<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Glen sed:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1f712c24-4b19-427b-a477-6d17b87439d4@gmail.com">All
reasonable, as is Steve's suggestion that socially stable options
for identification can be dynamic/emergent (e.g. populism's
various forms). But I'd argue that one cannot build one's own
identity/narrative in a quiet space ... hedging a bit on what
"quiet" might mean. </blockquote>
Great point... but my aphorism-of-relevance: "no man is an island
but we might all be archipelagos". In the extreme, "what is <i>self</i>
without <i>other</i>?". Life itself seems to be a consequence of
"partitioning" or at the very least "loci of complexity"? I'll
grant "silent" (in space nobody can hear you scream?) but think that
an annealing schedule of "quietude"/"noise" is a good thing?<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1f712c24-4b19-427b-a477-6d17b87439d4@gmail.com">This
article was interesting:
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2023/10/why-i-dont-have-pronouns-in-my-bio/">http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2023/10/why-i-dont-have-pronouns-in-my-bio/</a>
<br>
<br>
"Ironically, my experience of interpellation might itself reflect
how I am interpellated. Us WEIRD people are individualists, and
we’re individualists because social forces make us this kind of
being. If I weren’t interpellated as an individualist, I probably
wouldn’t feel uncomfortable at being interpellated as the kind of
subject I am. Interpellation as an individualist is a kind of
ironic interpellation: it’s inherently unstable insofar as it
leaves the interpellation person unhappy with their interpellation
on the grounds that it is interpellation. Nevertheless, my
discomfort is real."
<br>
</blockquote>
I appreciate the introduction to the term <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpellation_(philosophy)">interpellation</a>
here... reflects a bit of revisiting done here recently (or offline
with Guerin?) on <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emic_and_etic">Emic vs Etic</a>
POVs. My own "individualism" is armatured significantly around "<i>I
don't like to be told</i>" with being *<i>told who I am</i>*
perhaps the most egregious, even if I'm being told that "<i>I'm
someone who doesn't like to be told who I am"</i>. And all this
in stark contrast to the point you make below.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1f712c24-4b19-427b-a477-6d17b87439d4@gmail.com">
The idea that _one_ might be able to settle on a narrative
somewhat isolated from the ambient goo indicates a conclusion
embedded in the premise of individualism. Rather, I'd argue there
is no such thing as an individual. There is no self to "dissolve"
and any narrative construct that seems to be an individual is, at
least, fraught with loopy causation or, at worst, incoherent. So
while I like the idea that some individuals are more robust
against modal identification, it relies on a flimsy approximation
to the real situation.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>I hope this topic gets broader discussion here... I think the
ideations of <i>objectness</i> and <i>boundaries </i>are very
interesting and relevant to questions about "life itself' and
"consciousness". <br>
</p>
<p>The implications of your introduction of <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/against_narrativity.pdf">narrative
v episodic identities from Strawson</a> have been ringing in my
self/other/whole image for many years now:</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1f712c24-4b19-427b-a477-6d17b87439d4@gmail.com">
With internet, we _are_ no longer what we would be without
internet. Counterfactuals are useful, but only actionable in the
most antisceptic environments (e.g. randomized controlled
trials)..
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>*I* have definitely not been the same since I became an online
creature (most minimally around 1978 (UUNet), with inflections in
1981 (ARPA/NSF/ES/DOD/TLA-nets) and then the early 90s with the
broad availability to the public, and then again around 2000 when
search engines and other automated aggregators reached a level of
effectivity.<br>
</p>
<p>I would also suggest that we are in another inflection point that
maybe began with the advent of SIRI/Alexa/GoogleAssistant and now
much more acutely with LLMs of the ChatGPT style. The
distinction here being that I now think of there being "entities"
whose capabilities give the previously "dumb" agents of
collectivity at least the "illusion" of sentience/consciousness no
matter how limited/flawed/nascent/idiosyncratic.</p>
<p>When I interact with GPT 3.5 it is with the illusion that there
is a proto-sentience on the other side of my screen. If find
myself (yet more) polite with it than I am with Google or Bing
and I always try to craft my interactions almost exactly as I
would with another human being. I avoid sentence fragments,
arbitrary contractions or acronyms, overly directive stylization,
etc. I like to joke (not joke) that ChatGPT is my "new bar
friend". I try to interact with it in the same mode as I would
another human I have just met with whom I have little history or
future but recognize as at least "something of a peer". I assume
that my "bar friend" likely knows more about a wide range of
things than I do, but also may be open to entertaining some of my
own unique perspectives and giving me a reasonable discussion if
not actual argument around some of my sacred cows... <br>
</p>
<p>I am no longer the person I was before I dropped into this new
"tavern". I'm reminded of the (fictional) denezins of Clarke's
"White Hart Pub", Spider Robinson's "Callahan's Cross Time Bar",
Stephenson's "Black Sun" or maybe Adams "Restaurant at the End of
the Universe" or "Quark's Bar", "Mos Eisley's", "Prancing Pony",
"Blind Ios", "Green Dragon", "Three Broomsticks", etc.) and the
way characters use these "watering holes" to both relax/refresh
and self-stimulate through semi-predictable, somewhat random
