<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Aug 30, 2026, at 2:24, Steve Smith <sasmyth@swcp.com> wrote:</div><div><div><p>"We hold these truths to be self-evident" does a lot of complex,
heavy lifting across "we" (collectivity) and "self-evident"
(introspection) and "truths" (implied objectivity). The very
declaration is an attempt to fix an intersubjective reality Model
across a nation/culture with implications of it being held across
time and aspiring (implicitely) to influence others outside the
in-group ('Murricans).</p></div></div></blockquote><div>This one always bothered me as the most brittle leg of the founding documents and aspirations, and one that attackers know is brittle and so constantly go after. </div><div><br></div><div>If one thinks that the point of the Enlightenment was that revelatory truth was a problem because it forecloses correction, then this way of putting things also denies the Enlightenment premise that the rest of it claims to be defending. </div><div><br></div><div>Since a whole variety of groups from the fascists (of how many different eras now?) to the slavers to the Black Yi didn\u2019t consider this self-evident, there is no bridge between the We who \u201chold\u201d them that way, and the others. I can accept that fights and struggles over social power, like constructivist proofs, can go on indefinitely, and that they are the alternative to the axiomatic approach in which one can get lovely compact syntactic proofs by admitting infinitary categories and accepting the game that anything well-formed under some syntax is then required to be regarded as having a semantic referent. But if the fight is indeed going to continue happening, then the Rules of Engagement would be helpful if they included terms for argument under which people can be steered in one direction versus another, by putting feet into something Pragmatically more primitive and then pushing the higher-level premises from there.</div><div><br></div><div>But probably the Declaration\u2019s version is still better than mine, because it puts a stick in the ground and declares intent to defend it.</div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><p>While my instinct/habit is to defer to an imagined idealized
"objective reality", I see no evidence to the contrary that we
construct a highly agreed upon Model which eventually reaches the
declared quality of "objectively real" when enough of (the right)
people agree on all the nuances and claim to have verified the
evidence on the table, up to and including discovering/presenting
yet new evidence through repeatability under current standards of
such.</p></div></div></blockquote><div>For me this string of sentences unravels. Do you know what you mean by \u201cobjective reality\u201d? I don\u2019t start out knowing what I would mean, and find myself very cautious in throwing down for some gloss. Does it root as far down as you can go into the body? If so, then that rooting didn\u2019t come from anybody\u2019s intersubjectively-granted permission. Wouldn\u2019t that count as \u201cevidence\u201d? If not, what does the term refer to? If the higher-level models are just models, then you aren\u2019t granting them any impulse to behaving metaphysically, and you didn\u2019t need the extra term, no?</div><div><br></div><div>Eric</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/29/26 1:49 am, Jochen Fromm wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:202608290750.67T7oROJ043269@ame2.swcp.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
Hmmmh maybe you are right and there is some kind of subjectivity
paradox. As we grow older we become both more subjective and less
subjective. More subjective because our subjective 1st person view
becomes more unique, more specific and more singular. Less
subjective because we gain an additional objective view - Nagel's
objective 3rd person "view from nowhere". Should we name it Glen's
paradox of subjectivity?
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">-J.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div align="left" dir="auto" style="font-size: 100%;">
<div>-------- Original message --------</div>
<div>From: glen <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gepr@ropella.name"><gepr@ropella.name></a> </div>
<div>Date: 8/28/26 11:34 PM (GMT+01:00) </div>
<div>To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:friam@redfish.com">friam@redfish.com</a> </div>
<div>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum </div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
FWIW, there is a kind of "suck it up" that's less "macho" and
definitely not MAGA. I aspire to the old saying about not being
able to control what happens, only how you react to it. It's
amazing how the tables have turned on who gets labeled a
"snowflake". It's literally trivial for me to goad an outrageous
reaction from a MAGA type. But it's really really hard to get a
queer person to react in an uncontrolled way ... at least here in
Olympia. They're so tough. They've heard everything. Experienced a
lot of hate, often capricious. They're some of the toughest people
I've ever met. They put the stoicism bros to shame.<br>
<br>
While I agree that subjectivity is better understood as
multidimensional, I disagree *entirely* that a baby is all or
extremely subjective. Being largely against narrativity, I'd argue
that babies are more objective than any adult. They measure the
world and have a minimum of bias/narrative to pervert those
measurements [\u26e7]. Maybe "objective" is the wrong concept, though.
