[FRIAM] the cancellation arc

[⛧ glen]

I couldn't credibly reject epiphenomena and claim it's a labrynth. To boot, I think the purpose of life is to find and explore the most unique niche you can, preferably some subspace nobody else has ever been or will ever be. So, I choose maze ... or worse ... a combinatorial infinity of fractal near-similarity.


On September 17, 2021 5:06:01 PM PDT, Steve Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:
>Glen -
>
>I appreciate the complex candor here...  at least what I parsed out
>while trampling all over the text of your post , as it were (nod to
>EricS).  But is the garden a Labyrinth, a Maze or a Fukuokan One-Straw
>Revolution
><https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/976905.The_One_Straw_Revolution>?
>
>SteveS
>
>On 9/17/21 5:41 PM, ⛧ glen wrote:
>> Well, as always, some of us who are steeped and invested in some ideology will say something different from this. But pragmatic implies a set of actions, an artifact, a thing manipulated. So the million dollar question is whether any of us actually intend some outcome, and then act to obtain that outcome via busyness. To the extent that all our intentions are, at least in part, illusory, we can't be entirely pragmatic. (Or, i.e., the mindless amongst us are entirely pragmatic, their lives nothing but busyness. To be pragmatic is to be gloriously idiotic.) We will always be [ab]used tools. Do ants have their own objectives? Or are they tools of the colony?
>>
>> My preferred metaphysics is that awareness comprises reflectivity. And to the extent we can interfere with our overlords' plans, we retain our agency. Even if our only interference comes in the form of psychosis or idiopathic irritability, our individuality requires it. Of course, some of us [coughmarcus] are deeply strategic in their interference. 8^D
>>
>>
>> On September 17, 2021 1:54:25 PM PDT, Steve Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:
>>> 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?

-- 
glen ⛧