[FRIAM] Globalism in the age of populism? .. & Open Source Software

[glen ☣]

On 01/27/2017 08:34 PM, Vladimyr Burachynsky wrote:
> So I cause confusion only because I do not fit into any well established classification system. I bring this up because my experience in life defies
> most systems which you are attempting to tease apart.

Well, to be clear, I offered the idea that abstract categorizing is easily broken by concretizing the categorized.  So, you're simply backing up what I was saying.  In essence, the categories are artificial.  Concretizing any particular person imputed to be a member of the class, will demonstrate they're not a member of the class.  Hence, "elites" actually has measure 0, despite what the sloppy thinker thinks prior to trying to measure the class.

> Perhaps I can add two or more defining characteristics, these ephemeral elites also believe they are speaking the truth and demand that the audience also believes. This is what I call 
> 	"the evangelical personality."
> Secondly they also believe that they are never responsible for unforeseen outcomes. They invent rationalizations after a calamity to exonerate themselves.
> 	"The saintly fool personality"
> Third they accuse someone, very publicly, announcing and justifying their subsequent actions before acting. I guess these observations don't narrow down the field very much for any of us.
> 	"The righteously angry personality"
> I guess the fourth factor is that they never admit they screwed up, ever.
> 	"The good but stupid soldier"
> I thought Beta's sucked up to Alphas on a regular basis like cheerleaders.
> So now we have 7 characteristics. Not bad for a start. But suspect there are a lot of amateurs in the grouping.

Well, I count 6:

1. indefiniteness,
2. hermeneutics,
3. evangelizing,
4. negligent (saintly fool),
5. disciplinarian (you made me do it), and
6. abdicating.

But what I was getting at with (1) and (2) was, I suppose, what is required within the head of the accuser.  What are the characteristics of the way the accuser _thinks_ that results in them accusing some class of being "elite".  Your (3-6) are traits that the accused might exhibit or the accuser might perceive.  But they're not properties of the accuser's mind/thoughts.

I set up my attempt to understand the accusers' minds, rather than attributes of the _accused_, because I believe the accusations are either TRIVIAL or FALSE.  They're trivial because, as I said, we're all "elites" at something ... elite tooth brusher, elite seashell gatherer, etc.  They're false because the classifications don't survive unless you choose a single well-defined predicate (like wealth or athletic achievement).

So, the quesiton is: What type of mind accuses the "elites" of this or that.  And the answer is: the type of mind that is prone to indefinite (schematic) thinking and an expectation of (or frustration with) hermeneutics.  And those apply regardless of (3-6) or any other arbitrary descriptors of the alleged "elites".

-- 
☣ glen