<!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;">I mentioned the Bellamy Clubs then and now, solely as an example of spontaneous generation of hundreds of local groups to talk about the future. I mentioned before I taught a class with Bellamy's grandson who was writing a biography and i was told many a story about the clubs and their evolution.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">First, they were a self-organized, spontaneous, emergent phenomena. Not sponsored, not directed, just one neighbor talking to another, "say have you read this?"<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">It seems inevitable, and it was the case that the clubs became "organized" and the discussion "formalized" which killed the whole thing. Bellamy was appalled by the eventual "findings" of the club and distanced himself from them. And of course they dissipated as fast as they arose.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">If the generative phase of the clubs were to be replicated, it would probably have to be on-line somehow and how you would prevent the discussion from prematurely settling on a variation of the current general political discussion instead of fully exploring alternatives — I have no clue.<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 Sun, Apr 19, 2020, at 9:31 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite" id="qt"><p>Dave -<br></p><p>I do remember your reference to the Bellamyists and probably
wrote a long-winded (well-over 300) commentary which I then
deleted. <br></p><p>What I remember of that (my aborted response) was somewhat
reactionary to Utopianism and Nationalism. In the spirit of
productive optimism, I realize(d) my reactionaryisms was maybe not
very productive. I don't want to devolve into the splitting of
hairs we are so fond of here in this forum.<br></p><p>With that caveat... I am struggling against those two things I
impute to what little I know of "the Bellamyists". "One (hu)man's
Utopia is another's Dystopia". And. "Nationalism is
(dangerously) out-of-scale Tribalism".<br></p><p>I guess I would ask why such a grandiose scale structure would
need to be put in place? Would not an emergence from discussions
among small groups (such as the threads on FriAM) not be a more
practical and perhaps "safer" route? Is such a
structure/container required, or perhaps it might be inevitable?
But then it would not be Bellamyists, but rather DaveWestist?<br></p><p>With that in mind... perhaps it is worth discussing the
Bellamyites primary focus (as claimed in the Wikipedia Article
that is my only source) of "nationalizing industry". That seems
to be what the Left is leaning toward... or at least
regulating/taxing industry at the federal level to the point that
it IS effectively nationalized? What is the Right's version of
that? In the spirit of NeoLiberalism and free-markets of which
the Right is most fond, nationalization is anathema. <br></p><p>And yet, it seems that the "free market" is best at innovation...
and once an industry has been commodified, perhaps the next step
IS to nationalization. There might have been a time when
gasoline stations had something significantly different to offer,
one from the other, but even the detergents and oxygenators seem
to have become pretty standard(?lame assertion?) and the only
difference is how big is the big-gulp soda in the convenience
store, is it filled from the Coca Cola or Pepsi Cola pantheon and
are more triggered by a giant yellow clam-shell logo or a green
baby brontosaurus?<br></p><p>I'm entirely with you on the diversity of foodstuffs referenced
earlier... but IF/When I'm going to feed from the same trough of
the same hybrids as my fellow piggies, why put so many different
(or any?) labels on them? And then why not plant your own garden
with seeds exchanged with friends and neighbors, localized to your
conditions, and buy/trade what you can't grow from small (tiny)
farms within a short drive (walk)?<br></p><p>And I agree on the liminal, though I see liminality everywhere at
all scales, like the fractality of an estuary and this moment is
more acute and offering/demanding more focused/proaction? If we
did live in our everyday liminality more-better, then this would
just be an extrema(ish) of scale... but since we (mostly) don't,
it feels like a change in quality in it's quantity. There I go,
splitting hairs?<br></p><p>- Steve<br></p><p><br></p><blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:b9940a79-a77d-4d91-a8e9-73518fe2cc26@www.fastmail.com"><div style="font-family:Arial;">Steve,<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">This <b><u>should</u></b> be a
time between lightning and thunder, liminal, a time "when all
things are possible."<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">I would love to be optimistic,
even guardedly, <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">Prerequisite, perhaps, is for
everyone to accept Hywel's dictum, "Ah, but it is more
complicated than that" coupled with a heady dose of agonizing
reappraisal of one's unexamined positions. Healthy doses, of
"you have a point," "errors were made," "our ontology should
incorporate those distinctions," etc.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">A while back I spoke of the
Bellamy Clubs as a social / civic/ phenomenon focused on a
"constructive way forward." Something of that sort would be
required to instantiate your optimism.<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 Sun, Apr 19, 2020, at 7:14 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite" id="qt-qt"><p>Dave, et al -<br></p><p>These are fecund times. The time between the lightning and
the thunder - "when all things are possible". Or maybe, if
you have a more apocalyptic bent, the beginning of the "end of
times". William Gibson's "Jackpot" perhaps (to be more
ambiguous). <br></p><p>I think Churchill tried on (in oratorial style):<br></p><p> "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of
