<!DOCTYPE html><html><head><title></title><style type="text/css">p.MsoNormal,p.MsoNoSpacing{margin:0}</style></head><body><div style="font-family:Arial;">Steve,<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">On the back of my Hermeneutic Card is the pedigree: Hermes Trismegistus, Dilthey, Heidegger, Gadamer, Derrida, and Foucault with infusions from Hesse and Jung (the alchemist more than the psychologist). This lineage is quite distinct from the "interpretation of sacred texts, e.g. the Bible) thread of hermeneutics.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">"Everything is an Interpretation," a metaphorical Philosopher's Stone from this thread of Hermeneutics coupled with our late friend Hywel's favorite dictum, "Ah, but it is more complicated than that," is part of the foundation for my critique of "isms" and of the current impeachment process.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">Confronted with a rich, dynamic, ambiguous, conflicting, and emerging data set; humans select data points from that set and weave together a, mostly, self-consistent story — an Interpretation. As individuals this is essential and unavoidable, to some degree, as our physical survival depends on it. (This point has been mentioned before - we perceive what is useful to survive, not what is really "out there.")<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">At the group level a few (one to perhaps a few hundred) "storytellers" convince an uncritical herd to accept a particular story (interpretation) and voila we have a religion, a philosophy, a science, an "ism." The foundational "story" can exist, if and only if, it repudiates, denies the existence of, or simply disregards any contrary or inconvenient data points in the original rich and complex data set.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">When I said in the earlier missive that they ignored ninety-percent of that data set, I was indulging in hyperbole. But, I would asset with a great deal of assurance that the ratio of accepted to rejected data points is never less than 50:50.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">in the capitalism article a number of statements / assertions are made in a simple declarative fashion, giving them the veneer of "fact" or "truth." Statements about capitalism and post-truth. From my Hermeneutic perspective, such statements are Interpretations, not facts not truths. It is more complicated than that.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">The conclusion the author made, also asserted in declarative sentences of "fact," is problematic, specious, or absurd depending on the depth of a reader's alternative interpretations of overlapping or orthogonal data points with regard capitalism and post truth. (Personally, his assertions about post-truth are the unforgivable misinterpretations.)<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">With regard to current impeachment efforts: a small (few hundred to less than a thousand) storytellers are cherry-picking the data set, and interpreting each point so that it is consistent with the intended "moral of the story," weaving this grand interpretation narrative and selling it to a herd of tens of millions.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">But, because the storytellers have suspended their disbelief to such an extent that they are no longer aware of their own Interpretations — believing that everything they say is literal, gospel, veridical TRUTH.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">This would be fine, except for the fact, that by doing so, they are almost guaranteeing a political outcome that is antithetical to their expressed intent. (And, on a personal level, making me happy that I might be sitting out the consequences, mostly, from Amsterdam.)<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">If only Derrida could counsel them with a bit of constructive deconstruction.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">davew<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div>On Thu, Nov 7, 2019, at 4:30 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite" id="qt"><div style="font-family:Arial;">DaveW -<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"> <br></div><blockquote cite="mid:ddf7fde6-3ff3-4bf4-98ff-78657f70da28@www.fastmail.com" type="cite"><pre class="qt-moz-quote-pre" wrap="">As a card carrying Hermeneutic <br></pre></blockquote><div style="font-family:Arial;">"Hermeneutics<span style="background-color:rgb(255, 255, 255)" class="highlight"><span style="color:rgb(34, 34, 34)" class="colour"><span style="font-family:sans-serif" class="font"><span style="font-size:14px" class="size"> is the art of understanding and of
making oneself understood" - Wikipedia<br> </span></span></span></span> </div><blockquote cite="mid:ddf7fde6-3ff3-4bf4-98ff-78657f70da28@www.fastmail.com" type="cite"><pre class="qt-moz-quote-pre" wrap="">From the viewpoint of someone who knows/believes/understands everything to be Interpretation, this is a silly assertion.<br></pre></blockquote><div style="font-family:Arial;">Interpretation of "received wisdom" conventionally. Rhetorical
presentation of "received wisdom" is not hermeneutical.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"> <br></div><blockquote cite="mid:ddf7fde6-3ff3-4bf4-98ff-78657f70da28@www.fastmail.com" type="cite"><pre class="qt-moz-quote-pre" wrap="">The only way you can ascribe Truth to an ism, Capitalism included, is by disregarding ninety-percent of the "data" as irrelevant and claiming the self-consistent (mostly) residue to be that Truth.
