Thursday, April 21, 2022

Romanticism & Resentment: Great for art! Terrible for running a civilization

My romantic soul agrees with this vivid howl! (From Robert A. Heinlein's Glory Road.) 


How vivid, and don't we all... at least in part... agree?


And yet, this plaint by a Heinlein character -- a scarred Vietnam vet and sci fi fan -- also exemplifies the lethal Problem of Romanticism, in which arty emotionalism gets all the mighty propaganda! Propaganda just like Heinlein's passage (though seldom as eloquent.) 


Let me put it as a bald assertion. Romanticism may be one of the most-central aspects of being human... and not always for the better.


From the Punic Wars all the way to modern Hollywood flicks, romanticism has spent centuries propelling rage and demonization in all parties, in all human conflicts, making calm negotiation next to impossible. (Admit it. Some of your own passion is about “MY kind of people are virtuous and those opposing my kind are inherently and by type morally deficient!”)


Oh, let's also admit from the start how addicting righteousness can be! Yes, it must have been reinforced during evolution because of the passion and forcefulness it supplies, during the struggles each generation faced, across the last half a million years. So reinforced that it can be hard even to notice.


== NOT a good basis for policy, in a complex world ==


Emerging from the voluptuous high of romanticism is hard, but not quite impossible, as we’ve shown during the last 200 years of gradually augmenting… maturity.


In fact, as one who lost nearly all of his cousin family lines to one of the most romantic of all vile movements, let me thank God that the romantic soul is having its hands peeled off of policy at long last, after 10,000 years of wretched fear-drenched rage, in which every generation's tribes called their rivals subhuman, deserving only death, like the Tharks of Mars, Tolkien's orcs, the Trojans that Achilles slew in heaps...


...or the Black folks who Confederate romantics enslaved as sub-human and Jews slaughtered in millions by romantics playing Wagner...


...and successively masses of robots... then clones... then masked storm troopers who George Lucas mowed down to our delight since, naturally, none of their kind had mothers to mourn them?


== We need romanticism, at our core! Only... ==


Here's a pretty basic question.  Look at Heinlein's list of great adventures his character longed for. Now tell us which of them  would be even a scintilla as good a place to raise a family as this tawdry, fouled up mess of a world he was complaining about.  Oh, it's tawdry and messed up, all right. But largely by the ways it has failed to move away from the kinds of brutal, even sadistic adventure-zones that were rampant both in fiction and across nearly all of human history. 


But there are equally many ways that we have started leaving all of that behind!  And your long, comfortable lives, free of most anguish, pain and death while staring at the flat screens of these palantir miracle devices, kind of suggest our change of path was the right course.


At long last we are giving policy over to the part of us that does fair argument and science and the freedom of even despised minorities to speak and demand we LOOK at them with compassion and respect!


That transformation is not complete - by far - and it may yet fail! But we are close - so close - to exiling 'romance’ from daylight activities of fact-based policy, sending that part of us instead over to the realm where it belongs. NOT the daylight hours of invention, argument and negotiated progress... 


...but to the campfire hours of moonlight and stars dancing overhead - or the couch or movie theater or pulpy novel - when... YES!... we can unleash that wild, romantic spirit. Those hours when we still need to bay at Luna or Barsoom, to relish garish adventures and quests against dragons...


...or to scan a million black squiggles on pressed vegetable pages, or glowing from a kindled screen, and let those incantations draw us into the voluptuous, subjective roar of which Heinlein speaks!


I make such incantations! I craft good ones. (You'll enjoy them!) 


But no. 


That side of us should never again be given the tiller of nations or policy. (As crazy people at all political wings are right now demanding that we do!) 


The daytime halls of policy and science and truth-seeking and negotiation... and yes, even revising even our most passionate biases - that's when and where we must (it is long past time) at last grow up.


== Recovery from authoritarian regimes ==


Here's an amazingly cogent and well-parsed theory for how authoritarian regimes often transition to democracy after a long reign by an autocrat who is both repressive and good at effective rulership and development. It reminds me of Asimov’s ‘psychohistory’ riff on strong vs. weak emperors vs. strong vs. weak generals. In fact, this article strikes me as a much more cogent psychohistorical contribution than any of the recently popular “historical cycles” bilge that’s been going around. Income, Democracy, and Leader Turnover, by Daniel Treisman


“Abstract:  While some believe that economic development prompts democratization, others contend that both result from distant historical causes. Using the most comprehensive estimates of national income available, I show that development is associated with more democratic government—but mostly in the medium run (10 to 20 years). This is because higher income tends to induce breakthroughs to more democratic politics only after an incumbent dictator leaves office. And in the short run, faster economic growth increases the ruler's survival odds. Leader turnover appears to matter because of selection: In authoritarian states, reformist leaders tend to either democratize or lose power relatively quickly, so long-serving leaders are rarely reformers. Autocrats also become less activist after their first year in office. This logic helps explain why dictators, concerned only to prolong their rule, often inadvertently prepare their countries for jumps to democracy after they leave the scene.”


Certainly Singapore and South Korea followed this model. Did Pinochet? Iran’s Shah is hard to fit here, except to put him in the category of “less strong than he thought he was.” So. Can we hope this will be legacy of some of today’s world strongmen?


And finally... 


I may have linked to this before. Here's Mark Twain blaming Sir Walter Scott's romanticism for the Civil War


"Then comes Sir Walter Scott with his enchantments, and by his single might checks this wave of progress, and even turns it back; sets the world in love with dreams and phantoms; with decayed and swinish forms of religion; with decayed and degraded systems of government; with the silliness and emptinesses, sham grandeurs, sham gauds, and sham chivalries of a brainless and worthless long-vanished society."


I knew I liked the fellow who crafted Huckleberry Finn, one of the finest and most noble of all fictional rascals.

184 comments:

Larry Hart said...

Ok, I just missed the "onward" last post, so I'm re-posting one of the most hilarious "Onion" articles I've seen in some time. Jesus converts to Islam:

https://www.theonion.com/christ-converts-to-islam-1819565131

...
In perhaps the oddest development, the Jews For Jesus organization announced Monday that it has split into three separate groups: Jews Still For Jesus, Jews For Allah, and Jews For Just Being Jews Again.
...

DP said...

So why are there so many chemical facilities burning down in Russia? A massive warehouse stuffed with $20 million dollars worth of Russian army gear and weapons? Oligarchs murdered with their families?

Coincidence?

False flag operation Putin can blame on Ukrainians.

An actual rebel underground in Russia?

Higher ups burning down evidence of theft and corruption?

Jon S. said...

If the fires were a false flag, one would have thought Russian media would have jumped to the "enemy sabotage" story immediately, rather than starting by blaming the wiring. (Incidentally, it wouldn't surprise me if the actual cause were the wiring, given how well maintenance of everything else seems to have gone over the past decade or two.)

As for the oligarchs and their families, one notes that the dead so far seem to have been oligarchs who did not support Putin, aside from one that may have been an actual suicide. The ones where the family died as well could well have been cases of Putin's regime cleaning up potential threats (there had been rumors that the moneyed oil interests in Russia were moving against him).

gerold said...

DP: the incidents you cite could indeed be signs of discontent with Putin. Certainly his poor decisions have put Russia on course for lean years ahead, not to mention a lot of empty seats around the dinner table where a son or brother should be sitting. There must be plenty of Russians thinking about how to bump him off.

Could the removal of Putin lead to a Russian Renaissance? Many observers fear he could be replaced by someone even worse; Igor Girkin for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Girkin
If you're not familiar with this animal it's worth checking him out. He's more violent and aggressively nationalistic than Putin, and he has considerable license to argue that Putin isn't being aggressive enough. He criticizes the Czar with apparent impunity, which seems puzzling when you read his interviews.

But per David's discussion of how the apparently ironclad grip of an autocrat can also produce a sudden phase transition to democracy (see Franco and the Chiang dynasty in Taiwan) it's conceivable that someone like Navalny could be the next president of Russia. A move like that could be the fastest way to end sanctions and even produce a sort of Marshall Plan for Russia. Let's not rule it out.

gerold said...

Getting back to a topic from previous blogs: the apparent paradox of life seemingly violating the 2nd Law might actually be true. Consider the case of a planetary system like earth. Draw a control volume around the planet. We have high-availability energy flowing in from the sun and lower availability IR radiation balancing the energy flows dumped to space.