Maybe "empirical" is a better one.<br>
<br>
So I'd argue that babies->toddlers->...->grownup goes
from less to more subjective. Plop any adult next to me at the pub
and it's nearly impossible for me to avoid the attempt to find the
edges of their narrative, their self-told story, their
navel-gazing, masturbatory, subjectivity.<br>
<br>
[\u26e7] Now, to make such things consistent with superdeterminism and
reification of concepts like consent, we need some lessons from
plectics, the appearance of inscrutable detail from algorithmic
rules. There, we might say that babies are executing the crispiest
rules without the grit and crystallized grime that accumulates in
the machine as it executes over time ... like that hitch I get in
my elbow every time I lift something heavy after typing for hours
at a time.<br>
<br>
On 8/28/26 1:15 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:<br>
> Sure, I just mean in contrast to the loud, incoherent,
complaining man baby.<br>
> <br>
> *From: *Friam <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com"><friam-bounces@redfish.com></a> on behalf of
Jochen Fromm <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jofr@cas-group.net"><jofr@cas-group.net></a><br>
> *Date: *Friday, August 28, 2026 at 12:47\u202fPM<br>
> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam@redfish.com"><friam@redfish.com></a><br>
> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum<br>
> <br>
> 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.<br>
> <br>
> If I had to pick a fictional character then I would pick
Indiana Jones, not Jack Reacher. But that's of course subjective.<br>
> <br>
> -J.<br>
> <br>
> -------- Original message --------<br>
> <br>
> From: Marcus Daniels <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:marcus@snoutfarm.com"><marcus@snoutfarm.com></a><br>
> <br>
> Date: 8/28/26 9:04 PM (GMT+01:00)<br>
> <br>
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam@redfish.com"><friam@redfish.com></a><br>
> <br>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum<br>
> <br>
> 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?<br>
> <br>
> *From:*Friam <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com"><friam-bounces@redfish.com></a> *On Behalf Of
*Jochen Fromm<br>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 28, 2026 11:39 AM<br>
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam@redfish.com"><friam@redfish.com></a><br>
> *Subject:* [FRIAM] Subjectivity as a spectrum<br>
> <br>
> 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?<br>
> <br>
> 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.<br>
> <br>
> 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.<br>
> <br>
> 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.<br>
> <br>
> 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:<br>
> <br>
> Babies -> Toddlers -> Children -> Teenagers ->
Grownups<br>
> <br>
> 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.<br>
> <br>
> Narcissists/pyschopaths (subjectivity for bad purpose)
<-> Creative persons (subjectivity for good purpose)<br>
> <br>
> 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.<br>
> <br>
<br>
-- <br>
8647 \u22a5 \u0250\u05df\u05df\u01dddo\u0279 \u01dd u\u01dd\u05df\u0183<br>
\u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 oi \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c7\u03d1\u03c1\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ac\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f10\u03b3\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2,
\u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c3\u03ce\u03c3\u03c9.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,2q7xTeXD9tli_JAGTpE81zE_Te9f11XV9WypQZc_HF4-Utw5vngfbA4-qxDguKw_micwJDXUaSPed2-A-iLDV8pwfPwdcWnjWP7z9lPr4UoLrz4,&typo=1">https://bit.ly/virtualfriam</a>
to (un)subscribe <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,1j1DxREcMq1AfZgqly3OD1rCoGuGsThGvCz8R23QqP-ts-8AazSp1m05uSZFHvtYPOE66GLblO0HvbLiGqBfHjwrWcj-ttQaaYhbrumC3pPhEpW3Yw,,&typo=1">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a>
FRIAM-COMIC <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,JwB1beJI0-gdmHcUT-oKk23_9Pbgjgmc2Dt22KNmLZfKyXrzuZKVyP5ppps-89r8pYmjouC4b_KUwf6gfdCx7lmNYIrEsmalOm6Yta37568dfD21&typo=1">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a>
archives: 5/2017 thru present <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,5S9xvNXwuaUf9kUbwQSOp4YUdf9NnkqXo4fJdcXg4xAZs2T1V7DzzaKD8m_waonr33lB-UJ9Uyhh6ZQPqGFPjaTjJLxfZTyNDjLH19T_gw,,&typo=1">https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/</a>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/">http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..<br>FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,Uycgi4bbE_v07WCSOe1wO6Bb_F6oBTLA4aortTKTJgg4QcJcRZcJ6lNUBNFRVKDefe22jKZOI6oInjVMTzd5rIFY4WRYvTup2YV3eIcz6RgmQ2i4EQSWKA,,&typo=1<br>to (un)subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,1rEVi9QWlmb-8B97FTvZDGMKiNTf2IWLcvU3zOYSbX_ZiBAgSDZ1QbehbtNPRT2aH_UceXTEInNxNwC5m1_9iaoNDlYsNPsvMGFBs_s_pVeCA3K32NSwng,,&typo=1<br>FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,OLA0b49YmcKKU7shzbUelLOFUAjzARjMlQQOYlFRF2TYxf-6l9unlWdk8Lch-xK1YicxacotJBcCmjhic-rK2NwXbgzJ9_r5mxRbKZQWVQ,,&typo=1<br>archives: 5/2017 thru present https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,TUjTh4RXaZgN-H9yO1s9FCVHpvS0YXFN4bZRVGzBVxgFfDKS2q1l88SjGQX9bW7ZXVkpFtqFJ46uvqLohuSn04-4iHucSw908ACfATBcPmdN&typo=1<br> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/<br></blockquote></div><br></body></html>