[FRIAM] the cancellation arc

[Steve Smith]

I agree that to the degree we might be tools in any context, it
undermines the efficacy of our pragmatism, not matter what our
aspirations might be. 

Is "toolism" or "being a tool" formulable in terms of co-option or
(voluntary) deference of personal agency?  Is there an ad-hoc formula to
describe the relationship between toolism, agency, pragmatism (+ what else)?


On 9/17/21 10:45 AM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote:
> Yes, if the extremism is taken on as the mechanism implementing the function (e.g. fighting advantage). But if the extremism is accidental, like most preemptive registration is, then No. Where one accidentally stumbles into an extremist position, it's not pragmatic at all.
>
> Now, if you're a tool like our conservative SCOTUS Justices and your registration is a result of your manipulation by *others*, then we have an interesting question. As a mere pawn in the larger game, which we all are to some extent, which is more pragmatic on your (the tool's) part:
>
> 1) resist your overlords from effectively and efficiently using you for your pragmatic purpose, or
> 2) or grease the skids, play along, allow your overlords to use you well?
>
> In either case, the tool who doesn't know she's a tool cannot be a pragmatist.
>
>
> On 9/17/21 9:32 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
>> Glen -
>>
>>> IDK. Maybe this is simply the inescapable optimum for some people. Rosen is a great example, ostracized and ridiculed as vitalist for so long, causing him to be reactionary and retreat further into his own game, followed only by a few brilliant acolytes and open-minded domain hoppers. And maybe little p pragmatists are simply lazy or cowardly, not willing to tilt windmills long enough to push through a paradigm shift, compromising away the baby, happy enough with the bath water. I have no hill to die on. Maybe that makes me pathetic.
>> What a great medley of colorful idioms... 
>>
>> I was acutely taken by "I have not hill to die on" and your
>> characterization of the "small p pragmatist"...  
>>
>> I can't find (in my fragmented associative memory, aided only by my
>> flimsy google fu) the historical/mythological reference
>> (Scythians/Parthians/Greeks) to the small band of warriors who
>> deliberately trapped themselves on a ledge or a blind canyon (or their
>> leader contrived it), knowing that having no other option than fighting
>> their way out, they gained an advantage over the larger force who could
>> always retreat to avoid individual self-extinction, supporting a
>> collective will to yield to a smaller force?
>>
>> I believe this is one of the charms/seductions of extremism...   and in
>> the historical anecdote above, is that not a highly pragmatic
>> tactic/strategy?
>>
>> If we think of ourselves as cartographers/naturalists/archaeologists,
>> mapping a landscape, rather than trying to control it, perhaps the
>> strategies shift?
>>
>> - Steve
>