Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

W.r.t. Indra's Net, I can understand Hofstadter's description in Gödel, Escher, Bach only because he asserts Indra's Net can be modeled with "augmented transition networks" (ATNs). ATNs have some of the properties we've talked about on the list (e.g. in the context of Rosen) like reflectivity -

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Some counter examples: 1) You do not have the potential to fully informed. The governments of China or Iran would never give you access to their classified data, for example. Heck, the US government probably wouldn't either with all your discussion of psychedelics and what not! 2) You canno

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Glen, I want to respond to this but my knowledge of graphs is laughable, so please be patient. When I attempt to visualize a graph to use as a metaphor for explaining my notions of individualism — the image in my mind is of Indra's Net ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra%27s_net ) which it

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Steven, Fall of 1968, I abandoned physics and adopted Asian Philosophy (first semester at Macalester College). Since then, every spare moment, and many not so spare, was dedicated to learning and practicing. My vocation, quite by accident, was always programming/software/IT but everything in that

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

t/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -Original Message- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of lrudo...@meganet.net Sent: Friday, January 11, 2019 7:57 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction Nick writes, in relevant part: > I am no

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Nick writes, in relevant part: > I am not sure what monads and monism have to do with each other, other > than that they share a linguistic root. Honest. I have trouble seeing > the connection. ... > I don't have much of a grip on MonADism. As I understand monads, they > are irreduceable "atoms

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

>We spend all this faith-based energy believing that individuals > have thoughts and intentions, when perhaps we're merely *tools*. Cf. Fort's maxim, "A social growth cannot find out the use of steam engines, until comes steam-engine-time." ===

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Jon, I wrote this immediately but forgot to send it. I have to say, the idea of a squandered metaphor really grabbed me. I may have squandered some metaphors, in my own time. A metaphor is definitely something that can be used prematurely or other than for its highest and best use.

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Glen - Anyway, if my speculation is close, then Trump doesn't intend or WANT to communicate or persuade, only to perform. I do believe that this describes his intentions (as best I can tell from outside and far away).   I think he believes that he *is* persuasive just by his presence/nature an

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

I think that conflates the communicat-or with the communication medium. My question to Dave about the need for "individual" in his version of individualism was intended to sideload this point. To what extent is a person simply a *vehicle* for innovations to bubble up through? We spend all thi

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

to be simple. From: Friam on behalf of Frank Wimberly Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Date: Friday, January 11, 2019 at 1:36 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction Anyway, if my speculation is close

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Anyway, if my speculation is close, then Trump doesn't intend or WANT to communicate or persuade, only to perform. This is consistent with his saying *everything* three times. He turns a 15 minute performance into a 45 minute one. --- Frank Wimberly My memoir: htt

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Heh. When I was tasked with explaining agent-based modeling to some art students in Sweden, I made heavy use of the gooey colloid metaphor. There were a lot of blank stares in the audience. 8^) But the guy who hired me was happy with the presentation. So, who knows? I think I agree with Marc

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

David - Steven, Is is a pleasure to do discourse with you. The pleasure is mutual. Minor clarification: When I mention "sentient life" I do indeed include all life. In fact, given that I take as a working assumption the Vedic (and then Buddhist) notion that the entire universe, all the way

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Glen - As a compulsive intuitive modeler of "everything" as a network/field dual, all this resonates well.  I also like your characterization as "gooey colloid" and was reminded of JJ Thompson's Plum-Pudding model of atoms. I also like your action/consideration dual to rights/responsibilitie

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

sh.com] *On Behalf Of *Prof > David West *Sent:* Friday, January 11, 2019 7:56 AM *To:* > friam@redfish.com *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction> > "Persuasive" is a term the reviewer used, Adams restricts his analysis > to "communication." The two terms are wo

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Nick writes: < Geez, Dave. I might have put it the other way. People are persuasive as hell; they just aren’t communicating. > There’s nothing left to talk about. Progressive states and municipalities just need to insulate themselves as much as possible from the rest, and encourage moveme

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Apologies for not snipping more of the below. I try to only include the relevant bits. But Steve is particularly good at tight weaves. I'll (inappropriately, I'm sure) name Dave's conception of individualism as "networked extensive individualism" (NEI). Networked to address what I infer from

