[FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

[Eric Charles]

>
> "You hold the child in your arms and you croon, “Everything is going to be
> all right”.  You might do that when “there is a goblin under the bed.”  You
> might also do it when the plane in which are riding is hurtling toward the
> ground.  The fact that you do the same in both sorts of situations doesn’t
> change how those situations “prove out”.  Some interpretations are better
> than others."



You and your denial of William James's "Will to Believe"! I will grant you
that the holding and crooning doesn't change the outcome when the plane is
hurtling to the ground, no problem there. But of course it is quite
possible that the holding and cooning DOES change the outcome for the child
afraid of the goblin. More specifically, cuddling the child and telling
them that everything is going to be all right is sometimes an essential
causal element within the process by which things change from "not all
right" to "all right." The fact that the goblin doesn't actually exist is a
weird distraction from the fact that the parent's assertion of alright-ness
is often essential for alright-ness to actually occur.

Some interpretations are better than others... and some interpretations
actually create the truth of the interpretations... based on the individual
will of the actor/interpreter making it so.


-----------
Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
Department of Justice - Personnel Psychologist
American University - Adjunct Instructor
<echarles at american.edu>


On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 2:37 PM Nick Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
wrote:

> All,
>
>
>
> “Everything is interpretation.”
>
>
>
> Yey-AH! Duh!  What else could it possibly be?  Does God speak to you?
> Presumably not.  Hopefully, not.
>
>
>
> Welcome to monism.  So now what?
>
>
>
> You only get five seconds to be amazed at the wisdom of monism before you
> have to start making distinctions between those interpretations that prove
> out in the end and those that don’t.
>
>
>
> Now I admit that problems arise in those situations in which some
> participants in the collective discussion have the power to alter the
> outcomes.  Presidents, bosses, and parents are all in that position, to
> some degree.  You hold the child in your arms and you croon, “Everything is
> going to be all right”.  You might do that when “there is a goblin under
> the bed.”  You might also do it when the plane in which are riding is
> hurtling toward the ground.  The fact that you do the same in both sorts of
> situations doesn’t change how those situations “prove out”.  Some
> interpretations are better than others.
>
>
>
> The answer to “everything is interpretation” is not obscurantism or
> despair.  It’s Pragmatism.
>
>
>
> 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 *Prof
> David West
> *Sent:* Friday, November 08, 2019 8:44 AM
> *To:* friam at redfish.com
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism
>
>
>
> Steve,
>
>
>
> On the back of my Hermeneutic Card is the pedigree: Hermes Trismegistus,
> Dilthey, Heidegger, Gadamer, Derrida, and Foucault with infusions from
> Hesse and Jung (the alchemist more than the psychologist). This lineage is
> quite distinct from the "interpretation of sacred texts, e.g. the Bible)
> thread of hermeneutics.
>
>
>
> "Everything is an Interpretation," a metaphorical Philosopher's Stone from
> this thread of Hermeneutics coupled with our late friend Hywel's favorite
> dictum, "Ah, but it is more complicated than that," is part of the
> foundation for my critique of "isms" and of the current impeachment process.
>
>
>
> Confronted with a rich, dynamic, ambiguous, conflicting, and emerging data
> set; humans select data points from that set and weave together a, mostly,
> self-consistent story — an Interpretation. As individuals this is essential
> and unavoidable, to some degree, as our physical survival depends on it.
> (This point has been mentioned before - we perceive what is useful to
> survive, not what is really "out there.")
>
>
>
> At the group level a few (one to perhaps a few hundred) "storytellers"
> convince an uncritical herd to accept a particular story (interpretation)
> and voila we have a religion, a philosophy, a science, an "ism." The
> foundational "story" can exist, if and only if, it repudiates, denies the
> existence of, or simply disregards any contrary or inconvenient data points
> in the original rich and complex data set.
>
>
>
> When I said in the earlier missive that they ignored ninety-percent of
> that data set, I was indulging in hyperbole. But, I would asset with a
> great deal of assurance that the ratio of accepted to rejected data points
> is never less than 50:50.
>
>
>
> in the capitalism article a number of statements / assertions are made in
> a simple declarative fashion, giving them the veneer of "fact" or "truth."
> Statements about capitalism and post-truth. From my Hermeneutic
> perspective, such statements are Interpretations, not facts not truths. It
> is more complicated than that.
>
>
>
> The conclusion the author made, also asserted in declarative sentences of
> "fact," is problematic, specious, or absurd depending on the depth of a
> reader's alternative interpretations of overlapping or orthogonal data
> points with regard capitalism and post truth. (Personally, his assertions
> about post-truth are the unforgivable misinterpretations.)
>
>
>
> With regard to current impeachment efforts: a small (few hundred to less
> than a thousand) storytellers are cherry-picking the data set, and