There is also the geothermal heat of course; about 1% of the solar power. The 1st Law requires that any mismatch between energy in and energy out result in a change in internal energy; the planet has to heat up or cool down to keep everything balanced.

There are about 20 IR photons radiated to space for every visible photon intercepted from the sun. Energy balances but entropy does not. The entropy of those IR photons exceeds the entropy of the visible photons coming in.

Whether life exists or not, the energy balance stays the same. But the evolution of life produces an increased complexity on the planet. All of those dna molecules selfishly replicating generation after generation become increasingly complex, as do the body plans of the replication machines they grow. It's been suggested that the human brain is the most complex structure in the known universe; I don't know how to measure that but it does seem plausible.

However we measure the complexity of life - probably using an information theory metric - it changes the entropy balance from what a lifeless planet would have. The 1st Law still has to be obeyed, but the total entropy beamed out to space is decreased. We can see this by using the same equations used to describe heat engines. Any work produced by a heat engine decreases the amount of entropy produced by flowing from a high temperature source to the low temperature sink. Evolving dna molecules is a kind of work; we can imagine a Drexler-type nanotech machine assembling complex molecules, which is a form of work, but life accomplishes the same thing by natural selection and replicator machines (life).

If we look at a big-picture history of the universe all of these stars, galaxies and planets pumping entropy out into space are simultaneously building complexity, and not just on planets like ours. They are also doing things like populating the periodic table. We started out with a very simple one: a lot of H, a little He, and a smattering of Li. Now we have the full set, enabling the next level of complexity to evolve. Seems like there should be some kind on conservation law there.

Larry Hart said...

gerold:

He's more violent and aggressively nationalistic than Putin, and he has considerable license to argue that Putin isn't being aggressive enough. He criticizes the Czar with apparent impunity, which seems puzzling when you read his interviews.


I'm not familiar with Girkin, but I wonder if the same dynamic is at work in Russia that is here in the US--that it is socially acceptable to criticize America for being too liberal whereas criticizing America for being too right-wing gets you labeled an enemy.

reason said...

Maybe I tick differently - but this:
"But we are close - so close - to exiling 'romance’ from daylight activities of fact-based policy, sending that part of us instead over to the realm where it belongs." - the realm I think of is SPORT.

Nicolas Hornby Fever Pitch talks at length about how to let the passion out at the weekend in a meaningless obsession.

reason said...

Larry Hart - Gerold, I think I read somewhere that Putin allows such people to talk openly to make himself seem like the moderate to keep his popularity up.

Unknown said...

I'm not sure where I read this first:

Adventure = someone a long way off having a hard time.

Pappenheimer, driving by

John R. Christiansen said...

This is specifically something I've been thinking about (e.g. in the middle of last night when I couldn't sleep) and may write about: American mythology is really pretty crappy these days. It's all Heros, Villains and Civilians.

Civilians have no agency but must be Saved from the Villains by the Hero as they can't manage that for themselves. Villains are a threat to Civilians but it's never really clear why, or more to the point "why" doesn't matter, which is the reason Heath Ledger's Joker was peak Villain. But Heros exist only by reference and reaction to Villains; if they're not fighting the Villain they don't have a reason for being. Nor are Civilians generally much help to, or needed by, Heros, unless the story is about a special Civilian attaining Hero status.

Once the Villain has been defeated the Hero doesn't use his powers to *improve* Civilians' lives; Batman goes back to his Batcave and Superman to his Fortress of Solitude, and the Civilians fade into the background, until the next episode and next Villain. The Randian mythos is interesting in this sense - though in so many others it is deadly dull - because the Civilians are themselves the Villains, and the Hero must save *himself* from them. I don't remember what, exactly, happened to Gandalf but Frodo, a Civilian having attained minor Hero status, doesn't seem to have done anything useful for the Shire, nor would that be an Interesting story. Etc.

No wonder Kyle Rittenhouse and George Zimmerman saw themselves, and have been seen by many, as justified in killing people: They were Heros of their own mythos, and adopted as such by others sharing it. The mythological overlay makes it rather hard (ahem) to bring out any policy or mature moral lessons from their cases. It seems like a great many of our fellow citizens want to be, or at least identify with, Heros so that they aren't just Civilians, and so they need Villains.

Personally I'm a crankly old Civilian who doesn't mind and would much rather the Heros go fight their Villains somewhere else and leave the rest of us to go on, I don't know, addressing boring Civilian topics like responding to climate change and energy issues, trying to improve Civilian standards of living, creating effective responses to pandemics and epidemics, avoiding and mitigating the effects of war, and such like. I know it's much more exciting to live in a mythos in which one does Noble Battle with Pure Evil, but if too many infuential people take that on as their life work it tends to end up with an unpleasant place to live and a lot of dead bodies.

Paradoctor said...

The thing about Poictesme is that James Branch Cabell wrote it as a parody of Romanticism. His heroic knights win to the fairy princess, and _that's_ when their troubles begin. In "Jurgen", the title character is offered the most beautiful women of legend, by Koschei, god of Realism; Jurgen instead wishes for his shrewish wife back, because he's used to her, and besides those legendary women are clearly not well suited to marriage.

David Brin said...

Okay I'm on record imputing that western agencies, unleashed by our retaking the WHite House from a Kremlin agent, may have been retaliating for KGB acts of war, since very early in the Biden Admin.

But these fires are a whole new level and may be Ukraine's doing, not ours.

I'm traveling. Hope the comments go through.

Persevere!

Don Gisselbeck said...

I continue to marvel at the society that makes it possible for old guys like me to travel long distances in ease at comfort (often to the accompaniment of large orchestras) to do things that would be considered brutal and sadistic if we were forced to do them. Sitting on a cliff overlooking the Grinnell Glacier after skiing icy suncups is quite romantic.🤣

Larry Hart said...

John R. Christiansen:

American mythology is really pretty crappy these days. It's all Heros, Villains and Civilians.


As an old comic book fan, I have to say you might be focusing too narrowly. I've belatedly become an admirer of the Marvel Studios movies, but the glimpses I've seen of the DC movies don't interest me. Those seem more in line with what you're describing. Marvel at least had the Black Panther interested in improving everyday lives. And Captain America has always been about that, whether in WWII or in the modern day.

And of course, Marvel's villain Thanos thought he was helping civilians. At least half of them.

While I do take your point, I don't think it applies across the board. In fact, the stories that most closely hew to your line are the ones I am least interested in.


But Heros exist only by reference and reaction to Villains; if they're not fighting the Villain they don't have a reason for being.


They don't generally start out that way. Superman originally saved people from natural disasters and corrupt politicians. Batman fought street level crime. Once in a while, it became kind of "cool" to have an opponent who also had powers, just to make the fight really interesting.

What I think you're noticing is that the writers of superhero comics seem to need supervillains in order to come up with a plot. That's a failing of the writers, not of the heroes.


Personally I'm a crankly old Civilian who doesn't mind and would much rather the Heros go fight their Villains somewhere else and leave the rest of us to go on, I don't know, addressing boring Civilian topics like responding to climate change and energy issues, trying to improve Civilian standards of living, creating effective responses to pandemics and epidemics, avoiding and mitigating the effects of war, and such like.


That's kind of where I've been going with my summer daydream that The Rapture actually occurs in the way that the religious right believes it will, taking all of them up and leaving the rest of us to our lives. I don't even mean them any harm when I say that. I see it as a win-win, giving everyone involved what they want.

locumranch said...

As an inditement of Romanticism & Feudalism, Heinlein's 'Glory Road' is a dubious choice, as it tells the tale of a disillusioned veteran who sets off on a multi-dimensional quest that requires chivalry, feudal servitude, the validation of royalty, the anti-climatic murder of a scarecrow & sex with underage girls.

To invoke Mark Twain's condemnation of the Romanticism of Sir Walter Scott and, by extension, the entire US Confederacy is perhaps even more inappropriate, especially when the Modern West currently insists on an equally ridiculous Knight Errant narrative about a corrupt Ukrainian kleptocracy that fights valiantly against the equally irredeemable forces of Putin's Mordor.

That our fine host then offers up his own partisan 'long prayer', all while forgetting that Mark Twain was equally contemptuous of the Union's own enlightened, equally romantic & imperial pretensions, it was a mere oversight, I'm sure.


