[FRIAM] Poetry Slams vs biologic Percean Logic Machine Emulator

[Steve Smith]

> Colleagues;
>
>  
>
> I want to recommend the dialogue below for all who read. 
>
>  
>
> What is the probative value of a narrative?  What is the probative
> value of a photo of demonstrator beating a policeman with a flag? 
> Well, narrowly, if the narrative is accurate and the photo is not
> faked, they prove that such a thing COULD happen, because, you can
> plainly see, it has happened.  What IS the probative value of a poem? 
> Nothing?  Then why are people sometimes convinced by them.
>
Nick -

I think you are doubling down on Glen's implication that a poem is
intended to be persuasive ("convincing" in your term)?   While an apt
poem (or joke, or song, ) offered with good timing can be persuasive in
the context of an argument, it can also/instead be *illuminating* in the
context of a generative dialog.

I'm much more interested in a generative and synthetic dialog than in
analytical and/or rhetorical one.   In your pursuit of publishable
results from all our rattling on here, I understand the need/value of
doing very careful analysis and then build a rhetorical

EricS's recent invocation of the Albatross and Mariner images from
Coleridge's "Rime of the Ancient Mariner" sent me back to that text
which I chose to listen to, read to me (thank you Alexa) by a practiced
reader.   I was primarily interested in Eric's revised analysis of Trump
as Mariner/Democracy as Albatross and whatever embodied
wisdom/perspective this "told story" had to offer.   I was drawn quickly
to the image of "Rime" which I will leave the analysis to others here
who might have dipped their beak (or earholes) into this bit of
Coleridge.  I wasn't inclined to be persuaded by Eric to any particular
moral judgement, just to add (if I didn't already have it) the offered
allegory to my quiver of perspectives on this big mess we are trying to
find our way out of (deeper into?)

Not to miss the chance Nick, I *do* agree with you that the photos/clips
of the insurrection/coup-attempt last week represent a "possibility by
example" proof.  Context matters (hugely) (sad how traditional media AND
internet media have normalized everything to be taken out of context?)
and with modern mediocre (well edited by a clever human) and "deep"
fakes, I'm rarely inclined to take any image, video or sound recording
as an absolute objective fact, even if it doesn't carry any obvious
(even to careful technical analysis) evidence of
spoofing/construction.   But as with good fiction (storytelling), I
don't have to believe that there were literally two naked modern humans
named Adam and Eve in a Garden of Plenty who became the progenitors of
all human kind to learn something useful from the story.

This leads us full circle back to the question of what is "really
real"?   And by correlation, can fictional narrative speak a
qualitatively superior truth to factual narrative?   I'm not nearly PoMo
literate enough to know if this has all been Derrida'ed and Foucault'ed
thoroughly.    The competing narratives on the topic seem to be at an
impasse, which I probably can't even characterize well.   Others may
feel they are making headway in coming to a better understanding of the
question, or perhaps each faction (is there more than 2?) are stuck in
the (IMO fruitless) exercise of trying to persuade the other.   While I
think I now recognize and appreciate Glen's use of the terms
Strawman/Steelman,  they seem to reflect the idiom recently
(re)Popularized by the Poet-Philosopher Rudi Guilliani with "Trial by
Combat!".

Joust on!

 - Steve

PS(ssst!)... my more-aggressive-than-usual style here is probably just
me sublimating my frustration with not being positioned well to "break
up the bar-fight" that is our national politics today.   I grant Marcus'
strategy of "ducking out the back and let them kill one another" plenty
merit when it is a "brawl" or another episode in a "gang war", but most
bar/street fights I've been (even obliquely) aware of had an element of
a bully and a victim, and I'm still proud of stepping between the two
and facing down the bully while the (potential) victim gets a chance to
collect themselves and either withdraw or wait for someone (bully's
friends, bartender wielding a pool cue, or maybe the cops) to remove the
bully from the equation.  If I miss my cue and turned my back to the
real bully, I risk getting blindsided by the faux-victim and having
possibly just made things worse. 

The Capitol insurrection/coup-attempt was some many thousands of bullies
trying to intimidate our elected representatives who had to first bully
a few hundred capitol police to get access.   If I'd been on site (could
anyone there have been truly an innocent bystander?) I'd have been more
likely to throw myself on one of the grenades (metaphorical) than to
"duck out the back"...  I understand why many would "duck out the back"
to (not?) "fight another day".   I'm glad few if any of the Capitol
Police chose that option, but then that was what they were (self?)
selected (and paid) for.

  Unsurprisingly, the Right (from hard-core Radical Extreme to more
recentTrump-Radicalized) uses an obvious but still effective tactic that
all bullies play from time to time which is pretending to be the
victim:  "what are YOU looking at, huh?"  I really hope that those who
are true (little c) conservatives can see how their crypto-cousin
high-T, grievance-shouting radical-rabble are as dangerous to them and
their idealized way of life (if not more) than their presumed complement
of (little l) liberals.    </ramble>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210112/6a8980f4/attachment.html>