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Clark University <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West Sent: Friday, January 11, 2019 7:56 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] M

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

The kind of communication that Trump uses should just be illegal (Volksverhetzung). From: Friam on behalf of Prof David West Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Date: Friday, January 11, 2019 at 7:56 AM To: "friam@redfish.com" Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mot

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

"Persuasive" is a term the reviewer used, Adams restricts his analysis to "communication." The two terms are worlds apart. I would claim that no one in politics is persuasive, and given the polarity that exists in political discourse, it is impossible for anyone to be persuasive. davew On Thu, Ja

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

< As to the ethics dimension; you quoted one of Adam's reviewers: "But, when I was in school, we always discussed ethical responsibility of the persuader and Adams does not. As long as Trump was persuasive he was going to win and that’s what matters." > He’s not persuasive. His arguments are

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Dave - First, why /Win Bigly/ recommend. Adams' book is his attempt to understand, to deconstruct and analyze, why he "knew" with complete certainty that Trump would win simply by observing one of his first political rallies. From where did that conviction arise? Why was it so absolute? Adams

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

David writes: < I am in fact saying that avoiding the disaster is what matters and we might have prevented the disaster if we had recognized and addressed the factors that made it inevitable instead of wailing and gnashing teeth about the driver being a drunk sex offender working for a company

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

hen we try to talk about our >>> various topics of specialty (as amatuers or professionals) with our >>> significantly educated (but in other (sub)disciplines) lay- >>> colleagues. It seems that in the attempt to be more precise or to >>> make evident our own lexi

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Marcus wrote: Trump is a denial of service attack. I love this. There must be some T-shirt opportunity in it. One might be able to make enough money selling them at an appropriate conference to live independently for a year, and do the work one likes without writing grant proposals, which

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Eric writes: "I also love his characterization of the core message of Putin: We are shit. You are shit. It’s all bullshit. What democracy?” Marcus writes: If it is all bullshit, then why not steal Putin's stuff? You know, just for shits and grins. I guess if people are just demoralized

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Eric writes: "I also love his characterization of the core message of Putin: We are shit. You are shit. It’s all bullshit. What democracy?” If it is all bullshit, then why not steal Putin's stuff? You know, just for shits and grins. I guess if people are just demoralized and terrified the

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

An article on this that found enjoyable was the following: https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/why-the-russian-influence-campaign-remains-so-hard-to-understand There are a key set of areas, where I often think the bulk of the commentariat go off on tangents and distractions, and Masha

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Steve writes: < And my original point still (might) hold(s) if we push the ends/means justification far enough. What if having Trump in office somehow *does* advance the general welfare of the people (and sentient animals) in the country and the world? Sort of a "back fire" against the more

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Marcus - < On the other hand, as I always ask conspiracy theorists, "what if his presence in this role *serves* the Deep State?" > To clarify, I’m talking about the hypothesis of a Deep State that breaks rules as they need to be broken to advance the general welfare of people in the country

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Steve writes: < On the other hand, as I always ask conspiracy theorists, "what if his presence in this role *serves* the Deep State?" > To clarify, I’m talking about the hypothesis of a Deep State that breaks rules as they need to be broken to advance the general welfare of people in the coun

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Marcus Daniels wrote: If there were a deep state it would have disappeared this guy.   Hierarchical systems are way too efficient. I'd like to (and sometimes do) believe that Trump & Co's apparent incompetence and general foolishness reflects a lack of deep conspiracy ON the Right, as well

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Steve writes: < I happen to be reading Rebecca Solnit's "A Paradise Built in Hell" which is a deep dive into the theme of how people (sometimes) show their best while suffering great disasters. Particularly in the area of community spirit and synergistic cooperation. She anecdotally and anal

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

s one of the few places on earth where, fwiw, people are struggling with the problem.  Fighting the good fight against semantic hegemony. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ *From:*Friam

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

If there were a deep state it would have disappeared this guy. Hierarchical systems are way too efficient. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

pson/naturaldesigns/ > > *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Steven > A Smith *Sent:* Wednesday, January 09, 2019 12:20 PM *To:* > friam@redfish.com *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction> > >> Nick writes: >> &

