who are voting for 21st century fascism.  Our cultural values in
the U.S. have become a source of much destruction and despair.

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:03 AM, ┣glen┫  wrote:

> OK.  So, the answer is "No".  Those non-violent anarchists are NOT willing
> to take responsibility for the actions of others who call themselves
> "anarchists".  Nor, it seems, are they willing to take responsibility for
> the damage their rhetoric might cause.  So it is with Islam, libertarians,
> Trump, etc.  Same effect, different demagoguery.  We elite sophists can
> preen and pick at the language all day.  But unless it "boils down",
> intact, to the language and actions of the laity, it's just as culpable as
> every other well-paved road to hell.
>
> To be clear, I'm not trying to "shame" anyone.  I just want to be clear
> about the self-contradictory nature of such things.
>
>
> On 05/05/2017 07:28 AM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
> > Glen, you have a choice to assume that anarchists, like all political
> > groups, come with a more nuanced spectrum of strategies than outsiders
> are
> > able to discern.  And many that I know understand that in the long run,
> > non-violence is the winning strategy.
> >
> > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 4:37 PM, glen ☣  wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> So, how do they feel about policing the other self-described
> >> "anarchists"?  I.e. calling out groups like the black bloc as
> "outsiders"
> >> or whatnot?
>
> --
> ␦glen?
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

-- 
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

Visiting Professor in Integrative Peacebuilding
Saint Paul University
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

merlelefk...@gmail.com 
mobile:  (303) 859-5609
skype:  merle.lelfkoff2

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

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

2017-05-05 Thread ┣glen┫

OK.  So, the answer is "No".  Those non-violent anarchists are NOT willing to 
take responsibility for the actions of others who call themselves "anarchists". 
 Nor, it seems, are they willing to take responsibility for the damage their 
rhetoric might cause.  So it is with Islam, libertarians, Trump, etc.  Same 
effect, different demagoguery.  We elite sophists can preen and pick at the 
language all day.  But unless it "boils down", intact, to the language and 
actions of the laity, it's just as culpable as every other well-paved road to 
hell.

To be clear, I'm not trying to "shame" anyone.  I just want to be clear about 
the self-contradictory nature of such things.

On 05/05/2017 07:28 AM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
> Glen, you have a choice to assume that anarchists, like all political
> groups, come with a more nuanced spectrum of strategies than outsiders are
> able to discern.  And many that I know understand that in the long run,
> non-violence is the winning strategy.
> 
> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 4:37 PM, glen ☣  wrote:
> 
>>
>> So, how do they feel about policing the other self-described
>> "anarchists"?  I.e. calling out groups like the black bloc as "outsiders"
>> or whatnot?

-- 
␦glen?

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

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Glen, you have a choice to assume that anarchists, like all political
groups, come with a more nuanced spectrum of strategies than outsiders are
able to discern.  And many that I know understand that in the long run,
non-violence is the winning strategy.

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 4:37 PM, glen ☣  wrote:

>
> So, how do they feel about policing the other self-described
> "anarchists"?  I.e. calling out groups like the black bloc as "outsiders"
> or whatnot?  If someone comes to me and says "I'm an anarchist", what
> choice do I have but to assume they're a violent idiot who would rather
> throw bricks through my window than tolerate a demonstrably effective
> bureacracy?
>
>
> On 05/04/2017 12:13 PM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
> > They are "thoughtful anarchists" who do non-violent civil
> disobedience---the stuff people like "Earth First" used to do, when they
> were holding down the far left of the old environmental movement.  Some
> consider their actions"destructive" but they don't promote violence in
> their own ranks.  They know, however, that their provocations often provoke
> outsiders to respond with violence.
>
> --
> ☣ glen
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>



-- 
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

Visiting Professor in Integrative Peacebuilding
Saint Paul University
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

merlelefk...@gmail.com 
mobile:  (303) 859-5609
skype:  merle.lelfkoff2

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

[FRIAM] Why Merle thinks talking about Harvard Business School is an important conversation