And of course each ism cherry picks the ten-percent of the data (non-overlapping sets) that supports its interpretation of fact/reality/truth and vociferously defends it as the only correct way to see things or think about things — and then makes the fatal mistake of believing, in a fundamentalist sort of way, their own story (interpretation).<br></pre></blockquote><div style="font-family:Arial;">This cynical interpretation of the attempt to condense knowledge and
wisdom is not unfounded, but do you contend that it is intrinsic ot
"isms" that they be thus? Is your 10% data-driven, anecdotal, or
rhetorical?<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"> <br></div><blockquote cite="mid:ddf7fde6-3ff3-4bf4-98ff-78657f70da28@www.fastmail.com" type="cite"><pre class="qt-moz-quote-pre" wrap="">That last step, believing the fictional story that you weave from your interpretation of cherry picked data, is fundamental to the idiocy of impeachment.<br></pre></blockquote><div style="font-family:Arial;">Do you mean *this impeachment* of *this president* at *this time*?
Or are you impugning the very idea of impeachment, of congressional
oversight of the Executive and the ideal of checks and balances?<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"> <br></div><blockquote cite="mid:ddf7fde6-3ff3-4bf4-98ff-78657f70da28@www.fastmail.com" type="cite"><pre class="qt-moz-quote-pre" wrap="">While the story being told may have substance, it has no Reality, it has no Truth, and telling (yelling) that story will have no effect except other than increasing anger and hostility between and among all those with other stories to tell.<br></pre></blockquote><p>The style of this administration (and sadly the last Republican
one as well) is that of an arrogant bully, saying and doing
anything to get one's way, denying any wrong-doing categorically,
and then squealing "unfair!" anytime someone lands even a
half-good punch on them. Decades ago, when my sympathies were
more with the Right than the Left (in some key areas) it was
because I interpreted their position to be considered, thoughtful
and in some sense generous. I haven't seen that from the Right
in a very long time, and have seen it more and more on the Left.
Politicians are still politicians but *some* of them truly seem
motivated to be *Statesmen*, even if the game as it has (d)evolved
makes that hugely difficult.<br></p><p>It is really rich for the (self-Righteous) Right to accuse the
left of being bullies, but that is one of the clear hallmarks of a
bully... to cry foul when confronted effectively.<br></p><blockquote cite="mid:ddf7fde6-3ff3-4bf4-98ff-78657f70da28@www.fastmail.com" type="cite"><pre class="qt-moz-quote-pre" wrap="">davew
[Personal aside: some ranchers in southern Utah gave me a "Keep America Great — Trump 2020" ball cap. I am tempted, sometimes, to wear it in solidarity with Adam Schiff and Democrats/Liberals who seem Hell bent on getting Donald re-elected. I don't do so because I am afraid of attracting violence from ultra-orthodox, fundamentalist, believers of the TrumpSatan story.]<br></pre></blockquote><p>What about the simple possibility that many will believe that you
believe the story embroidered on the cap, no matter how they might
react overtly? I'm of the apprehension that while you don't seem
to strictly believe that Trump has made America "Great Again" or
that keeping him in office will yield a continued or increased
"Greatness", I suspect that your own version of what I call in
myself "morbid fascination" has you happy enough standing around
roasting marshmallows of what is left of things as he proceeds to
burn it down. I shared some of the reactionary spirit that
(nearly) drove Bernie to the nomination in 2016 and did in fact
drive Donald to taking the Gerrymandered Electoral College
majority, but whatever good that disruption brought is well over
IMO... it is time to call a halt to this "punctuation" and
return to a new "equilibrium" if we can.<br></p><p>Do YOU see a new equilibrium possible, or do you think we need to
rekindle the flames if they start to die down?<br></p><p>- SteveS<br></p><p>PS. I am reminded of Nick's (with Stephen/Owen/et-al support)
MOTH (my way or the highway) strategy in the iterated prisoner's
dilemma. It is perhaps too simplified for application in the
context of our national elections, but I suspect that the Left may
be moving toward that strategy which beats the chronic defector
strategy that the Right seems to prefer.<br></p><div>============================================================<br></div><div>FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br></div><div>Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College<br></div><div>to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com<br></div><div>archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/<br></div><div>FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove<br></div><div><br></div></blockquote><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div></body></html>