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/ -- rec -- On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 11:23 PM Steven A Smith wrote: > Marcus - > > Thanks for that deep dive into the (lack of) structure of Trump's > bombast. I'm not sure that the 39% (number varies) of his base are simply > deplorabl

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Marcus - Thanks for that deep dive into the (lack of) structure of Trump's bombast.   I'm not sure that the 39% (number varies) of his base are simply deplorable breadth-never parsers, though it would seem they would have to be to not trip over his rhetoric.   Some (maybe even members of this

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 12:20 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction Nick writes: < Ok, Marcus, I am standing my ground as a realist here: ():-[) > There you go try

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Ha! Unless you consider all that philosophy he's polluted his mind with. >8^D (JK, of course.) On 1/9/19 3:05 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Good news, your mind hasn’t been damaged by the popular programming languages. > > http://learnyouahaskell.com/ -- ☣ uǝlƃ ===

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

plied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction Hi, Marcus, This is the kind of comment that makes me which I knew more about … um … what it is you do. I get these intimations that your experience might be very useful to philosophical cogitations if only I could share

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

orning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction Nick writes: < One solution I am exploring is trying to make every assertion that something is real into a three valued assertion including point of view. > Confounding variables, like your example wi

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

esigns/ From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 2:31 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction Nick, no so much ... ... as reification seems to be unavoidable, and hence I am guilty as c

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

> Clark University > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Prof > David West *Sent:* Wednesday, January 09, 2019 10:38 AM *To:* > friam@redfish.com *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was A

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

accurately reflect on themselves. From: Friam on behalf of Marcus Daniels Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Date: Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 2:10 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction Nick writes

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Nick writes: < One solution I am exploring is trying to make every assertion that something is real into a three valued assertion including point of view. > Confounding variables, like your example with Simpson’s Paradox. In functional programming, the life history of said person’s evolving

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

alf Of Prof David West Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 10:38 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction Aww Nick, Surely you jest: "Something about the category is real." Real? Real, as in dualist metaphysics? Or merely real in the sense that

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Steve writes: < I think this is the "genius" of Trump's campaign and tenure... he operates from his own (and often ad-hoc) Lexicon and that reported 39% stable base of his seems happy to just rewrite their own dictionary to match his. It has been noted that Trump's presidency has been most sig

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

m-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 12:20 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction Nick writes: < Writing … taking positions and pushing them until they break … is for me just about the

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Nick writes: < Ok, Marcus, I am standing my ground as a realist here: ():-[)> There you go trying to claim semantics for terms in a public dictionary again.   (That’s an example of taking ground, like in my Go example.)    Doing so constrains what can even be *said*.   It puts the skeptic i

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Nick writes: < Writing … taking positions and pushing them until they break … is for me just about the best part of being alive > Terri Gross contrasts the difference between “What do you do for work?” and

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Marcus Daniels *Sent:* Tuesday, January 08, 2019 3:06 PM *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction Can you please stop labeling and categorizing things?   Your labels aren’t real.   I

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

s Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 8:50 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction Nick writes: < Ok, Marcus, I am standing my ground as a realist here: ():-[) > There you go trying to claim semantics for terms in a publi

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Aww Nick, Surely you jest: "Something about the category is real." Real? Real, as in dualist metaphysics? Or merely real in the sense that there is a group of humans willing to behave in a manner consistent with a pretend belief that a labeled category is real? About a decade back there were te

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Nick writes: < Ok, Marcus, I am standing my ground as a realist here: ():-[) > There you go trying to claim semantics for terms in a public dictionary again. (That’s an example of taking ground, like in my Go example.)Doing so constrains what can even be said. It puts the skeptic in the

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction Can you please stop labeling and categorizing things? Your labels aren’t real. I am a person that supports the lifestyle of two dogs. From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > on be

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

My rule of thumb is that if they have to take time out to `identify' me, they aren't interested in a conversation anyway. They are just interested in where/if I fit in their pecking order or in their tedious, error-prone mental filing system. Best for both of us if we don't communicate! Ma

