<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;" dir="ltr">
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">Glen writes:</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">< <font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;">What *if* (as Steve put it in his "muffled cries"), there are peaks in the landscape that *require* many non-individuals to form a scaffold for some (as yet unbound) non-individual
to become an individual? ></span></font></p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">Let's say there is a great woman, and through my heavy-handed intervention I prevent her from becoming great. If you buy the idea that she was worthy of that title, and you buy the idea that she came to greatness through
Personal Responsibility, then the perturbation I impose on her will not stop her, will it? I've simply given her another opportunity to prove herself worthy of forcing others to serve as her scaffolding.
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">Anyway, this is all assuming there is even a game worth playing and that concepts of merit or greatness even mean anything at all. <br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">Marcus<br>
</p>
</div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Friam <friam-bounces@redfish.com> on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣ <gepropella@gmail.com><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, December 27, 2018 3:06:06 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> FriAM<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [FRIAM] 2019 - The end of Trumpism</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="BodyFragment"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;">
<div class="PlainText">Thanks for reminding me! When I read Marcus' original claim, I balked. But then forgot it because I wanted to respond to the other thread. The principle of leveling the playing field so that any given player has the chance to become
an individual is flawed, I think ... somehow, though I don't know how.<br>
<br>
What *if* (as Steve put it in his "muffled cries"), there are peaks in the landscape that *require* many non-individuals to form a scaffold for some (as yet unbound) non-individual to become an individual? I'm thinking, here, of the (false) Great Man Theory
... the idea that Einstein was just a better thinker than everyone else ... or I've heard it called the Comprehensive Designer by this guy:
<a href="https://youtu.be/5gnlhmaM-dM">https://youtu.be/5gnlhmaM-dM</a><br>
<br>
Do we need these archetypes? Do we *need* the many rabble in order for the elite few to become "individuals"?<br>
<br>
<br>
On 12/27/18 1:45 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:<br>
> A really nice observation:<br>
> "Trump supporters are not individualists, they are just people trying to recover privilege they<br>
> didn’t earn and now see slipping away"<br>
> The same phenomenon can be observed in racism, sexism and nationalism everywhere, not just in America. It happens for instance in racism where white people lose their privileges (gained by colonialism in the past) because they no longer belong to white people
only. This kind of backwards directed racism must be as old as George Washington himself. Or in sexism where men fear that they lose their privileges because they no longer belong to men only. Or in nationalism where the native people fear they lose their
privileges of citizenship, social benefits and election rights because immigrants get the same rights. It is a fear driven version of racism, sexism or nationalism which can be used by any skilled demagogue to win elections. <br>
> - Jochen<br>
> <br>
> -------- Original message --------From: Marcus Daniels <marcus@snoutfarm.com> Date: 12/26/18 23:43 (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 2019 - The end of Trumpism
<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> David writes:<br>
> <br>
> “And it would serve "the opposition" to get a clue about the fact that the vast majority of Trump supporters do not suffer from racism, sexism, 'genderism', "me-first-ism,"<br>
> etc. Instead recognize that their primary affliction is individualism - and even libertarian-ism (despite some obvious contradictions from the religious among them) - along with corollaries of "anti-government control-ism," "personal-responsibility-ism,"
and<br>
> "my-values-are-just-as-valid-as-yours-ism."<br>
> <br>
> The racism and sexism arise from the false supposition that personal responsibility is all that is required to thrive. They fail to acknowledge that public policy can level the playing field and give everyone a fair chance to develop<br>
> their own values and priorities for their life – to become individuals. They are worse than conventional conservatives because they lack any moral center. They want to see regressive norms because those are the only norms they can get their head
around.<br>
<br>
-- <br>
☣ uǝlƃ<br>
<br>
============================================================<br>
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College<br>
to unsubscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br>
archives back to 2003: <a href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a><br>
FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a> by Dr. Strangelove<br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</body>
</html>