[FRIAM] we are lost
Steve Smith
sasmyth at swcp.com
Sat Oct 30 15:40:43 EDT 2021
On 10/30/21 10:48 AM, Edward Angel wrote:
> Reasonableness is in the eye of the beholder. I doubt many Democrats
> would consider their economic and social positions reasonable.
I agree with this but also wonder how the social/political
discussion/playground can be shifted/reframed such that there is more
room for alliances among subfactions, overlap of interests, etc. It
feels that our strong bimodal distribution across the axes implied in
Eric's analysis of Packer's essay yields a no-man's land that is hard to
cross. As much as I wanted much more radical ideas/policies/actions
from Biden, I think he *does* represent someone who can straddle all
that better than Sanders or Warren might have. I was a fan of
Buttegeig because of that, while being more generationally relevant to
those who will have to/get to live in the future we are paving with best
intentions right now.
>
> Getting primaried is an issue for all of them. Kinzinger is out.
> Cheney is in an enormous flight to get reniminated and Romney has to
> contend with far right opposition in Utah.
>
> Ed
> _______________________
>
> Ed Angel
>
> Founding Director, Art, Research, Technology and Science Laboratory
> (ARTS Lab)
> Professor Emeritus of Computer Science, University of New Mexico
>
> 1017 Sierra Pinon
> Santa Fe, NM 87501
> 505-984-0136 (home)angel at cs.unm.edu
> 505-453-4944 (cell) http://www.cs.unm.edu/~angel
>
>> On Oct 30, 2021, at 8:12 AM, Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone understand why a couple of reasonable Senate Republicans
>> (Romney, Kinzinger, Cheney, ...) don't vote with the Democrats for
>> the Biden bills? Getting "primaried" isn't an issue for all of them.
>>
>> ---
>> Frank C. Wimberly
>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
>> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>>
>> 505 670-9918
>> Santa Fe, NM
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 30, 2021, 6:18 AM David Eric Smith <desmith at santafe.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 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
>> <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam>
>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>> archives:
>> 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>>
>>
>> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --.
>> .- - .
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam>
>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>> archives:
>> 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
>
> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
> 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/20211030/18cadb23/attachment.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list