> interpreting each point so that it is consistent with the intended "moral
> of the story," weaving this grand interpretation narrative and selling it
> to a herd of tens of millions.
>
>
>
> But, because the storytellers have suspended their disbelief to such an
> extent that they are no longer aware of their own Interpretations —
> believing that everything they say is literal, gospel, veridical TRUTH.
>
>
>
> This would be fine, except for the fact, that by doing so, they are almost
> guaranteeing a political outcome that is antithetical to their expressed
> intent. (And, on a personal level, making me happy that I might be sitting
> out the consequences, mostly, from Amsterdam.)
>
>
>
> If only Derrida could counsel them with a bit of constructive
> deconstruction.
>
>
>
> davew
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019, at 4:30 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
>
> DaveW -
>
>
>
> As a card carrying Hermeneutic
>
> "Hermeneutics is the art of understanding and of making oneself
> understood" - Wikipedia
>
> From the viewpoint of someone who knows/believes/understands everything to be Interpretation, this is a silly assertion.
>
> Interpretation of "received wisdom" conventionally.   Rhetorical
> presentation of "received wisdom" is not hermeneutical.
>
>
>
> The only way you can ascribe Truth to an ism, Capitalism included, is by disregarding ninety-percent of the "data" as irrelevant and claiming the self-consistent (mostly) residue to be that Truth.
>
>
>
> And of course each ism cherry picks the ten-percent of the data (non-overlapping sets) that supports its interpretation of fact/reality/truth and vociferously defends it as the only correct way to see things or think about things  — and then makes the fatal mistake of believing, in a fundamentalist sort of way, their own story (interpretation).
>
> This cynical interpretation of the attempt to condense knowledge and
> wisdom is not unfounded, but do you contend that it is intrinsic ot "isms"
> that they be thus?  Is your 10% data-driven, anecdotal, or rhetorical?
>
>
>
> That last step, believing the fictional story that you weave from your interpretation of cherry picked data, is fundamental to the idiocy of impeachment.
>
> Do you mean *this impeachment* of *this president* at *this time*?  Or are
> you impugning the very idea of impeachment, of congressional oversight of
> the Executive and the ideal of checks and balances?
>
>
>
> While the story being told may have substance, it has no Reality, it has no Truth, and telling (yelling) that story will have no effect except other than increasing anger and hostility between and among all those with other stories to tell.
>
> The style of this administration (and sadly the last Republican one as
> well) is that of an arrogant bully, saying and doing anything to get one's
> way, denying any wrong-doing categorically, and then squealing "unfair!"
> anytime someone lands even a half-good punch on them.   Decades ago, when
> my sympathies were more with the Right than the Left (in some key areas) it
> was because I interpreted their position to be considered, thoughtful and
> in some sense generous.   I haven't seen that from the Right in a very long
> time, and have seen it more and more on the Left.   Politicians are still
> politicians but *some* of them truly seem motivated to be *Statesmen*, even
> if the game as it has (d)evolved makes that hugely difficult.
>
> It is really rich for the (self-Righteous) Right to accuse the left of
> being bullies, but that is one of the clear hallmarks of a bully...  to cry
> foul when confronted effectively.
>
> davew
>
>
>
> [Personal aside: some ranchers in southern Utah gave me a "Keep America Great — Trump 2020" ball cap. I am tempted, sometimes, to wear it in solidarity with Adam Schiff and Democrats/Liberals who seem Hell bent on getting Donald re-elected. I don't do so because I am afraid of attracting violence from ultra-orthodox, fundamentalist, believers of the TrumpSatan story.]
>
> What about the simple possibility that many will believe that you believe
> the story embroidered on the cap, no matter how they might react overtly?
> I'm of the apprehension that while you don't seem to strictly believe that
> Trump has made America "Great Again" or that keeping him in office will
> yield a continued or increased "Greatness", I suspect that your own version
> of what I call in myself "morbid fascination" has you happy enough standing
> around roasting marshmallows of what is left of things as he proceeds to
> burn it down.  I shared some of the reactionary spirit that (nearly) drove
> Bernie to the nomination in 2016 and did in fact drive Donald to taking the
> Gerrymandered Electoral College majority,  but whatever good that
> disruption brought is well over IMO...   it is time to call a halt to this
> "punctuation" and return to a new "equilibrium" if we can.
>
> Do YOU see a new equilibrium possible, or do you think we need to rekindle
> the flames if they start to die down?
>
> - SteveS
>
> PS.  I am reminded of Nick's (with Stephen/Owen/et-al support) MOTH (my
> way or the highway) strategy in the iterated prisoner's dilemma.   It is
> perhaps too simplified for application in the context of our national
> elections, but I suspect that the Left may be moving toward that strategy
> which beats the chronic defector strategy that the Right seems to prefer.
>
> ============================================================
>
> 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
>
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20191114/2547c8df/attachment.html>