Then came the “long” prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate pleading and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its supplication was, that an ever-merciful and benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers, and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic work….

[An aged stranger enters, takes the preacher's place and speaks the word of God]

“You have heard your servant’s prayer — the uttered part of it. I am commissioned of God to put into words the other part of it — that part which the pastor — and also you in your hearts — fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard these words: ‘Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!’ … When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow victory–must follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!

“O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle — be Thou near them! With them — in spirit — we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it — for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen

Mark Twain, 'The War Prayer'



Best
____

@Alfred: It is the essence of courage -- and, in no way humiliating -- to persevere & fight on when one cannot win, whereas it is incredibly appalling -- and, in no way 'enlightened' -- to surrender & submit when all appears lost. I persevere. You might try it.

scidata said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
scidata said...

Ukraine is a crossroads of history. These Napoleans and Czars trying to build/rebuild empires over the last two centuries are quite silly really. 70 centuries ago this was the Proto-Indo-European wellspring. If I had a TARDIS, it's one of the first places I'd visit. I'd sit in the centre of town, have a drink, and listen to the local banter, trying to identify roots. Great fun.

Humans are such wonderful, magical, precious creatures. Tribal hatred must pass into dust so we can become worthy of the stars.

Alfred Differ said...

locumranch,

It is the essence of courage -- and, in no way humiliating -- to persevere & fight on when one cannot win, whereas it is incredibly appalling -- and, in no way 'enlightened' -- to surrender & submit when all appears lost.

No. You are in error.

Courage is a classic and ancient virtue, but like all of them it is one that requires moderation. Too little of it and one is deemed a coward. Too much and we know a fool.

All the virtues work this way and we often use fictional characters to make the point. Consider Ebenezer Scrooge. Every Christmas season for a few generations now, he is portrayed as the exemplar of too much Prudence. The point for the story is a simple one. Go to excess in one virtue and you'll come up short on the others. Thus, a virtuous person balances them as best they can knowing perfection isn't possible and should not even be desired.

——

If you know the fight cannot be won, live to fight some other fight tomorrow. Taking a stand is acceptable, but only if you live to fight again.

Why? Because Justice demands it. Justice is one of the other virtues and relates what is reasonably expected of us and what we can reasonably expect of others. Dying in a battle that cannot be won is too much like suicide and many of us have expectations of you demanding otherwise.

You may reasonably disagree with my description of courage, though. Truth is we don't define it today the way the Greeks did. The definition shifted in the 16th and 17th centuries among the Dutch and the slightly different version spread along with the ideas that led to the Great Enrichment.

The old definition required combat. Courage was not shown any other way. The modern definition does not, but the aspects of it that require ones actions be seen by others are still mostly intact. Some of us are loose and talk of personal (unseen by others) courage, but that is a different thing likely closer to "faith".

I persevere. You might try it.

Ha ha! No. I think you a fool.

I feel much the same about a number of libertarians I know who would agree strongly with you.

dwibdwib said...

Putin’s war in Ukraine seems rooted in a romantic desire for the CCCP.

Jon S. said...

"Once the Villain has been defeated the Hero doesn't use his powers to *improve* Civilians' lives; Batman goes back to his Batcave and Superman to his Fortress of Solitude, and the Civilians fade into the background, until the next episode and next Villain."

This holds true for the movies, mostly because of the limitations of movie runtime, but not the comics. Batman returns to his cave, to be sure; but Bruce Wayne then emerges to direct the Wayne Foundation. No resident of Gotham ever needs to pay for higher education or medical care of any sort, thanks to the Foundation's contributions. (There's a strong issue with corrupt police, dating back to the days before the Wayne Foundation became the force for benevolence it is now, when various organized criminal gangs ran the city.)

Superman only goes to his Fortress when he needs time to recover (super-senses can be a severe liability, as any autistic can tell you). Usually when he's not wearing the blue tights, he's crack investigative reporter Clark Kent, working alongside his wife Lois Lane to uncover the sort of bad guys that Superman isn't really appropriate to fight. (Lois has more awards, including two Pulitzers, because she has more time for reporting than Clark does.)

Tony Stark is an arrogant, borderline-narcissistic recovering alcoholic with more issues than a print run of The Avengers, but he's also a generous philanthropist who has given Earth-616 plentiful clean power and who works to clean up New York (with the guidance of Daredevil, who knows more about the city's less-pleasant areas and what the people will accept there than Tony does). He also tries to make sure that Reed Richards doesn't give away technology that's more dangerous than useful - yes to clothing made from "unstable molecules", for instance, but no to some of Reed's AIs.

Basically, in the comics they can give more attention to things the Hero does when he's not being the Hero, because you've got twelve issues a year plus mentions in other titles to cover them while a movie has to be done in less than three hours (two, ideally). Leads to a lot of compression in the movie version.

db said...

in the 1st 4 spiderman flicks, there was always a scene in which New Yorkers stepped up to save Spiderman.
- u know who, on the road

Pappenheimer said...

Larry...

I'll be waiting for Jews for Jupiter.

In the Marvel movie The Avengers, while aliens are invading NYC, just offscreen are the bodies of NYPD cops and National Guard soldiers - the ones holding the perimeter - who must have done their job and died at their posts, because there WAS a perimeter.

They don't get much screen time, though.

Pappenheimer

gerold said...

John R: I see the hero/villain/civilian dynamic a little differently. Every time a civilian is portrayed as a passive or cowardly non-entity that is a rebuke to passivity and cowardice. A reminder to the viewers that any of us can suddenly find ourselves in a situation where we have the opportunity to be a hero. Some - I suspect most - will step up in such a situation. Our stories prepare us for it.

They also tell us that being a hero can be very unpleasant. There are good reasons to avoid it. Old soldiers will tell you one of the cardinal rules: never volunteer for anything. It's a good way to get yourself killed. But when a kid falls into a river there's always someone diving in to try a rescue.

gerold said...

D. Brin was referring to these fires:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/russian-chemical-plant-burns-down-hours-after-deadly-fire-at-military-facility

Maybe they are the work of undercover agents or Ukrainian saboteurs, but I suspect Russians who would have liked to protest the war but had to find other ways of expressing their disapproval. That chemical plant in particular is a vital cog in a highly centralized Soviet-style production chain. Destroying it could result in an interruption of military supply.

Russia has blamed a previous fire on "faulty wiring," much like their excuse for the sinking of the Moscva. As hard as it was to admit that Ukraine sunk their battleship, it's even more troubling to have Russian citizens monkeywrenching the war effort.

gerold said...

scidata: completely agree about Ukraine. This trial by fire will forge their national identity, and I hope they embrace their Scythian origin.

Herodotus provided a wonderful anthropological survey of Scythian culture ca. 400 BC. Highly recommended.

Alfred Differ said...

In the first MCU Avengers, I don't see the NYPD and National Guard as 'civilians'. To me they were going for the obvious trick many Americans like. We think our police ARE heroes. *

Cap just provided some improvised leadership to cut through the early fog faced by any group. That makes him a hero leader which is expected from anyone who knows the character.


Screenplays pretty much demand a 2 hour format and a predictable beginning/middle/end to all stories. They have to be told in a manner that doesn't confuse the viewers much... so they wrap up. the MCU trick for adding teaser/epilogs after the credits are rolling is a nod to the format difference between movies and the original comics.


* Well... some of us do.

Tony Fisk said...

Autocrats triggering democratisation: this does seem to be happening in Australia, where the two party state (both effectively captured by the fossil fuel oligarchy of Rinehart and co. courtesy of dear old Rupert) is now being challenged by the 'voices' movement for independent community candidates. Four weeks out from election day, and many of them look seriously close to causing an upset. Watch this space...

From some of the comments on the Russian news media, they appear to make Fox look like a bastion of light and reason (and demonstrate that Fox is nowhere near the bottom of the moral void) As John Sweeney puts it: there are good people in Russia, but they are either in prison, shot, poisoned, or defenestrated.

It has been a pious hope to think this immorality is limited to a few (and I still do hope it's the minority), but the overall behaviour of the Russian Army to date is best described as 'depraved'. Targetting civilians and infrastructure over military targets. Openly threatening famine. The Ukrainians now refer to them as 'orcs', with very good reason.

