[FRIAM] Poetry Slams vs biologic Percean Logic Machine Emulator

Tue Jan 12 21:30:22 EST 2021

Nick -

I suppose my "Pffft!" intended point is that "intention matters".   I
know we have argued about my use of the term "inform" in some contexts,
but do you insist that I *never* say or do something to "merely" inform
you, but rather all utterances/actons have a persuasive intent?    If I
look at my indoor/outdoor thermometer and tell you "it is 22F outside
right now" I might be doing it to convince you not to go outside without
a coat, or I might do it to persuade you that I am a data/scientific
oriented kinda guy, or I might do it because you indicated that you had
an interest even if I don't have much if any idea what your plan for
using that knowledge might be.  If it so happens your own plan was to go
outside and my telling you the thermometer reading persuaded you to wear
a coat, then you could claim I had "persuaded" you when in fact, the
most you could claim is that you "were persuaded by the data"?  

On the same token if you visited me and I asked you to tell me what you
thought my resident Raven's were going on about, you would tell me your
"story" about Raven communication and if I didn't believe some aspect of
it, you would be inclined to try to "persuade" me, but if I simply
insisted I "didn't understand" some point, I don't think you would try
to persuade me, you would more likely try to understand what aspect of
this I didn't understand and repeat or restate it to help me come in
alignment with your understanding.   Is this latter soem soft form of
persuasion?

I dunno, persuade me?  Pfffft!

- Steve

> Nah!  No, you are doubling down on the idea that some communication is
> not persuasive because it is to our emotions.  Remember.  I believe
> that all emotions are rational.  (Just based on low probability
> data.)    “Pfffft!” as Glen has taught me to say.  I love to say it. 
> “Pfffft!” “Pfffft!” “Pfffft!”
>
>  
>
> Nicholas Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>
> Clark University
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com <mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com>
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
> <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/>
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Steve Smith
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 12, 2021 1:53 PM
> *To:* friam at redfish.com
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Poetry Slams vs biologic Percean Logic Machine
> Emulator
>
>  
>
>
>
>     Colleagues;
>
>      
>
>     I want to recommend the dialogue below for all who read. 
>
>      
>
>     What is the probative value of a narrative?  What is the probative
>     value of a photo of demonstrator beating a policeman with a flag? 
>     Well, narrowly, if the narrative is accurate and the photo is not
>     faked, they prove that such a thing COULD happen, because, you can
>     plainly see, it has happened.  What IS the probative value of a
>     poem?  Nothing?  Then why are people sometimes convinced by them.
>
> Nick -
>
> I think you are doubling down on Glen's implication that a poem is
> intended to be persuasive ("convincing" in your term)?   While an apt
> poem (or joke, or song, ) offered with good timing can be persuasive
> in the context of an argument, it can also/instead be *illuminating*
> in the context of a generative dialog.
>
> I'm much more interested in a generative and synthetic dialog than in
> analytical and/or rhetorical one.   In your pursuit of publishable
> results from all our rattling on here, I understand the need/value of
> doing very careful analysis and then build a rhetorical
>
> EricS's recent invocation of the Albatross and Mariner images from
> Coleridge's "Rime of the Ancient Mariner" sent me back to that text
> which I chose to listen to, read to me (thank you Alexa) by a
> practiced reader.   I was primarily interested in Eric's revised
> analysis of Trump as Mariner/Democracy as Albatross and whatever
> embodied wisdom/perspective this "told story" had to offer.   I was
> drawn quickly to the image of "Rime" which I will leave the analysis
> to others here who might have dipped their beak (or earholes) into
> this bit of Coleridge.  I wasn't inclined to be persuaded by Eric to
> any particular moral judgement, just to add (if I didn't already have
> it) the offered allegory to my quiver of perspectives on this big mess
> we are trying to find our way out of (deeper into?)
>
> Not to miss the chance Nick, I *do* agree with you that the
> photos/clips of the insurrection/coup-attempt last week represent a
> "possibility by example" proof.  Context matters (hugely) (sad how
> traditional media AND internet media have normalized everything to be
> taken out of context?) and with modern mediocre (well edited by a
> clever human) and "deep" fakes, I'm rarely inclined to take any image,
> video or sound recording as an absolute objective fact, even if it
> doesn't carry any obvious (even to careful technical analysis)
> evidence of spoofing/construction.   But as with good fiction
> (storytelling), I don't have to believe that there were literally two
> naked modern humans named Adam and Eve in a Garden of Plenty who
> became the progenitors of all human kind to learn something useful
> from the story.
>
> This leads us full circle back to the question of what is "really
> real"?   And by correlation, can fictional narrative speak a
> qualitatively superior truth to factual narrative?   I'm not nearly
> PoMo literate enough to know if this has all been Derrida'ed and
> Foucault'ed thoroughly.    The competing narratives on the topic seem
> to be at an impasse, which I probably can't even characterize well.  
> Others may feel they are making headway in coming to a better
> understanding of the question, or perhaps each faction (is there more
> than 2?) are stuck in the (IMO fruitless) exercise of trying to
> persuade the other.   While I think I now recognize and appreciate
> Glen's use of the terms Strawman/Steelman,  they seem to reflect the
> idiom recently (re)Popularized by the Poet-Philosopher Rudi Guilliani
> with "Trial by Combat!".
>
> Joust on!
>
>  - Steve
>
> PS(ssst!)... my more-aggressive-than-usual style here is probably just
> me sublimating my frustration with not being positioned well to "break
> up the bar-fight" that is our national politics today.   I grant
> Marcus' strategy of "ducking out the back and let them kill one
> another" plenty merit when it is a "brawl" or another episode in a
> "gang war", but most bar/street fights I've been (even obliquely)
> aware of had an element of a bully and a victim, and I'm still proud
> of stepping between the two and facing down the bully while the
> (potential) victim gets a chance to collect themselves and either
> withdraw or wait for someone (bully's friends, bartender wielding a
> pool cue, or maybe the cops) to remove the bully from the equation. 
> If I miss my cue and turned my back to the real bully, I risk getting
> blindsided by the faux-victim and having possibly just made things
> worse. 
>
> The Capitol insurrection/coup-attempt was some many thousands of
> bullies trying to intimidate our elected representatives who had to
> first bully a few hundred capitol police to get access.   If I'd been
> on site (could anyone there have been truly an innocent bystander?)
> I'd have been more likely to throw myself on one of the grenades
> (metaphorical) than to "duck out the back"...  I understand why many
> would "duck out the back" to (not?) "fight another day".   I'm glad
> few if any of the Capitol Police chose that option, but then that was
> what they were (self?) selected (and paid) for.
>
>   Unsurprisingly, the Right (from hard-core Radical Extreme to more
> recentTrump-Radicalized) uses an obvious but still effective tactic
> that all bullies play from time to time which is pretending to be the
> victim:  "what are YOU looking at, huh?"  I really hope that those who
> are true (little c) conservatives can see how their crypto-cousin
> high-T, grievance-shouting radical-rabble are as dangerous to them and
> their idealized way of life (if not more) than their presumed
> complement of (little l) liberals.    </ramble>
>
>  
>
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> 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/20210112/4717b229/attachment.html>