the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."<br></p><p>In closing your "trip report" a dozen posts back you
referenced once again, the likelihood of a violent clash
between Left and Right or Red and Blue as a next
logical/likely step in the path we seem to be stumbling
(shambling?) down right now.<br></p><p>The recent (armed) protests at state capitals, demanding that
the Governors "open up the state" do seem foreboding. An
almost self-abusive desire to trigger a breakdown in social
order.<br></p><p>The (""<i>failing!!!!""</i> double-scare-quotes) New York
Times opinion piece <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/09/opinion/sunday/coronavirus-inequality-america.html">The America We Need</a> from 10 days
ago (feels much longer in Corona Time) exposes one side of the
challenge (how modern society/America has been failing) and a
hopeful response (how this crisis could help galvanize us to
become who we need to be collectively). I'd love to hear
something from the Right with an equally constructive
perspective. Maybe I just have my ear on the wrong rail but I
only hear "boom or bust" talk from the Right.<br></p><p>Living with one foot in each camp (Red and Blue) I believe
that the divide we feel is on one hand very real, but on the
other deliberately aggravated as a way to keep us in dynamic
tension (or more simply pitted-against one another) while
those with most power keep stirring us up and raking off the
top. Red/Right sees the threat of
government/wealthy/elite/??? one way while Blue/Left see what
I think is roughly the same threat very differently. But it
might very well be the very same threat, and the pointy end is
designed to keep us divided.<br></p><p>And lest we create a strong "other" to
reject/resent/hate/fear: "We have met the enemy, and they is
us". <br></p><p>The deficit-hawk, small-government GOP has been building up a
State like none before it, and while they (and the NRA) are
encouraging their loyal followers to arm themselves to the
teeth, double down on ammunition, all the while militarizing
the police, loading them up with armored personnel carriers
and fully-automatic weapons (opposite the citizen's
semi-autos), and bullet-proof vests, helmets and shields to
maintain overwhelming force. Meanwhile, the Dems might be
trying to nurture us out of our dysfunction and misery,
sometimes disabling us more in the process, and the wealthy on
that side are raking their share off of that, elbow to elbow
at the same trough. <br></p><p>We ship our (two hybrid strains of tomato and two germ-lines
of beef) food halfway across the country (add coffee, avocados
and bananas - world) from agri-industry-chemical soaked
feed-lots and (formerly) fertile valleys and plains, burning
fossil fuels (not just in the machines, but to make the
hyper-fertilizer now needed). Whether we shop at Trader Joes,
or Whole Foods, or Bob's Butcher or just order up Trump
Steaks, we HAVE built a house of cards which is bending under
the weight of this pandemic. <br></p><p>Why does it feel like a segment of the population just wants
to knock it down?<br></p><p>Is there a constructive route up and out of this mess? The
pandemic has exposed a LOT more of the weaknesses in our
economy/society as this current administration has exposed the
weaknesses in our government. It seems like an opportunity
to try to rebuild thoughtfully rather than "tear it down" or
"patch it back the way it was".<br></p><p>Guardedly Hopeful,<br></p><p> - Steve (574)<br></p><p class="qt-qt-bq_fq_a" style="box-sizing:border-box;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:5px;margin-left:0px;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;font-size:16px;color:rgb(102, 102, 102);font-style:normal;text-align:left;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;-webkit-text-stroke-width:0px;background-color:rgb(255, 255, 255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;"><br></p><blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:9583ee6e-fc45-4e7f-a44c-fb9dff4b63c8@www.fastmail.com"><pre class="qt-qt-moz-quote-pre">Nick,
There is truth in what you say, but only a bit.
I have certainly spoken as if "Science was a bunch of nasty people with vested interests acting in an exclusionary manner."
Hyperbole.
A better metaphor / analogy would be the way we have hybridized our food supply; e.g. 90 percent of all dairy cows have one of two bulls in their ancestry, there are one or two tomato hybrids, one or two strains of rice, wheat, corn, etc.
This creates a huge vulnerability — a novel pest or disease and presto, no food supply.
Now imagine that there are multiple species of investigation, thinking, knowledge.
Since the Age of Enlightenment, the western world has been hell bent on hybridizing but one of them — Formalism (aka, roughly, Science).
Yes, I believe that Formalism has attained such a privileged status that it tolerates no criticism and critics are "excommunicated" with prejudice.
I would like to think of myself as someone interested in growing heritage tomatoes in my garden and marveling at the differences in taste and texture and finding very deep value from the use of them in culinary creations.
davew
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, at 8:58 PM, <a class="qt-qt-moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:thompnickson2@gmail.com">thompnickson2@gmail.com</a> wrote:
<br></pre><blockquote type="cite"><pre class="qt-qt-moz-quote-pre">Dave,
No, wait a minute! Thou slenderest me! For you, Science is a bunch
of nasty people with vested interests. Science, on that understanding,
has the power to exclude. For me, Science is a set of practices that
lead to understandings of experience that endure the test of time. It
is not the sort of thing that can exclude. If pot smoking in bubble
baths leads to understandings that endure the test of time, then it is
a scientific method. Something like that seemed to have worked for
Archimedes.