This mutual abhorrence between two groups of very similar people suggests that the 'uncanny valley' may be a function of how wide or narrow their horizons of inclusion are: it looks as if Russian society is becoming so conservative and insular that anything non-Russian is 'other', while anything pseudo-Russian is 'doppelganger'.

Bystander said...

locumranch vs Alfred Differ

Loco maybe right, if only there is NO reason (in a meaning of cause) needed, for that courage. No actual achievments gained from that fight. Today or in any far-far-away future.
EXAMPLES: pretty much every of Darwin's Prize "achievers".

Alfy maybe right, if only there IS reason (in a meaning of rationality), for that courage to be not needed. As people would stay calm and would listen. So that reason alone, without courage needed, would prevail.
EXAMPLE: as in case of that doctor, Zemelvize, who gone dead in a fight against "common sence and professioanlism" -- stubborn idea that there is no need to wash one's hands before dealing with woman giving birth -- which results in "childbirth fever" and swift death.

One Evil Ukrainian) said...

.


Blogger locumranch said...
Modern West currently insists on an equally ridiculous Knight Errant narrative about a corrupt Ukrainian kleptocracy that fights valiantly against the equally irredeemable forces of Putin's Mordor.

So... wouldn't you find some courage, to show yourself at some place here in Ukraine, where there is a chance to recieve a bomb/shell on your head, can you? (calmly, but eagerly)
Or what, are you a chicken? :))



Blogger Tony Fisk said...
The Ukrainians now refer to them as 'orcs', with very good reason.This mutual abhorrence between two groups of very similar people

That is not Ukrainians. They self-referencing as it. By taking as a bravery before "elfic" West, to be barbaric but yet brave Mordorians.



Blogger gerold said...
scidata: completely agree about Ukraine. This trial by fire will forge their national identity, and I hope they embrace their Scythian origin.

That is exactly romantical bullshit.
There was SO many influations from that ancient times, so there is practically no trace of that "Scythian origin". Even Soviet Union, mean Stalin's efforts of "unite em all" through deportations, dissoluting ethnicity and tryes to make "one soviet nation" pretty much loses its grip as point of origin, which upsets Put-in so dismally.

Our current point of origin -- it's 1991 when we claimed Independance, it's 2004 when we proved our Democracy, it's 2014 when we guarded our Dignity, and it's NOW!

Der Oger said...

Another deciding moment of our age will be tomorrows French presidential election. It could mean doom or victory not only for the Ukraine, but also for NATO and the EU. In the polls, Macron leads, even by 10 points in some, but this whole affair could mirror the US 2016 election. Le Pen is, in many ways, a much more competent Trump. And Macron has made the same errors as Hillary Clinton did; I wonder if the French left supports him, Le Pen, or stays at home.
For those who don't now or bother to research: Le Pen has received substantial funding by the Kremlin.

In Germany, there are both good and bad news. On the economical side, at the current pace, we are out of Russian coal in summer, oil in Winter, and gas probably next summer. That is the current projection. Conservatives seem to loose their ground in opposing renewables.

The bad news are that the chancellor seems to stall support for the Ukraine with what I only could call pretenses, such as "Too much support for Ukraine will lead to WW III", "We just don't have it", "The Stuff is of no use because they must be trained to properly operate them" etc.

The dividing lines between "bellicist" and "lumpenpacifistic"* camps are: Greens, Libertarians vs. social democratic leadership, the far left, and the far right, which dissidents in the conservative party (many) and the social democrats (some). Maybe, the government coalition might break up in the near future.

Yes. The Greens, who originally where founded by the anti-Nato peace movement of the early 80s now are the leaders of the "bellicist" camp, supported by the generals who actually served in the field. And one of the current speakers of the camp opposed to arms deliveries and stoking fears of WWIII is Brigadier General (ret.) Erich Vad, a hard right leaning former counselor of Angela Merkel (who got his golden star and an unknown number of silvery ones before not due to competence and service, but to his CDU party membership.) He directly compared the atrocities of the Iraq war with those committed in Ukraine, and that "would be how modern wars would be waged".

Strange times, we live in.

*Lumpenpacifism: To promote peace at all costs, even in denying victims of aggression support, out of secondary reasons, like fear of loosing one's life standard, imposing your own moral code on "lesser civilized" people, racism, antisemitism, or admitting that your responsibility for mistakes in past foreign policies. Termed by Blogger Sascha Lobo, here is a translation of the original post.

I am inclined to support that view. I am very disappointed on my government, except for the work the Greens have delivered in the past few weeks.

Larry Hart said...

@Dr Brin,

We tested negative after Passover, so assuming MENSA lets us in the front door, my wife and I will see you tonight.

* * *

Alfred Differ:

You may reasonably disagree with my description of courage, though. Truth is we don't define it today the way the Greeks did. The definition shifted in the 16th and 17th centuries among the Dutch and the slightly different version spread along with the ideas that led to the Great Enrichment.


The way most lay people talk about courage, it involves having the will to do the right thing (however that is defined) despite intense pressure not to. For example, professing your religion in the face of Nazi-level persecution. Or intervening in a robbery despite the threat of violence.

I've also heard some deplorable people pervert the term to mean a different thing, in fact the opposite thing. They talk about having the "courage" to do the wrong thing despite social conventions and even actual laws dictating the opposite. Like those who support Putin having the "courage" to initiate a war against a smaller country in contravention of civilized norms and international disapproval. I can sorta see the metaphorical relationship to the term "courage", having the will to maintain a course despite personal expense, but it seems to me that the issue of morality somehow comes into play as well. I can't fully express what I'm saying here, but I can't countenance calling the will to do evil the same thing as "courage".

@Alfred, anything to add on the subject? :)


Larry Hart said...

Re-reading what I wrote above, I get that there can be legitimate disagreement over which actions are "good" and "evil".

I guess what I'm getting at is that, to me anyway, courage involves exhibiting the will to perform some good despite risk or expense to one's own self-interest.

Whereas the corrupted version of the term "courage" seeks to apply it to exhibiting the will to act in one's own self-interest, despite the risk of being called out for inflicting the costs of your bad behavior on others.

Larry Hart said...

BTW, the aforementioned 2019 sequel to Watchmen is an example of a superhero story in which, if anything, the civilians are the ones who save the day, while the only actual superhero in the story can barely help himself.

I just watched it for the fourth time, and I absolutely love it from the perspective of a writer. The tight construction of the convoluted plotline is as good as that of the original graphics novel--something I didn't think was possible.

Larry Hart said...

Just saw Dr Brin speak in the Chicago suburbs. Nice to finally meet him in person.

GMT -5 8032 said...

"Let me put it as a bald assertion. Romanticism may be one of the most-central aspects of being human... and not always for the better."

I agree. Would you agree that the desire for drama, adventure and excitement is part of this romanticism?

Live is exciting and dramatic enough as it is; I do not crave any more in my life. "Boring" is good. A boring life gives me time to spend with my family and my friends. A boring life let's me enjoy an afternoon sitting outside in the shade on a pleasant day reading a good book.

The last week was plenty exciting for me. First, I was working for Turbotax as a Lead expert. I was up till 4:00 am EST (midnight PST) on April 19 helping the rest of the team. The rest of Tuesday was another full day of work.

Wednesday morning...well, more excitement. I ended up in the emergency room with a kidney stone. They say renal colic is the most painful experience a human can have. I thought the pain was 10 on a 10 point scale. Then they gave me an injection of contrast for the CT scan and the pain went past 11 to a 12. I don't want to think what suffering like that would have been like before modern medicine. My wife named this unwanted visitor "Oliver" and it has not yet passed.

I'll taking "boring" any day.

db said...

GMT thanks for helping at tax time. My wife tutors for kids at a full service community center in a poor area, where beyond after school services for kids there's legal and career and marital counseling and tax advisors, all paid for on grants and money VERY well spent.

Agh re your stone! Look up the non-orthodox Christian prophet Arias and how he died. Things are better. Still, life can hurt. hang in there.

Great to meet LH in person and his wonderful Julia!



GMT -5 8032 said...

I envy you. Last time I saw him in person was in Chicago at the 2000 Worldcon.

GMT -5 8032 said...

Re Arius...holy sh%t!

Alfred Differ said...

