[FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Prof David West]

Aww Nick,

Surely you jest: "Something about the category is real."

Real? 
Real, as in dualist metaphysics?
Or merely real in the sense that there is a group of humans willing to
behave in a manner consistent with a pretend belief that a labeled
category is real?
About a decade back there were ten states (Oregon's courts recently
struck down this kind of law, so I think Texas is the last remaining
state where this is true) that presenting yourself a "software engineer"
was a minor felony. This despite the fact that universities in those
states issued hundreds if not thousands of diplomas reading software
engineering. The activities typically associated with 'software
engineering', primary among them, programming, were being practiced for
nearly 20 years before the phrase"software engineering" was first
uttered. [[LEO I, first business computer, in 1951 - software
engineering first coined in 1968.]]
Transgender as a term, let alone a category, is, in the culture most of
the FRIAM list exist within, is less than fifty-years old. [The Sioux
had a term,"berdache," for men that dressed and behaved as women while
providing sexual services to men observing the 7-year post-partum sex
with spouse taboo. And there are hundreds of terms in other cultures not
afflicted with the need to disambiguate absolutely everything.]
Can you offer an example of a category where membership criteria is not
completely arbitrary and does not change over time? A category that is
not not constantly 're-defined' in light of new information? (I am
thinking here of biological categories like Linneaus's taxonomy of
categories replaced with DNA-based categories, being questioned and on
the verge of re-definition as we recognize how "muddled" DNA can be.)
Can a "category" ever be more than a "metaphor?"

When it comes to human beings; can categorization ever rise above being
an expression of differentiation between thee and me? It seems to me
that categorization is, mostly, little more than a disguised expression
of xenophobia.
davew




On Wed, Jan 9, 2019, at 8:50 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Nick writes:


>  


> < Ok, Marcus, I am standing my ground as a realist here: ():-[) >


>  


> There you go trying to claim semantics for terms in a public
> dictionary again.   (That’s an example of taking ground, like in my Go
> example.)    Doing so constrains what can even be *said*.   It puts
> the skeptic in the position of having to deconstruct every single
> term, and thus be a called terms like  smartass[1] when they force the
> terms to be used in other contexts where the definition doesn’t work.
> A culture itself is laden with thousands of de-facto definitions that
> steer meaning back to conventional (e.g. racist and sexist)
> expectations.   To even to begin to question these expectations
> requires having some power base, or safe space, to work from.>  


> In this case, you assert that some discussants are software engineers
> and that distinguishes them from your category.  A discussant of that
> (accused / implied) type says he is not a member of that set and that
> it is not even a credible set.  Another discussant says the activity
> of such a group is a skill and if someone lacks it, they could just as
> well gain it while having other co-equal skills too.   So there is
> already reason to doubt the categorization you are suggesting.>  


> < You cannot be against categories because you cannot TALK without
> categories.  “person” and “dog” are categories. Yes, the thought they
> call up in me is inevitably wrong in some respect.  I see you with
> Korgies, but they are actually Irish Wolf Hounds.  You cannot bake a
> sentence without breaking some categories, yet the categories endure.
> Something about the category is real.  >>  


> Are you claiming that the concept of membership in particular
> biological species is a subjective concept?   That I am hijacking the
> meaning of a person or a dog?  Really?>  


> < So, if you are not against categorization, per se, and since all
> categories do violence of one sort or another, you must be against
> categories that do more violence than they do good.  So, when I called
> you a gazelle, what violence did I do?  Would I have done better to
> call you a Wildebeest?  Would I be more or less disappointed in my
> expectations had I called you a Springbok?  >>  


> For example, it would be better to call the young person in this story
> a girl.   That requires having the cognitive flexibility to recognize
> that some terms are dynamic or at least a matter of debate.>  


> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/opinion/trans-teen-transition.html>  


> Marcus


> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


Links:

  1. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kellyanne-conway-embarrasses-cnns-jim-acosta-during-heated-exchange
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20190109/955fd103/attachment.html>