[FRIAM] mathematics and politics

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

On 2/4/21 11:29 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> The only error that maybe they/we should be uncomfortable with is not anticipating the diminished state of the state.

Exactly, which is why I chose "civilized" vs. "barbaric", and plays nicely off Nick's call to Orwell. It's important to note that barbarism doesn't preempt algorithmic depth ... it may even foster such depth ... like the assertion that necessity is the mother of invention or "may you live in interesting times". But that doesn't change the fact that I do, and we should, *want* civilized infrastructure.

On 2/4/21 11:46 AM, jon zingale wrote:
> Instead, I attempt to make a point about Arrangement, territorialization in
> the sense of Deleuze (to continue a certain postmodern trend in my
> exposition). I am concerned with the relationship that bodies have to the
> territory, what agency AOC (say) has, and the cultural process by which she
> came to be selected. To riff off of Marcus' response, the *soft hands* meme
> (or the "In mother Russia..." snowclone) acts at a cultural level. I wish to
> understand better these forces and to do so without hurried conclusions. I
> am interested in the intellectual activity of identifying the limits implied
> by political actions. If it turns out to be all-for-naught, well then that
> will be sad, but I have hope that abstract reasoning can be a tool for
> arriving at relevant (dis)agreement. It seems right to concede that even
> lions are made of soft fleshy bits[1].

Well, here's where I would line up with you in your incessant attempts to formalize (what I think are) informal and unformalizable things. It's only through such failed formalization that we can tease apart the formal from the necessarily informal.

E.g. to poke again at Nick's understanding of "logic", I've come to believe that within a single logic (or inference machine), contradiction is unrealistic. But tolerance for contradiction (and paraconsistency) are or might be realistic *across* logics. That would render the paraconsistent logics somewhat faithful to parallel or timeslicing systems, but not sequential ones. But without attempts to formalize such, we would rush to hurried conclusions.

Re: AOC's vs Navlany's response here or AOC's vs Warren's response to GameStop, unfortunately, binding definite values into variables damages our ability to think formally ... but facilitates our ability to think as consequentialists. The only formal value to concrete binding in these cases is to triangulate toward an otherwise obtuse variable, induction. And all parallax benefits from >3 definite values.

-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