Larry,

having the will to do the right thing (however that is defined) despite intense pressure not to

Your examples are closer to a description of 'faith' than 'courage'. We Americans define terms with barbarian conviction, but the textbook descriptions from virtue ethics makes the distinction I'll make here.

Faith (some prefer to call it a Grace instead of a Virtue) is what you do when you remain loyal to your identity. Look back across your past and you'll find elements of what you are that are far bigger than you and likely bigger than your immediate community. For example, consider Cubs fans. They define what that means, but it is bigger than any single one of them and bigger than the community any of them are likely to encounter on any given day. "Loyal To" is what they do because that is what they are.

Now consider professing your religion in the face of persecution. See the loyalty? Courage might be needed shortly after, though, when your persecutors show up to stone you.

When Deplorables speak of having the courage to do the wrong thing, they are expressing loyalty to a group identity.

The classic definition of courage required battle done in the open where others could see you do it. Deplorables expressing loyalty might drive down the road with their Trump flags flying. In that sense, they are doing battle with the rest of us. That makes their act a matter of both faith and courage, but their strongest reaction to us when we flip them off and the choose not to punch us is loyalty.

The modern definition of courage swaps battle for a broader set of risks. In battle, you might be injured or die. Your person is at risk. In the modern definition, it is enough for your property, livelihood, relationships, and other things to be at risk. Imagine borrowing against every piece of property you own and investing in a start-up run by your kid. Risky? Probably. Do that in the open and many of us will see it as an act of courage, but only if you've put some thought into deciding if you go too far into foolishness.

The classic definition of courage required battle. In feudal Europe, that meant Courage was the primary virtue of aristocrats. When they called you to fight for them, they invited you to participate in a virtue otherwise unaccessible to you. See the problem with rejecting that?

The Dutch had to change things when they threw off the Hapsburgs. They had a war to fight and an insufficient number of aristocrats. How does one motivate people to fight in that situation? Simple. Do what a barbarian would. Just change the definition a bit.

DP said...

Side note: NASA is now planning a mission to Uranus.

Which of course requires the following quote from Futurama:


Fry: Hey, as long as you don't make me smell Uranus. (laughs)

Leela: I don't get it.

Farnsworth: I'm sorry, Fry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all.

Fry: Oh. What's it called now?

Farnsworth: Urectum.


Dr. Brin, as an astrophysicist do you have the power to change its name to Urectum? That would make my day. Can you at least start a petition?

Loco Motion said...

If you know the fight cannot be won, live to fight some other fight tomorrow. Taking a stand is acceptable, but only if you live to fight again.

Yes. Yes. I just see it.
Konan the Barbarian sitting in a fetus pose in a bushes, thinking loudly to himself:
"What the reason for me to fight that Tulsa Doom, AH? He is big and scary. And surrounded with so many scary troopers. To overtrone him is just impossible... So, better I'd 'change the definition a bit'. Yeah! Let's direct my mighty barbarian wrath on that ugly camal. That is much easier. And so much fun. Yes, let's do that."

Your way of thinking is not barbarian at all. Well, if only some caricature barbarian, Kogan the blurtbarian: "The most important thing... it's s(h)oup".


PS See Loco, how you do THAT.
But well, that fellow proficient in ignoring any information that do not suit his self-representation. :-))) Just the same as his Master.

Larry Hart said...

GMT-5:

I envy you. Last time I saw him in person was in Chicago at the 2000 Worldcon.


Hey, he said he's going to be there this year.

Larry Hart said...

Alfred Differ:

Now consider professing your religion in the face of persecution. See the loyalty? Courage might be needed shortly after, though, when your persecutors show up to stone you.


When I referred to that as "courage", I assumed the social consequence was a given. I was saying that it took courage to express loyalty to an identity which inevitably provokes that sort of reaction (with stoning at the low end of possible reactions).


When Deplorables speak of having the courage to do the wrong thing, they are expressing loyalty to a group identity.


Yes...and no. :)

When Paul Ryan talks about having the "courage" to cut benefits for poor people, he's asserting that it takes guts to show loyalty to the rich and powerful despite the powerless shaming you for it. That sort of "courage"--the will to curry favor with those above you at the expense of those below you--"risking" only the impotent displeasure of the powerless--reeks more of cowardice than courage to me.


The classic definition of courage required battle done in the open where others could see you do it. Deplorables expressing loyalty might drive down the road with their Trump flags flying. In that sense, they are doing battle with the rest of us. That makes their act a matter of both faith and courage, but their strongest reaction to us when we flip them off and the choose not to punch us is loyalty.


Do they choose not to punch us? It's certainly their argument, that they are the oppressed, fighting valiantly for their values against the dominating forces of woke society.

OTOH, they have no trouble asserting their loyalty to Trump in our faces, knowing that "flipping them off" is probably the worst consequence they'll risk facing. If we show our loyalty too much with a bumper sticker or a yard sign, we risk vandalism and death threats, often with the complicity of the authorities. There's a house in my neighborhood proudly displaying a "Let's go, Brandon!" yard sign. I'd like to tell that guy (I'm sure it's a guy) what I think of his favorite president, but I know I'd get into more trouble than he would, and he wouldn't care. So I fall back on cowardice, but I wouldn't call what he's doing an act of courage either.

That's what I was getting at--the deplorable assertion of courage depending on the upside-down version of the power structure, thereby portraying privileged bullying as a risky act by valiant underdogs. Thus, Nazism is justified because Jews aren't a powerless minority, but a secret cabal running the world. Or the line from As You Like It about how all it takes to be Hercules is "to tell a lie and swear to it."

Larry Hart said...

My admittedly-simplistic, amateur definitions, and accepting "right" and "wrong" being defined in the mind of the actor rather than any kind of universal, objective defintions.

Courage - Doing what you know/believe to be the right thing, despite risking personal harm as a consequence.

Cowardice - Doing what you know/believe to be the wrong thing because you're not willing to face the risk required to do the right thing.

Selfishness - Doing what benefits you or "your team" personally without regard to injustices foisted upon others and society.

As described above, Cowardice and Selfishness are sometimes aligned, but they are not exactly the same thing.

Ayn Rand outflanks me and declares Selfishness to be a virtue, not a vice. That makes accepting social norms and compromise into Cowardice and aggressive pursuit of self-interest into Courage. Strange f***ing planet, man.

The Deplorables (not limited to the post-2016 version) turn things on their ear by
portraying the molehill risks they take asserting their values as mountains and the mountainous risks their opposition take declaring ours as molehills, thus making their Cowardice and Selfishness appear to be Courageous. They punch down while portraying themselves as punching up.

scidata said...

Villeneuve's RENDEZVOUS WITH RAMA might be odd because he basically did ARRIVAL as an interpretation of RAMA. Fun fact: I read most of RAMA to my kids at bedtime, but they told me to stop because it was "scary and boring" (the worst possible combination for little guys). So I switched to FOUNDATION. That learned 'em because it simply removed the scary.

Paradoctor said...

My solution of the problem of Planet Seven's name is to pronounce it OO-rah-nos.

I hear that the word 'courage' derives from the French word 'coeur', meaning heart; so by this folk etymology, courage is action from the heart, for love of nation or commander or team-mates. Love can be foolish, therefore so can be courage.

Larry Hart said...

scidata:

I read most of RAMA to my kids at bedtime, but they told me to stop because it was "scary and boring"


Heh. It's not easy to pull off an adventure story without a villain*, but I like that kind of story when an author really knows how to pull it off. IMHO, Clarke managed to do so.

* Yes, he cheated a little with the Hermitians, but that was a side plot.

Larry Hart said...

Paradoctor:

I hear that the word 'courage' derives from the French word 'coeur', meaning heart; so by this folk etymology, courage is action from the heart


Yeah, it seems like people used to describe courageous individuals as "having heart", which has more recently been corrupted as "having balls".

Pappenheimer said...

"So, knowing I would have to leave this planet for centuries, I decided to impart my wisdom to the most faithful of humanity."

"Oh, so which church was it?"

"Church? No, Cubs fans."

DP said...

Paradoctor, the new name will be pronounced "OO-rec-tum".

Paradoctor said...

DP: well, that avoids urine and 'your', though not rectum. OO-rah-nos is roughly how the ancient Greeks pronounced the name of their sky-god, so I have a fancy excuse for not sounding like a 10 year old.

