<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Nick -</p>
<p>I suppose my "Pffft!" intended point is that "intention
matters". I know we have argued about my use of the term
"inform" in some contexts, but do you insist that I *never* say or
do something to "merely" inform you, but rather all
utterances/actons have a persuasive intent? If I look at my
indoor/outdoor thermometer and tell you "it is 22F outside right
now" I might be doing it to convince you not to go outside without
a coat, or I might do it to persuade you that I am a
data/scientific oriented kinda guy, or I might do it because you
indicated that you had an interest even if I don't have much if
any idea what your plan for using that knowledge might be. If it
so happens your own plan was to go outside and my telling you the
thermometer reading persuaded you to wear a coat, then you could
claim I had "persuaded" you when in fact, the most you could claim
is that you "were persuaded by the data"? <br>
</p>
<p>On the same token if you visited me and I asked you to tell me
what you thought my resident Raven's were going on about, you
would tell me your "story" about Raven communication and if I
didn't believe some aspect of it, you would be inclined to try to
"persuade" me, but if I simply insisted I "didn't understand" some
point, I don't think you would try to persuade me, you would more
likely try to understand what aspect of this I didn't understand
and repeat or restate it to help me come in alignment with your
understanding. Is this latter soem soft form of persuasion?<br>
</p>
<p>I dunno, persuade me? Pfffft!</p>
<p>- Steve<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:00d001d6e937$cc72d880$65588980$@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style>@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}</style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Nah! No, you are doubling down on the idea
that some communication is not persuasive because it is to our
emotions. Remember. I believe that all emotions are
rational. (Just based on low probability data.) “Pfffft!”
as Glen has taught me to say. I love to say it. “Pfffft!”
“Pfffft!” “Pfffft!”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Nicholas Thompson<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Emeritus Professor of Ethology and
Psychology<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Clark University<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="mailto:ThompNickSon2@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span style="color:#0563C1">ThompNickSon2@gmail.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a
href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span style="color:#0563C1">https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Friam
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com"><friam-bounces@redfish.com></a> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Steve
Smith<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, January 12, 2021 1:53 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:friam@redfish.com">friam@redfish.com</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [FRIAM] Poetry Slams vs biologic
Percean Logic Machine Emulator<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Colleagues;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I want to recommend the dialogue below
for all who read. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What is the probative value of a
narrative? What is the probative value of a photo of
demonstrator beating a policeman with a flag? Well,
narrowly, if the narrative is accurate and the photo is not
faked, they prove that such a thing COULD happen, because,
you can plainly see, it has happened. What IS the probative
value of a poem? Nothing? Then why are people sometimes
convinced by them. <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Nick -<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I think you are doubling down on Glen's implication that a
poem is intended to be persuasive ("convincing" in your term)?
While an apt poem (or joke, or song, ) offered with good
timing can be persuasive in the context of an argument, it can
also/instead be *illuminating* in the context of a generative
dialog.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I'm much more interested in a generative and synthetic dialog
than in analytical and/or rhetorical one. In your pursuit of
publishable results from all our rattling on here, I
understand the need/value of doing very careful analysis and
then build a rhetorical<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>EricS's recent invocation of the Albatross and Mariner images
from Coleridge's "Rime of the Ancient Mariner" sent me back to
that text which I chose to listen to, read to me (thank you
Alexa) by a practiced reader. I was primarily interested in
Eric's revised analysis of Trump as Mariner/Democracy as
Albatross and whatever embodied wisdom/perspective this "told
story" had to offer. I was drawn quickly to the image of
"Rime" which I will leave the analysis to others here who
might have dipped their beak (or earholes) into this bit of
Coleridge. I wasn't inclined to be persuaded by Eric to any
particular moral judgement, just to add (if I didn't already
have it) the offered allegory to my quiver of perspectives on
this big mess we are trying to find our way out of (deeper
into?)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Not to miss the chance Nick, I *do* agree with you that the
photos/clips of the insurrection/coup-attempt last week
represent a "possibility by example" proof. Context matters
(hugely) (sad how traditional media AND internet media have
normalized everything to be taken out of context?) and with
modern mediocre (well edited by a clever human) and "deep"
fakes, I'm rarely inclined to take any image, video or sound
recording as an absolute objective fact, even if it doesn't
carry any obvious (even to careful technical analysis)
evidence of spoofing/construction. But as with good fiction
(storytelling), I don't have to believe that there were
literally two naked modern humans named Adam and Eve in a
Garden of Plenty who became the progenitors of all human kind
to learn something useful from the story.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>This leads us full circle back to the question of what is
"really real"? And by correlation, can fictional narrative
speak a qualitatively superior truth to factual narrative?
I'm not nearly PoMo literate enough to know if this has all
been Derrida'ed and Foucault'ed thoroughly. The competing
narratives on the topic seem to be at an impasse, which I
probably can't even characterize well. Others may feel they
are making headway in coming to a better understanding of the
question, or perhaps each faction (is there more than 2?) are
stuck in the (IMO fruitless) exercise of trying to persuade
the other. While I think I now recognize and appreciate
Glen's use of the terms Strawman/Steelman, they seem to
reflect the idiom recently (re)Popularized by the
Poet-Philosopher Rudi Guilliani with "Trial by Combat!".<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Joust on!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p> - Steve<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>PS(ssst!)... my more-aggressive-than-usual style here is
probably just me sublimating my frustration with not being
positioned well to "break up the bar-fight" that is our
national politics today. I grant Marcus' strategy of
"ducking out the back and let them kill one another" plenty
merit when it is a "brawl" or another episode in a "gang war",
but most bar/street fights I've been (even obliquely) aware of
had an element of a bully and a victim, and I'm still proud of
stepping between the two and facing down the bully while the
(potential) victim gets a chance to collect themselves and
either withdraw or wait for someone (bully's friends,
bartender wielding a pool cue, or maybe the cops) to remove
the bully from the equation. If I miss my cue and turned my
back to the real bully, I risk getting blindsided by the
faux-victim and having possibly just made things worse. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>The Capitol insurrection/coup-attempt was some many thousands
of bullies trying to intimidate our elected representatives
who had to first bully a few hundred capitol police to get
access. If I'd been on site (could anyone there have been
truly an innocent bystander?) I'd have been more likely to
throw myself on one of the grenades (metaphorical) than to
"duck out the back"... I understand why many would "duck out
the back" to (not?) "fight another day". I'm glad few if any
of the Capitol Police chose that option, but then that was
what they were (self?) selected (and paid) for.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p> Unsurprisingly, the Right (from hard-core Radical Extreme
to more recentTrump-Radicalized) uses an obvious but still
effective tactic that all bullies play from time to time which
is pretending to be the victim: "what are YOU looking at,
huh?" I really hope that those who are true (little c)
conservatives can see how their crypto-cousin high-T,
grievance-shouting radical-rabble are as dangerous to them and
their idealized way of life (if not more) than their presumed
complement of (little l) liberals. </ramble><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe <a class="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="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a>
FRIAM-COMIC <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>