[FRIAM] we are lost

[Steve Smith]

Eric -

You are to me as you indicate Packer is to you in this matter. You have 
articulated well what I was only able to intuit.

I also feel vindicated (if only in the company of myself) in having 
"mathematized" or "geometrized" this business of human nature/intention 
as existing within differing basis spaces (Glen asked me directly at one 
point "but why do you have to do that?", to which I had no answer, good 
or lame at the time).  Your own attempt here (as I measure it) to tease 
out more dimensions that might have been compressed/projected/collapsed 
into Packers's 4 (or as you point out, roughly 2x2).

I like your extension beyond dimensionality into actual material 
substance with the addition of "visible fractures along the first two 
pinciple components of stress", though as Glen likes to point out, this 
is likely burdened by *some* kind of excess meaning, especially if I 
were to try to carry it further.

Nothing more satisfying than being generously lapped by another 
bumper-car driver with your signature style.

>
>> On Oct 29, 2021, at 4:32 PM, Steve Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:
>>
>> excellent reference/article... thanks.
>>
> I agree, Marcus; thanks.  I was struck that not only do I wish I could 
> write that way; I wish I could _think_ that way.  There are few 
> thoughts I have had that aren’t already contained in Packer’s 
> synthesis, in forms compatible with or better than the ones I would 
> have given.  (Usually those with which I overlap aren’t different 
> enough that I consider his take on them a lot “better”: mostly I think 
> he chooses well the things I would front.  The “better” part mostly 
> comes from a view that goes well beyond any that I could have 
> commanded, and much better ability to arrange it all into a coherent 
> layout.)
>>
>> Is it a 4 component spring model, or is a four body problem in the 
>> orbital mechanics sense... probably no harder than the three body 
>> problem?
>>
> But I think the whole core of Packer’s article is that it is not 
> merely 4, but 2.x 2.
>
> There are axes of stress, and visible fractures along the first two 
> principle components of stress.
>
> The Left-Right axis has resolved itself, in the current era, into a 
> kind of cultural-status axis, with educational markers being a big 
> part.  But the axis is somehow more and different than only that, as 
> it has historically moved through primacy of other dichotomies that 
> can still be seen, while retaining its essential nature: Open vs. 
> Closed, Cosmopolitan vs. Parochial, Communitarian vs. 
> Dominance-ordered.  None of these seems quite adequate as I write 
> them, but something along that line.
>
> The Up-Down axis is probably about winners versus losers, itself 
> existing along several dimensions that have become correlated.  It can 
> be conditions of living, or hope versus despair w.r.t. power or agency 
> as well as wealth or safety.  That is why Packer sets the Just up as 
> an uprising against the Smart, and the Real as an uprising against the 
> Free.  The nature of the uprising and the stress driving it is in a 
> sense the same, and the establishment and the insurgency sort of 
> remain within whichever silos they started in.  Mostly because that 
> phase is still fairly young.
>
> Anything that becomes organized, it seems, becomes available as a tool 
> to entrench advantage in a setting where competition never relents.
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:
>   5/2017 thru presenthttps://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>   1/2003 thru 6/2021http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20211030/ddbd659c/attachment.html>