Larry Hart said...

Ok, forget "right" and "wrong", even.

Courage is asserting Loyalty despite the risk of harmful consequences.

Cowardice is foregoing Loyalty for the sake of safety.

"Loyalty" itself seems (to me) to involve some sort of tension between itself and pure self-interest. Loyalty to one's family or one's religion means doing things for some other's sake, even when you don't directly benefit personally. That's why Ayn Rand's notion of Loyalty to the value of selfishness seems perverse. It takes what would be a vice (lack of outside Loyalty) and calls it a virtue.

Larry Hart said...

DP:

Paradoctor, the new name will be pronounced "OO-rec-tum".


How about "YOU-wrecked-'em"?

Larry Hart said...

In college, my aero-astro colleagues insisted that the correct pronunciation of the planet was "URINE-us", which to me didn't seem to solve the problem.

scidata said...

@Larry Hart

My favourite description of 'real' courage comes from a Chicagoan and didn't even include the word explicitly:

"A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for." - John Shedd

Der Oger said...

Europe perseveres.

France: Macron 58%, Le Pen 41% (plus ten percent for Le Pen)
Slovenia: Jansas' party defeated at the ballot.
Berlin: Sound of knives being sharpened grows louder. Mistakes are made out of desperation.
Ukraine: Two additional generals killed in battle, one wounded (so that the Ukraine is, together with those who have been arrested, down to 2/3 or even 1/2 of prewar strength.

Putin's machinery of lies and corruption is not running well-oiled, it seems.

locumranch said...


As usual, Alfred and I talk past each other, as he initially condemns those as foolish (humiliated) who persevere and 'fight on' when their cause appears unwinnable, and so he modifies this argument to assume that such perseverance can only end in certain death.

Certain death? For engaging in argument, defending an unpopular position or offering up 'criticism as the only known antidote for error' ?

This, my friends, is the very definition of the term 'cowardice':

To surrender, submit and admit defeat, out of fear of failure, despite the absence of any significant or lasting consequence aside from hurt 'fee-fees' or feelings.

Alfred expresses execrable defeatism and a Commander Taggart he will never make, as he grovels & kneels while chanting "ALWAYS GIVE UP, ALWAYS SURRENDER".

And for the record:

Macron's victory over Le Pen (58% to 41%) is hardly a mandate, especially when one considers Le Pen's Nazi-inspired political platform and yet, despite this supposedly 'humiliating; appalling' loss, the NF/NR party will battle on and will eventually win because it perseveres, not because it is more moral.


Best
_____

@scidata; 'What Ships Are For' is a StarTrekContinues fan film

scidata said...

locumranch: @scidata; 'What Ships Are For' is a StarTrekContinues fan film

Huh, never heard of it. Evidence that I'm not a hopeless Trekkie after all :)

Paradoctor said...

Scidata:
Do check out Star Trek Continues. It's a trufan production, far superior to anything from Jar Jar Abrams. I recommend "Fairest of them All", and "Come Not Between the Dragons".
https://www.startrekcontinues.com/episodes.html

Locumranch doth protest too much. Never mind your life: some points aren't even worth your time. Some causes are unwinnable for good reason.

Der Oger said...

Macron's victory over Le Pen (58% to 41%) is hardly a mandate, especially when one considers Le Pen's Nazi-inspired political platform and yet, despite this supposedly 'humiliating; appalling' loss, the NF/NR party will battle on and will eventually win because it perseveres, not because it is more moral.

We'll see it in five years. As I noted above, it had the same ingredients as the 2016 election, if not worse: A more competent, less aggressive female Trump, a male and haughty Clinton, growing divisiveness, inflation and impending doom, a left that in parts deserted the democratic side. (Though Mélenchon was Putins second, more secret horse in the race.) The predictions placed Macron with +10% at best, +17% is better than expected. The interesting part is (and that is where you might be right in 5 years): Le Pen carried the young vote.But then again, 5 years is a long time, and Le Pens financial benefactor might be long gone then.

But for now, the invincible 4D chess champion and patron saint of all assholes abroad has failed. Now it is the turn of the US to keep the West intact, again.

Larry Hart said...

Der Oger:

Europe perseveres.


Or as "V for Vendetta" would have it, "Europe prevails!"


France: Macron 58%, Le Pen 41% (plus ten percent for Le Pen)


Not sure I get the meaning of the parenthetical. Ten percent more than last time?

locumranch:

the NF/NR party will battle on and will eventually win because it perseveres, not because it is more moral.


It worked for Nixon. It didn't work for Romney. Hardly anyone persevered more than Ron Paul, and all that achieved was a kind of Susan Lucci infamy. No one persevered more than Hillary Clinton.

So...


We'll see it in five years


Exactly. But the tide which brought in Brexit and Trump seems to be turning. I wonder how much populist support Le Pen lost this time around by being the candidate of Putin, against Ukraine, and against NATO at this particular moment in history. If Putin was as smart a chess player as he pretends to be, he would have waited until after the French election to attack. But then the Ukraine land routes would have already turned to mud.

Maybe I was wrong when I said that God doesn't do things like stopping wars.

Larry Hart said...

locumranch:

Macron's victory over Le Pen (58% to 41%) is hardly a mandate,


Seriously? Here in the US, when does anybody win by more than that? 55% to 45% is often called a "mandate".


France is following us to revolution--
There is no more status quo.
But the sun comes up, and the world still spins.

Larry Hart said...


especially when one considers Le Pen's Nazi-inspired political platform


I was all set to ask whether Le Pen would be helping Putin to de-Nazify Ukraine. Now, thank God, we never have to know.

Larry Hart said...

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/04/24/world/french-election-runoff-results

Ms. Le Pen conceded defeat in her third attempt to become president, but bitterly criticized the “brutal and violent methods” of Mr. Macron. She vowed to fight on to secure a large number of representatives in legislative elections in June, declaring that “French people have this evening shown their desire for a strong counter power to Emmanuel Macron.”


Say what? "By voting for my opponent, the people showed that they wanted me to counter his power." Strange f***ing planet, man.


At a critical moment in Europe, with fighting raging in Ukraine after the Russian invasion, France rejected a candidate hostile to NATO, to the European Union, to the United States, and to its fundamental values that hold that no French citizens should be discriminated against because they are Muslim.


That's what I thought might happen relative to Putin and Ukraine. Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump seem to have bet on the wrong horse when they came out in favor of Putin (and China!) against Ukraine.


Jean-Yves Le Drian, the foreign minister, said the result reflected “the mobilization of French people for the maintenance of their values and against a narrow vision of France.”


Yeah, that sounds more like what actually happened than what Le Pen said.

Der Oger said...


@Larry Hart:
Not sure I get the meaning of the parenthetical. Ten percent more than last time?

Yes. Or even more. Le Pen lost more decisively the last time. Macron had the decency to mention that many people voted for him not out of support for his policies, but to prevent a fascist gaining office.

duncan cairncross said...

Re - Macron won more decisively last time

Unlike America France has a lot of one term presidents - its usual for the incumbent to lose

Larry Hart said...

Der Oger:

Macron had the decency to mention that many people voted for him not out of support for his policies, but to prevent a fascist gaining office.


Well, at least they did vote for him instead of staying home or writing in a third party because "both parties won't give me a pony."

GMT -5 8032 said...

Goddamn you don't say urine around me until I pass this cursed kidney stone.

Pain meds aren't working tonight and I can't take a other dose for an hour.

Alfred Differ said...

Larry,

Paul Ryan wasn't expressing loyalty to rich people. That's how his opponents described it. What he did was express loyalty to an ideal. Faith is all about loyalty to ideals. Ryan is a conservative with a Wisconsin twist. The ideal to which he is loyal isn't specifically about rich people. It's about what governments may and may not do. That rich people like it is a different thing.

As a general rule, courage is still for battle risks. When someone says "It takes courage to be loyal" or something close to that, it means the ideal is potentially combative. Flip things around and consider people here for examples. Matthew is solidly loyal to a progressive ideal… and willing to throw verbal/written punches in defense of the ideal. I am NOT loyal to a progressive ideal, but I am an occasional ally willing to throw punches too.

Not all loyalty expressions require courage. Cubs fans don't have to defend themselves when surrounded by other Cubs fans, but loyalty is still recognized by their peers as a virtue. Dodgers fans don't have to defend themselves much at all since they just point at their win record of late and gloss over embarrassing losses in playoffs.

