<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body dir="auto">This sounds like a MAGA fantasy to me. A strong Rambo-like character who acts as a just avenger, has superpowers and roams like an invincible knight-errant through the country. The Jack Reacher novels are a nice read, but a person who can flatten any problem or bad person with absolute certainty is pure fiction. The promises to the MAGA followers to reduce prices and costs of living have apparently been fiction too. The trade war against Canada is certainly not helpful to reduce prices. And why start a trade war against a close friend and neighbor? Jack Reacher would shake his head.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">If I had to pick a fictional character then I would pick Indiana Jones, not Jack Reacher. But that's of course subjective.<div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">-J.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div></div></div></div></div><div><br></div><div align="left" dir="auto" style="font-size:100%;color:#000000"><div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Marcus Daniels <marcus@snoutfarm.com> </div><div>Date: 8/28/26 9:04 PM (GMT+01:00) </div><div>To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> </div><div>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum </div><div><br></div></div><div class="WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal">One of my guilty pleasures is the Reacher series on Amazon. The protagonist (Alan Ritchson), a beast of a man, finds himself only a bit concerned about his latest brush with death. (These brushes occur several times per episode.) This is just what he does and must do. The only thing he won\u2019t tolerate is the reactive individual. Whatever happened to the male role model that can suck up their doubts and fears to push through?</p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Friam <friam-bounces@redfish.com> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Jochen Fromm<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, August 28, 2026 11:39 AM<br><b>To:</b> The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com><br><b>Subject:</b> [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum</span></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black">For the new book I have read the famous philsophers like Dennett, Searle, and Nagel, and used AIs to summarize their books. Nagel's book "The view frok nowhere" is a bit simplistic. Reality is more complex than having just two views, subjective and objective, isn't it? </span></p><p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black"><br><br></span></p><p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black">In the desperate cries of babies we see pure desires and raw emotions. Babies are cute but naturally egocentric. Lacking language they only can perceive the world in a subjective view, and helpless as they are they need to communicate their needs to their parents.</span></p><p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black"><br><br></span></p><p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black">The only view they have is a 1st person view (characterized by "one great blooming, buzzing confusion" as William James said, which they interrupt by intense bursts of emotions). Everything a toddler perceives is extremely subjective. In a sense a toddler knows nothing else.</span></p><p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black"><br><br></span></p><p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black">Grown-ups have learnt to follow social rules and norms. They learned the value of politeness and friendliness. They are able to reach a more objective view of the world. Thomas Nagel called this view the "view from nowhere" in his book of the same name.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black">As we grow older we move along the spectrum from high selfishness to low selfishness. We are still driven by emotions and do not become fully objective, but we acquire the ability to view the world from an objective view. Nagel calls this ability to move from a subjective to an objective view detachment. We see it normal child development:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black">Babies -> Toddlers -> Children -> Teenagers -> Grownups</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black">There are exceptions: evil psychopaths and vile narcissts are still as selfish as toddlers or use emotions to manipulate other people. Artists, musicians, poets and critics are intentionally using personal feelings and emotions to be creative in their works.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black">Narcissists/pyschopaths (subjectivity for bad purpose) <-> Creative persons (subjectivity for good purpose) </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black">Would you agree that seeing subjectivity as a spectrum is more useful that postulating only two views (subjective vs. objective) ? ChatGPT has created the attached image for it.</span></p><p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black"><br><br></span></p><p style="margin:0in"><span style="font-family:"Google Sans",serif;color:black">-J.</span></p><p style="margin:0in"> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><br><br></p></div></body></html>