[FRIAM] millenarianism

[Steve Smith]

Nick 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.
>
Glen has suggested variously that he doesn't believe in communication,
and that in humans "dialog is a form of social grooming" (I stand
prepared to be corrected for mis-apprehending/stating Glen's positions).

I'm inclined to agree with him somewhat, though I DO believe some of our
chatter is at least an *attempt to communicate*.   So is that *all* we
are doing when we blather away here?  Or perhaps just Bombastic
Careening (nod to Jon)?  Mental Masturbation?   Dominance Aggression? 
Random Neuromuscular Spasms?

Marcus has stated (or implied) something closer to anarchism as a
philosophy/politic (again, I'm prepared to be corrected).   I also value
that perspective...  like out free-marketing the free-marketers, or out
darwining the Darwinians.     I believe we are *very* selective as to
which rules to put in place and enforce, and it is that selectivity that
leads to many of our problems.   I have at least one friend who has a
very paradoxical/hypocritical? style of wanting to "pass laws against
passing stupid laws" and "punish extremely, those who wield extreme
authority".    We are in agreement on a LOT but there is a "cusp in his
manifold" on this one (nod to Frank...  I know there are no cusps in
manifolds...).


Blather,

 - Steve




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200606/6819b123/attachment.html>