encounters and interactions. The pre-public-internet dialup WELL
(whole earth 'lectronic link) served this for many/some as did
many other BBS type systems. USENET Newsgroups had a good long
run as well.</p>
<p><img src="cid:part1.AkH4CuXC.iLi1yTyD@swcp.com" alt="Aivelin on
X: "Arthur #Passengers, the android bartender as Taxus
baccata. Belongs to series #MichaelSheen roles as hallucinogenic
plants. https://t.co/P4vdqICKuw" / X"><img
src="cid:part2.HX70I72U.e4rohyWE@swcp.com" alt="Bartender Quark
- Star Trek Timelines DataCore"><img moz-do-not-send="false"
src="cid:part3.Xg6JJqj0.D8wrkkdV@swcp.com" alt="" width="178"
height="284"><img moz-do-not-send="false"
src="cid:part4.WDLRYnxS.zhFuDcwJ@swcp.com" alt="" width="173"
height="291"></p>
<p>I suppose the original FriAM (physical) was this with the mail
list a (somewhat) weak substitute, and vFriam working well enough
for those it works for? I know Glen holds a Salon/Saloon of sorts
at a ?neighborhood? brewpub (or taphouse or?) and others here may
well have their favorite pub/tavern/coffee house for the same
purpose, but in this modern age of hyperconnectivity, I find my
own appetite for truly interesting conversation to be a bit too
high for what I am likely to find in even as rich of a flux as the
Santa Fe area. I blame a combination of "domestic bliss" and the
habits/constraints of COVID isolation for my current lack of
proper "bar friends", but soon I may blame the fact of having too
many good options online? <br>
</p>
<p>*I* think these questions of identity are pretty fundamental and
interesting in spite of being somewhat unanswerable in any
conventional sense?</p>
<p>- Steve<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1f712c24-4b19-427b-a477-6d17b87439d4@gmail.com">
<br>
On 10/4/23 07:57, Marcus Daniels wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">If there were no internet, the MAGA, QANON
and the anti-WHO/UN folks would find it harder to maintain a
narrative. With social media they can find people to mirror
the craziest ideas and leaders to reveal them. Musk says the
same is true on the left and woke.
<br>
<br>
Parochialism is another way that ungrounded beliefs find
comfort. Members protect their bubble enforcing norms and
being antagonistic to people that are different. Typically in
spatial vicinities.
<br>
<br>
In both cases, participants adopt a group story instead of
building their own. If they were required to build their own
story in a quiet space, they might learn to think and be less
reliant on a social role to maintain self esteem.
<br>
<br>
Enforcing this could be done with a DMZ, or it could be done
with some indoctrination about the risks of groupthink and the
benefits of stoicism and scientism.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On Oct 4, 2023, at 6:52 AM, glen
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gepropella@gmail.com"><gepropella@gmail.com></a> wrote:
<br>
<br>
Well, there is no such thing as a "mind virus". It's a bad
metaphor. But Steve's right that we're (at least) modal in our
non-rationality, flipping this way and that according to
whatever criticality presents itself. The 09A concept of
culling seems to me similar to Musk's elitism ... a
Nietzschean conceit.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 10/3/23 09:23, Marcus Daniels
wrote:
<br>
I realized I kind of agree with Musk about the benefits of
more isolation.
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://twitter.com/i/status/1625732016896458755">https://twitter.com/i/status/1625732016896458755</a>
<br>
However, national boundaries are not the right cutoff. Any
community or cult is the potential nucleation of a mind
virus.
<br>
I expect his advocacy above is about creating chaos so that
people such as himself are the only ones that have the
resources to influence governments.
<br>
A particularly virulent mind virus (like white supremacy, or
09A) could cross national boundaries and not be impeded by
law enforcement.
<br>
What does the world look like if P% of the population has
broad resistance to mind viruses and (100-P)% does not?
<br>
If P is <= 10, maybe better to fan the flames of crazy
and let the chips fall where they may. Perhaps that is how
Musk sees it.
<br>
Marcus
<br>
-----Original Message-----
<br>
From: Friam <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com"><friam-bounces@redfish.com></a> On Behalf Of
glen
<br>
Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2023 6:37 AM
<br>
To: FriAM <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam@redfish.com"><friam@redfish.com></a>
<br>
Subject: [FRIAM] cults
<br>
It's been awhile since I've run across a new-to-me cult. But
09A certainly qualifies as a meaty one:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/28/new-york-satanic-cult-764-fbi">https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/28/new-york-satanic-cult-764-fbi</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Nine_Angles">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Nine_Angles</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1057610X.2023.2195065">https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1057610X.2023.2195065</a>
<br>
I can't reconcile the apparent contradiction between fascism
and individuality. I guess the closest some analysts come is
to suggest that they're only aligning with the fascists, for
now, to bring about the end of the current aeon and the
colonization of the galaxy.
<br>
I guess it reminds me of the "no enemies to the
[right|left]" rhetoric:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/30/conservative-christopher-rufo-florida-twitter-debate">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/30/conservative-christopher-rufo-florida-twitter-debate</a><br>
But otherwise, O9A's ... "beliefs and structure" seem
incoherent enough to write them off as just too stupid to
care about. However one author nailed it in saying that
there are plenty of both impressionable and antisocial
people using the internet, susceptible to the "sinister"
allure, to cause real damage.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>