[FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)

Thu Sep 14 12:10:03 EDT 2017

There was a good TED talk
<https://www.ted.com/talks/caitlin_quattromani_and_lauran_arledge_how_our_friendship_survives_our_opposing_politics?rss#t-852200>
by two women who remained friends even though they differed significantly
politically. It's important, I believe, to be able to stay friends -- or at
remain on civil terms -- with people we disagree with.  However, I think
that Marcus is right that in certain situations that's not the most
important issue. As he said, politics today -- and for the past 2 decades
or so -- has not been symmetric. One side, for the most part, has lived by
the norm of wanting to remain on civil terms with the other side; the other
side, has taken as its priority to grab as much power as possible without
regard to anything else. Civil relations be damned. When an aggressor
country invades a peaceful neighbor the priority is not to stay on civil
terms; it's to survive and repel the invasion. When a psychopath attacks
you, one's priority is not to stay on civil terms; it's to defend oneself
against the attack. I'm sure there there are honest and civilized
conservatives -- for example Ross Douthat of the NYT -- but so many of them
don't care about remaining on civil terms. Their priority is to steal as
much as possible in any way possible. When Obama nominated Garland and
McConnell refused to hold hearings, Obama and Garland stayed on civil terms
with McConnell. That didn't make peace or move any useful process forward.
In that case it's not clear what else could have been done, but striving
for civility in the face of rampant aggression and evil makes no sense.
That's why no society can survive without some sort of norm enforcement
mechanism, e.g., police, social disapproval, etc. Civility does not solve
every problem.

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 8:40 AM Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:

> Nick writes:
>
>
> "Allow me to heckle, if you will.  Marcus, your post exemplifies a theory
> of human nature which is summarized by the motto, *in caloris veritas.  *
> It is the idea that we speak the truth when we speak in the heat of the
> moment.  Trump is a wonderful demonstration of the weakness of this theory:
> he always speaks impulsively, but never manages to speak the truth about
> anything.  I think it’s equally plausible to assert that we come closest to
> the truth of any matter when we speak with the keenest awareness of the
> social consequences of what we are saying."
>
> That's a plausible assertion if the topic is about the social properties
> of the group.   I don't see why it is plausible if the topic is some
> completely different thing, say, like how an engine works, or the
> diplomatic conditions in North Korea.  But I wasn't talking about speaking
> impulsively, I was talking about speaking without concern for how certain
> people feel, or what they will do, and only being willing to get down to
> the brass tacks with them (if there is going to by any interaction at
> all).   I don't see any reason to be generous and forgiving in the way
> Roberts' describes; it doesn't matter to me how hard the feelings are or
> how deep the divisions go.    I think that is bad advice because it rewards
> the bully, and encourages him/them to do it again and again, knowing that
> the opposition with chicken-out in end in the name of civility.  So, unlike
> Steve, I'm not optimizing for peace.   (That's a fine thing for him to
> optimize for, but that's him.)   It reminds me of what Christopher
> Hitchens' said a decade ago about a possible advanced agenda of Christian
> conservatives:  "It wouldn't last very long and would, I hope, lead to
> civil war, which they will lose, but for which it would be a great pleasure
> to take part."
>
> Marcus
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Nick Thompson <
> nickthompson at earthlink.net>
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 14, 2017 9:11:26 AM
> *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about
> it)
>
> Dear Marcus, Owen
>
>
>
> Allow me to heckle, if you will.  Marcus, your post exemplifies a theory
> of human nature which is summarized by the motto, *in caloris veritas.  *It
> is the idea that we speak the truth when we speak in the heat of the
> moment.  Trump is a wonderful demonstration of the weakness of this theory:
> he always speaks impulsively, but never manages to speak the truth about
> anything.  I think it’s equally plausible to assert that we come closest to
> the truth of any matter when we speak with the keenest awareness of the
> social consequences of what we are saying.
>
>
>
> Hey Frank; did I get the Latin right?
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Marcus
> Daniels
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 14, 2017 12:21 AM
> *To:* Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about
> it)
>
>
>
> Owen,
>
>
>
> On several occasions over the years, I have been advised by `neural third
> parties' that the content of my writing can be edgy, but that in person I'm
> "Not that way" or "He's fine."   Now, some people think that in-person
> interactions are more representative of a person's character.   That if we
> just get in front of one another and _see_ the others' feelings, all
> conflict will be resolved.  No.  I would suggest Roberts' (Friedman, and
> other popular writers) preoccupation with civility is mistaken.   Civility
> may keep people from killing each other, temporarily, but it certainly
> isn't informative.  It is just the application of social skill, and this is
> not the same thing as listening, thinking, or being honest in debate.  It
> is a weak facilitator.  The problem with the current situation is that one
> side is just dishonest.  In the ternary world of politics, the `don't care'
> folks are in the crossfire, and that is appropriate.
>
>
>
> Marcus
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Owen Densmore <
> owen at backspaces.net>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 13, 2017 9:04:42 PM
> *To:* Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* [FRIAM] The World Turned Upside Down (and what to do about it)
>
>
>
> Medium, my current outlet of choice, has an interesting "story" (Medium
> deals in Stories, not Tech nor Politics nor ...). It echos a lot of what
> we've been dealing with.
>
>     
>
>
> https://medium.com/@russroberts/the-world-turned-upside-down-and-what-to-do-about-it-2dc27d1cf5f5
>
>
>
> Somewhat dark, but awfully close to home.
>
>
>
>    -- 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
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-- 
Russ Abbott
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170914/5a0e5e4d/attachment.html>