Nick
Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
<a class="qt-qt-moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ThompNickSon2@gmail.com">ThompNickSon2@gmail.com</a>
<a class="qt-qt-moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/">https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/</a>
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <a class="qt-qt-moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com"><friam-bounces@redfish.com></a> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 6:31 PM
To: <a class="qt-qt-moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:friam@redfish.com">friam@redfish.com</a>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of
anthropological observtions
Nick,
I won't lose the argument, because I pre-believe that, IF alternative
means with some kind of criteria for falsifiability and repeatability
THEN they should be incorporated into that which is deemed "Science" —
ergo there is no argument to lose.
If there is an argument — and there is clearly a difference of opinion
— it centers on the the issue of why Hermetic Alchemy, Acid
Epistemology, Anthropological Thick Description, Ayurvedic Medicine,
Adams' "rhetorical analysis" et. al. are, at the moment and for the
most part, excluded from Science.
davew
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, at 5:28 PM, <a class="qt-qt-moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:thompnickson2@gmail.com">thompnickson2@gmail.com</a> wrote:
<br></pre><blockquote type="cite"><pre class="qt-qt-moz-quote-pre">Dave,
You're going to lose this argument with me eventually, because any
investigatory practice that works in the long run I am going to
declare to be part of "the scientific method." So if you declare that
discovery is enhanced by lying in a warm suds bath smoking pot, and
you can describe a repeatable practice which includes that as a
method, and that method produces enduring intellectual and practical
structures such as the periodic table, then I will simply say, "That's science."
I am not sure this works with my falsifiability schtik, but that must
have been at least 4 hours ago. So "before lunch".
Nick
Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University
<a class="qt-qt-moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ThompNickSon2@gmail.com">ThompNickSon2@gmail.com</a> <a class="qt-qt-moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/">https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/</a>
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <a class="qt-qt-moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com"><friam-bounces@redfish.com></a> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 5:07 PM
To: <a class="qt-qt-moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:friam@redfish.com">friam@redfish.com</a>
Subject: [FRIAM] basis for prediction — forked from the tail end of
anthropological observtions
Consider three entities making 2016 political predictions and their predictions.
1- "cognoscenti" those citing poll data, Nate Silver (albeit as
everyone notes, the citation was more interpretation than citation),
pundits, et. al. — Trump, at various times, has 1/1000 to 1/3 chance of
winning the election.
2- Scott Adams - Trump "very likely" will win to "almost certain" he will win.
3- davew - Trump will win.
# 3 is a fool because he made no effort whatsoever to hedge his prediction.
The first group used traditional polling, statistical modelling, etc.
to come to their conclusions.
Scott Adams used none of those methods/tools but, as described in his
book — Win Bigly — the language and rhetoric analysis tools/techniques
he did use.
davew remains coy about how he came to his certainty.
QUESTIONS: Are there different approaches, different avenues,
different means, for acquiring "knowledge?" I am being vague here
because I do not know how to make the question precise. But it would
have something to do with different definitions of what is considered
data and different techniques/tools for digesting that data to form
conclusions — in this instance predictions.
If there are different approaches, is a comparative analysis of them
possible? desirable?
Different approaches — useful in different contexts? How to determine
appropriate contexts.
Or, is there but one avenue to knowledge — Science — and all else is
idiosyncratic opinion?
Personally, I think there is use in pursuing this type of question and
then using the answers / insights to makes sense of the multiple
conversations concerning COVID and the response thereto.
davew
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .-
... .... . ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe
<a class="qt-qt-moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a>
archives: <a class="qt-qt-moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a>
FRIAM-COMIC <a class="qt-qt-moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a>
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .-
... .... . ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe <a class="qt-qt-moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a>
archives: <a class="qt-qt-moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a>
FRIAM-COMIC <a class="qt-qt-moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a>
<br></pre></blockquote><pre class="qt-qt-moz-quote-pre">.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .-
... .... . ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe <a class="qt-qt-moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a>
archives: <a class="qt-qt-moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a>
FRIAM-COMIC <a class="qt-qt-moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a>
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .-
... .... . ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe <a class="qt-qt-moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a>
archives: <a class="qt-qt-moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a>
FRIAM-COMIC <a class="qt-qt-moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a>
<br></pre></blockquote><pre class="qt-qt-moz-quote-pre">.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe <a class="qt-qt-moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a>
archives: <a class="qt-qt-moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a>
FRIAM-COMIC <a class="qt-qt-moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a>
<br></pre></blockquote><div>.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -..
-..-. -.. .- ... .... . ...<br></div><div>FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br></div><div>Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam<br></div><div>unsubscribe <a class="qt-moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br></div><div>archives: <a class="qt-moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a><br></div><div>FRIAM-COMIC <a class="qt-moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a> <br></div><div><br></div></blockquote><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div><br></div><pre class="qt-moz-quote-pre">.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
unsubscribe <a class="qt-moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a>
archives: <a class="qt-moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a>
FRIAM-COMIC <a class="qt-moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a>
<br></pre></blockquote><div>.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ...<br></div><div>FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br></div><div>Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam<br></div><div>unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com<br></div><div>archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/<br></div><div>FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <br></div><div><br></div></blockquote><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div></body></html>