[FRIAM] The danger of a single story

[uǝlƃ ☤>$]

I argued with Jon about whether such complementarity can be flattened to an enlarged universe using the Necker Cube. We (some of us) clearly have the ability to push ourselves into others shoes ... to pretend like we're them, swimming through the *same* milieu [⛧]. And we (some of us) clearly have the ability to pop ourselves out of others -- and perhaps our own -- shoes ... to pretend we're an objective/behaviorist Demon watching our subject swim through the milieu. I argued, like with the Necker cube, you can't do both at the same time. Jon questioned that ... implying disagreement.

But that's not my point, here. I think this setup might help us understand gate keeping like liberal vs woke. How much *easier* is it to put yourself in another's shoes if that other is within scope? I mean, let's face it, it's WAY easier for me to disagree with, say, Jon or SteveS than it is for me to disagree with Chimamanda or perhaps some hypothetical and nameless individual in Mexico. You can't disagree (or agree) with someone with whom you're not _familiar_. (a-gree -- adhere to the pleasing or ... adhere to the similarity) Any disagreement I might claim to have with, say, an anti-vaxxer Trumpist *must be* evidence that I've strawmanned the other, right?


[⛧] Chimamanda's story also allows distinctions between different milieus (?). I'm trying to keep it simple for this setup.

On 11/9/21 9:16 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Kind of explains how the left is prone to being wedged apart.  The liberal and the woke are relatively close, but the distances that matter are the ones within that type.   
> 
> Corollary is that familiarity breeds contempt. 

> On 11/9/21 8:56 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
>> The fact that such distance (euclidean as well as non-euclidean as well as network) is a heuristic for "otherness" seems very much implicit in life itself, most familiarly among visual creatures, less so for audio, and even less so for chemical (smell/taste) and least for tactile (if I am not touching it, it doesn't exist?).
>> 
>> Implicit in Chimamanda's single story about not-single-stories is that there are other dimensions to distance than the physical/kinshipLinguisticNetworks that "distance" us from one another (people, animals, geography and other life-forms).   I don't know what to do with this awareness exactly, but it seems to leaven or balance the *judgement* against those who appear myopic in their apprehension of the world.  It is somewhat about priorities.
>> 
>> In my rant/rave about emergent collective consciousness, the ability to apprehend "Other" at a "Distance" more better is an adaptive trait, yet we also cannot afford to let that overwhelm circumstances like "relevance" for which proximity is a mild proxy.   It is about dynamic (re)prioritization I suppose.
>> 



-- 
"Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie."
☤>$ uǝlƃ