What we are seeing, though, is a loyalty group that has to defend itself now that isn't used to having to defend itself. Progressives landed several solid punches against their adversaries (a couple generations ago) who would keep the old social order for no good reason. When Ryan said "it takes courage" he issued a battle cry to forces loyal to his ideal. Trump rallies them in his own way too, though not for any ideal higher than his own personal gain.

———

The question of this year is whether Progressives will rally again. Knocking out Trump in the 2020 election was a victory requiring allies. Keep the House in a mid-term election WILL require allies. Many of us can hold our noses and vote to keep Kevin McCarthy (his district is up the road from me) out of the Speaker's seat, but not enough if progressives don't hold together and do it too.

Is there some ideal to which all these allies are being loyal? Sure, but the smarter way to look at this is from the perspective the the virtue counterpart to 'faith' called 'hope'. Faith looks back in time at what we are in terms of character ideals. Hope looks forward using many of the same ideals. A voting coalition need not be loyal to the same ideals, but should have hopes that are better aligned.

There is a darn good reason Obama used 'Hope' in his campaigns… which he won.

Alfred Differ said...

Larry,

For me, the definitions go more like this…

———
Courage - Taking an action noticed by the public despite risk to one's person, property, or relationships.

(Too Much [vice]) Foolish - Taking an action noticed by the public with the usual risks that is judged by the public to be NOT WORTH the risks.

(Too Little [also a vice]) Cowardice - Avoiding an action that would be noticed by the public with the usual risks that is judged by the public to be WORTH the risks.

The pathologies stem from a lack of the other virtues. The fool likely lacks a good sense of prudence, thus ignores discovered wisdom… often their own. The coward likely lacks a good sense of justice or temperance leaving them deaf to truths known to others and expectations demanded by others.
———

There are lots of ways to decompose character into traits to be admired or reviled. I tend to use McClosky's descriptions, but there are many variants that go about the same tasks. All variants must make use of a 'social axis', though, with one end being labeled 'profane' and the other 'sacred'. This risks sounding religious, but that is not my intent

1) Sacred is the end of the axis where virtues have to do with higher ideals unlikely to be tangible. Faith and Hope are up here.

2) Profane is the other end where virtues are individualistic. Prudence is down here.

Whatever decomposition you use, chances are the terms requiring some measure of personal and social input. Courage must be seen to be what it is even if the decisions that lead there aren't. Prudence need not even if its effects are later.

———

Ayn Rand did what philosophers like to do. She made the case for Excess Prudence to be a virtue. Consider her context, though. Virtue Ethics (the actual field Adam Smith occupied) was all but dead in her time. Academia was trying hard to boil it all down to Prudence. Why does a mother care for her infant? It's the prudence of evolution. Why does one social class oppress another? Yah. There were prudence arguments for it.

Adam Smith would have rejected the whole lot, but Rand was from a peculiar century that rejected virtue ethics. Her argument made a case for there not being such a thing as too much prudence. Dickens rejected that too even as the world around him was running full speed toward a prudence-only description of human ethics.

There is a darn good reason to want a theory of ethics that reduces the mess to one function. We can work with that function mathematically. Call it a state function, guess at the input variables, and consider first order partial derivatives and you've got the essential model underpinning micro-economics. Macro too if you are willing to invent aggregate inputs and believe in them.

Doesn't work with real humans, though, and the ancients understood that perfectly well. They'd have said 'good character' is of several traits. We might say there is not single measure of fitness.

Ah… but if you confine your actions to be judged by a group loyal to common ideals… one can get awful close. It's no wonder to me that faith is a virtue. It helps us reduce the chaos to fewer variables.

Alfred Differ said...

Locumranch,

If you don't want to use the classic definition for courage, I certainly don't mind. I assumed you'd prefer it, so my bad.

What you do here isn't cowardice. It is foolishness. Rather like tilting at windmills, you can't win thus I judge you a fool.

A useful fool, though, and our host knows that.
His tolerance of you serves a purpose.
His purpose.
Not yours.

———

A fool fights the unwinnable fight and calls it courage, but his peers might not.

A wiser man changes the field of battle somehow then decides whether to act or make more changes. Loyalty to a defended ideal is seen immediately. Courage comes later.

Alan Brooks said...

I should like ‘civilization’ to be defined accurately, as would-be/could-be civilization. If a researcher from another galaxy were to visit Earth, the creature might report:
“There are mutated simians living on the third planet from the star here. They are sophisticated in some ways, but spend much resources on auto-destruct devices; fewer resources for seriously attempting remedies for this. Dissembling is near-universal here. Urban streets are often unsafe when the star is not visible—as renegade simians seek quarry in the dark.“
Report concludes:
“These beings disingenuously term their way of life ‘civilization’, which is shorthand for partially-civilized. They find it embarrassing to admit such.”

Anonymous said...

Der Oger
"Putin's machinery of lies and corruption is not running well-oiled, it seems."

It oiled the best with human's fat oiling.
So yeah, it still not that well oiled by with substitute artifical oil-based oil.
But RFia full forward back into that past happy times of Gulag, that helped to produce lots of THAT First Rate oils.


So I fall back on cowardice...

Yes. You are. Larry. The same as your Master. :-))


A wiser man changes the field of battle somehow then decides whether to act or make more changes. Loyalty to a defended ideal is seen immediately. Courage comes later.

Courage goes somewhere, elsewhere. Like, rephrasing "Courage... is out there" :-))


Courage - Taking an action noticed by the public despite risk to one's person, property, or relationships.

No Alfy, that is seeking of fame and honor. Well, honor are less and less this days. So, only fame, short, fleeting. 15 miutes on a TV screen.
Courage - that is taking apparent risk for the sake of some big goal. Bigger than life.
Public... doesn't matter.
Risking one's property or relationships -- that is not courage.
Stake for a courage - one's life. One's Soul even.
But hardly you'd understand.


Maybe I was wrong when I said that God doesn't do things like stopping wars.

We have saying here "If God wants to punish someone - he takes one's mind".


Certain death? For engaging in argument, defending an unpopular position or offering up 'criticism as the only known antidote for error' ?

This, my friends, is the very definition of the term 'cowardice':


What "certain death" doing here???
Can you explain it, Loco?
But well, given this words of "wise" Alfy

""The pathologies stem from a lack of the other virtues. The fool likely lacks a good sense of prudence, thus ignores discovered wisdom… often their own. The coward likely lacks a good sense of justice or temperance leaving them deaf to truths known to others and expectations demanded by others.""

You can be right.
I just like when I see such self-descriptive missives HERE

One evil Ukrainian) said...

Blogger gerold said...
But people like to point to more ancient roots for what they build today, and old Scythia seems perfect for that. The homeland of the Scyths was the modern territory of Ukraine and their blood runs in the veins of the modern inhabitants.

That might sound like romantic bullshit to you, but people love that stuff. It gives them hope and courage in difficult times.


Yeah. True.
Only.
That is more "Russian World" type of people who likes that.
And that means -- such ideas not just indiferent to a Ukrainian.
That is properly ANTI-Ukrainian ideas. Period.

Der Oger said...

I'd say virtues and vices should be regarded as tools, not goals. The more you have in your box, the better. Knowing when and how to wield them, and when to leave them alone.

duncan cairncross said...

A question on Quora

Do you agree with Elon Musk’s belief that having a public platform that is maximally trusted and broadly inclusive is extremely important to the future of civilization?

My answer

Yes he is 100% correct THAT would be a great thing!

The problem comes in the actual creation of that platform!

The Twitter management are not interested in anything that difficult

Brain Wave

How about Musk takes over Twitter and then hands that part of the operation to a large diverse and respected group

Dr Brin - writer of the Transparent Society would be a great guy to have a massive input into that group

Larry Hart said...

duncan cairncross:

Do you agree with Elon Musk’s belief that having a public platform that is maximally trusted and broadly inclusive is extremely important to the future of civilization?


The trouble is, there is a kind of Heisenberg uncertainty, where the more broadly inclusive it is, the less maximally trusted it can be, and vice versa.

