[FRIAM] millenarianism

[Marcus Daniels]

It’s because we were ruined.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motivation.html

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of "thompnickson2 at gmail.com" <thompnickson2 at gmail.com>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Date: Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 12:44 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] millenarianism

Well, as an ethologist, I should be the first at that barricade.  So thanks for reminding me.

Examining my own experience, I can only say that you are correct that there is direct pleasure in developing an argument, as “tactile” as the pleasure of forming Silly Putty into smooth balls or blowing bubbles with bubblegum.  But that pleasure is eliminated IMMEDIATELY and completely, if I imagine that nobody will ever read and understand what I wrote.  That’s a paradox, and one I don’t entirely understand.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com<mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com>
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/


From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2020 1:04 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] millenarianism

Nick,

I wonder if communicatory behavior is rewarding in its own right just as consummatory behavior is.

Meta:
I don't know if "communicatory" is a word.  But I wanted parallel with "consummatory".

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Sat, Jun 6, 2020, 12:54 PM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com<mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com>> wrote:
We may disagree.  I think that some spaces should be safe for some purposes. The question to be discussed, on a case by case basis, is, Are the functions of a space improved or diminished by making it “safe” in some specific way.   But there’s another point, here.  Assuming one is trying to convince others, not just mouthing off, when does aggressive rhetoric assist in changing minds.  And if one is NOT trying to change minds, why exactly are we talking?  That’s NOT a rhetorical question.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com<mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com>
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/


From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com<mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2020 12:01 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com<mailto:friam at redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] millenarianism

Nick writes:

< Surely there is SOME value, SOME times, in just trying to “get on”.   >

I don’t see why the absence of that is hostility, or even bad.   I do see situations in which individuals want latitude to have any remarks they make taken as valid and kind should be afforded the same discomfort they impose on others.   I certainly am not arguing for safe spaces.   Actual safe spaces are controlled by people that hold some power.    Tear down that power – prevent communities -- and discussions will be safe.

Marcus
- .... . -..-. . ...- --- .-.. ..- - .. --- -. -..-. .-- .. .-.. .-.. -..-. -... . -..-. .-.. .. ...- . -..-. ... - .-. . .- -- . -..
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam<http://bit.ly/virtualfriam>
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200606/1c403e0b/attachment.html>