[FRIAM] millenarianism

Steve Smith sasmyth at swcp.com
Sat Jun 6 23:41:20 EDT 2020


I'm guessing that some people would take "putting a price on it" as
removing guilt/shame and replacing it with a "transaction" which even if
calibrated to the offender's income is still a "rational transaction"
for many.

> I wonder what would happen if the penalty were based on the offender’s
> salary and paid directly to the provider.  So, let’s say the provider
> is earning 25 dollars an hour and the offender is earning 100 dollars
> an hour.  So, now the penalty for THAT offender is 100 dollars per
> hour, or fragment therof.  Would the offender still accept this
> penalty as a price of doing business? 
>
>  
>
> N
>
>  
>
> 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 *David Eric Smith
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 6, 2020 7:01 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] millenarianism
>
>  
>
> I don’t know if this embeds within Nick’s thread, but it is a lovely
> bookend to Marcus’s link:
>
>  
>
> https://econpapers.repec.org/article/ucpjlstud/v_3a29_3ay_3a2000_3ai_3a1_3ap_3a1-17.htm
>
>  
>
> Monetization of high-dimensional things, whether positive or negative,
> is a death knell.
>
>  
>
> Eric
>
>  
>
>
>
>     On Jun 7, 2020, at 5:00 AM, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com
>     <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>> wrote:
>
>      
>
>     It’s because we were ruined. 
>
>      
>
>     https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motivation.html
>
>      
>
>     *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com
>     <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> on behalf of
>     "thompnickson2 at gmail.com <mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com>"
>     <thompnickson2 at gmail.com <mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com>>
>     *Reply-To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>     <friam at redfish.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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/
>
>     - .... . -..-. . ...- --- .-.. ..- - .. --- -. -..-. .-- .. .-..
>     .-.. -..-. -... . -..-. .-.. .. ...- . -..-. ... - .-. . .- -- . -..
>     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/
>
>  
>
>
> - .... . -..-. . ...- --- .-.. ..- - .. --- -. -..-. .-- .. .-.. .-.. -..-. -... . -..-. .-.. .. ...- . -..-. ... - .-. . .- -- . -..
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  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/20200606/2ee8f5e5/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Friam mailing list