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

FWIW, I have no idea what to call myself. So, I often opt for "simulant", which usually requires an explanation. Then I can yap till the cows come home about systems engineering, programming, yaddayaddayadda and let other people decide what to call me. (It's usually not a flattering label the

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

ckthomp...@earthlink.net> > *Reply-To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Date: *Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 2:58 PM > *To: *'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

7;The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction Marcus, Well, see that just proves the point. Not only can I not speak your lion-language, I accuse you of being a gazelle. I apologize to all you lions out there. By the way, what D

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction Nick writes: “Much better, perhaps, than I understand software engineers.” I would be surprised if anyone in this conversation identifies as a software engineer. The complement of that to me seems weird: It’s like declaring a

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Nick writes: “Much better, perhaps, than I understand software engineers.” I would be surprised if anyone in this conversation identifies as a software engineer. The complement of that to me seems weird: It’s like declaring a person that can’t swim or drive a car, or would look in a manual to

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

son/naturaldesigns/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Robert Holmes Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2019 11:08 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction Nic

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

> > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > -Original Message- > From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of ? u??? > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2019 8:48 AM > To: FriAM > Subject: Re: [FRI

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

But isn't this precisely what Nick and Eric's rendition of Peirce (NEP) is arguing *against*? By analogy, if we take a schematic structure like "if p, then q", it literally does not matter what p or q is bound to, what values they may or may not take on. (In NEP, we're talking more about stati

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

t/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > -Original Message- > From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of ? u??? > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2019 8:48 AM > To: FriAM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction > > > > Excellent! I like

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

/ -Original Message- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of ? u??? Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2019 8:48 AM To: FriAM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction Excellent! I like everything you've said below. In fact, were we able to clearly talk

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Yes, it *sounds* like that's where I'd like to go with the conversation. The original post Nick made was about propagating meaning through a nesting (objects, statements about objects, statements about statements about objects, ...) as well as openness to material flow (river vs. the components

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Glen writes: [..] then we'd map nicely back to Marcus' example of "serializing" a recursive function into a tree walkable by a single control pointer [..] Maybe this wasn't the direction you were going, but I was thinking of the distinction between reducible vs. non-reducible loops. Where one (

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Excellent! I like everything you've said below. In fact, were we able to clearly talk about heterarchies as explicitly externalizing controls, where hierarchies leave the source(s) of control ambiguous, then we'd map nicely back to Marcus' example of "serializing" a recursive function into a t

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Glen, Thanks for the clarification. I intentionally said Nick was invoking *something like "levels of analysis" talk, *because I thought I recalled Nick telling me at some point that he didn't like that way of thinking, and I'm surprised he hasn't disavowed me more completely on it. All metaphors

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

; Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Frank > Wimberly > *Sent:* Monday, January 07, 2019 8:02 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Sent: Monday, January 07, 2019 8:02 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction For a classic example of layers or levels and their interactions see

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

For a classic example of layers or levels and their interactions see https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Hearsay-I-Speech-Understanding-System%3A-An-of-Reddy-Erman/04ffb20cbfa502d3d2611dcfe027cfa94b45a629 --- Frank Wimberly My memoir: https://www.amazon.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

OK. I'm sorry if I've pushed too hard. But if what you say, here, can imply that motives are NOT just behaviors at a higher level of organization, then perhaps that's progress. Because it seems to have traction, I'll stick with the tissue, cell, molecule set. The reason I suggested you repla

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction Unfortunately, that is the sense in which I thought you were using the term. Have I been strawmanned? 8^) The packaging of a scalar vs the packaging of a matrix are "levels of analysis", if there ever was such a thing. 8^) To use

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

t that is the sense in which I wanted to >use the term. > > > > > >From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Eric >Charles >Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2019 3:05 PM >To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > >Subject: [FRIAM] Motives -

Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

ubject: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction Glen said: " I would claim motives are a higher order behavior, but NOT (solely) at a higher level of organization. I.e. motives consist of BOTH low level behaviors like eyeball saccades AND high level behaviors like how one feels about another person

[FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Glen said: " I would claim motives are a higher order behavior, but NOT (solely) at a higher level of organization. I.e. motives consist of BOTH low level behaviors like eyeball saccades AND high level behaviors like how one feels about another person." And then a bit later Glen complained (rightl