Zero editing means it will default to too much noise for users to locate any signal. Too much editing means a large percentage will feel that their side is being silenced. The idea that one go-to app on which experts, amateurs, provocateurs, and idiots all speak over each other (with no way of judging their expertise, experience, or knowledge of the area on which they speak) can be a trusted source of information is absurd.

The young adult novel The Circle made the point that when you put everyone in the same closed environment with no escape, the biggest predators devour everyone else. Sic Semper Twitter.


My answer

Yes he is 100% correct THAT would be a great thing!

The problem comes in the actual creation of that platform!

The Twitter management are not interested in anything that difficult


It's not a matter of difficulty. Twitter's business model relies on "engagement", which means their bread and butter is encouraging fights.

Howard Brazee said...

Going to war has always been sold as much more romantic than staying at home.

Larry Hart said...

Alfred Differ:

Paul Ryan wasn't expressing loyalty to rich people. That's how his opponents described it. What he did was express loyalty to an ideal. Faith is all about loyalty to ideals. Ryan is a conservative with a Wisconsin twist. The ideal to which he is loyal isn't specifically about rich people. It's about what governments may and may not do. That rich people like it is a different thing.


Yes, Ryan is an admitted Ayn Randist, so you might say he's loyal to the ideal that Social Security and Medicare are government overreaches.

The fact that his own life story depends on his being a recipient of Social Security calls the virtue of that loyalty into question, though.

Andy said...

Courage is overcoming the impulses of fear, whether it is charging into battle or remaining still as a spider crawls over you instead of freaking out. If something doesn't scare you in the first place, doing that thing does not take courage, because there was no fear to overcome.

Foolishness is doing something unwise or stupid. It is not mutually exclusive with courage. One can be a courageous fool and one can also be a foolish coward.

Jon S. said...

Report concludes:
“These beings disingenuously term their way of life ‘civilization’, which is shorthand for partially-civilized. They find it embarrassing to admit such.”


Or:

Report concludes:
"These beings are clearly insufficiently committed to constructing weapons of mass destruction. Takeover, pacification, and colonization should involve minimal difficulties, assuming we begin with standard orbital bombardments. It is this commander's opinion that at least one major city can be seized in sufficiently good condition to serve His Imperial Majesty's youngest as a suitable base of operations."

Never assume your ethics are universal. That's the mistake the METI enthusiasts are making.

reason said...

As David commented on the fire at the armaments factory, does he have comments on this story: https://www.newsweek.com/every-russian-oligarch-who-has-died-since-putin-invaded-ukraine-full-list-1700022 ?

Larry Hart said...

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2022/Senate/Maps/Apr25.html#item-11

Although Macron won, the real story, according to many outlets, is the growing power of the far right.


According to locumranch as well.


In any event, Macron becomes the first French president to win reelection since Jacques Chirac pulled off the trick back in 2002.


No mandate, huh?


That said, Le Pen worked hard to change her image this year, towards a kinder, gentler xenophobic zealot. She was running against an unpopular incumbent, and at a time when her anti-NATO messaging could have real teeth. Polling, which said the election could be close, had her supporters energized. And yet, she lost by 17 points, marking a third presidential defeat for her personally, and an eighth for the Le Pen family overall. Again, we don't have a firm grasp on French politics, but it sure looks like the far-right in France has reached its ceiling, and that while it's capable of producing a great deal of sound and fury, it ultimately signifies nothing. What circumstances, if not the ones in effect this weekend, would allow Le Pen's National Rally to win a presidential election? Or even to keep the margin of defeat to single digits?


Emphasis mine.

Alan Brooks said...

“Never assume your ethics are universal”

Correct. At any rate, civilization comes down to ‘is the glass half full, or half empty’? Are we half-civilized, or half-barbaric? An open question—but considering the Ukrainian war, I’d guess the latter.

Alfred Differ said...

For all of you who want to define courage... I'm supportive. In fact, I'm tickled. I love it when the common 'man' takes from the aristocrat.

I'm not going to argue against any of these definitions today even if they don't match mine. What I point out is they don't match the classic definition and because of that we are struggling over something quite fundamental. Virtues are descriptors of good character traits. This struggle encompasses what it means to be a person of good character.

Fight on.

---

That is more "Russian World" type of people who likes that.
And that means -- such ideas not just indifferent to a Ukrainian.
That is properly ANTI-Ukrainian ideas. Period.



I'm with the anonymous evil Ukrainian on this. Some of them appear to want to join The West. I say we encourage them. Help them move to a vision of their future they prefer.

locumranch said...


Romanticism (noun)

a movement in the arts and literature that originated in the late 18th century (that) emphasizes the individual, the subjective, the irrational, the imaginative, the personal, the spontaneous, the emotional, the visionary, the prophetic, the idealized, and the transcendental.


That's the official definition of 'Romanticism', so please note that almost every idea that Dr. Brin promotes, endorses & pursues -- from tikkun olam utopianism, idealism & transhumanism to climate change prophecies, Star_Trek aspirations & liberal democracy preference are all imaginative, emotional & visionary notions that are Romanticism by definition.

This point is emphasized NOT to discount the rational, scientific, matter-of-fact, anti-romantic & pro-enlightenment aspects of our fine host's personality, education & collective works, but to merely indicate that his stated goals (or, at least, the rational behind his stated goals) are emotive Grade A romantic horse-pucky.

In effect, he appears to be rebranding and selling the cold, immoral & cruelly rational scientific method as a more palatable subtype of old-timey ecstatic religious faith, as if rationalism will make your fondest dreams come true.


Best

scidata said...

Re: Romanticism
By itself, in isolation, perhaps in a single piece of art, romanticism is quite charming. It certainly speaks to the human heart. But as a pattern/guide/heuristic for sociological development, it's pure poison. In my computational psychohistory musings, I've come to the notion that there is a barrier or membrane between the single mind and the mass mind. I don't have a name for it, but I'm sure that philosophers and neurologists do. Plainly put, I'm stumped by it in attempts to integrate the history function H(t) from individual minds. But I've also come to the notion that this membrane serves a crucial purpose.

"Reduced to a miserable mass level, the level of a Hitler, German Romanticism broke out into hysterical barbarism." - Thomas Mann

Alfred Differ said...

scidata,

membrane between the single mind and the mass mind

Curious idea. You are aware (no doubt) that many think our brains support multiple smaller minds serving particular functions. Dysfunction occurs when they fail to communicate with each other.

One block of evidence supporting this comes from those who believe in multiple intelligences. They point out that certain localized brain injuries can damage certain functions and not others.

After having raised an autistic boy, I'm inclined to belief they are on the right track. I can see a huge difference in to kinds of emotional intelligence. Detecting the emotional state of others requires modeling them. Detecting one's own emotional state requires internal communication. Those aren't the same functions and my son's 'injury' obviously impacts one more than the other.

So... I don't see it as a membrane. I see it as a very narrow bandwidth pipe between minds. That makes the languages we use to communicate (including body and voice tone) compression methods on the information flowing. Add a new word/idiom to your vocabulary and you add a symbol for the structure in your mind it represents.

"Sour" means many things beyond a particular kind of taste experience.

"Grapes" means many things beyond a bundle of fruit.

"Sour Grapes" represents something neither of its parts did. The fable that springs to mind when you read it is the uncompressed packet.

Pappenheimer said...

OT, but in Utah at least the local remnant Democrats are echoing OGH's plan and pledging to vote for the Sane Republican (McMullin) over the Trump Toady (Lee). There may not be enough of them left to make a difference, though.

Pappenheimer

Larry Hart said...

Alfred Differ:

"Sour Grapes" represents something neither of its parts did. The fable that springs to mind when you read it is the uncompressed packet.


As the ST:TNG episode "Darmok" made clear, quite a bit of human communication involves that sort of allusion and metaphor. What would an alien observer, even one who studied English vocabulary and grammar, understand of our reference to "Turtles all the way down"?

locumranch said...


From a coldly rational perspective, the Ukrainians do not 'deserve' autonomy, no one has a 'right' to a full belly, no human is 'entitled' to peaceful life, and 'fairness' has nothing to do with whether or not a rabbit becomes predator chow.

The only criteria for Human Self-Rule (Autonomy) is the ability to defend oneself against all challengers, and relative 'deservingness', 'rights', 'fairness' or 'entitlement' has absolutely nothing to do with material reality.

This truism has been common human knowledge for thousands of years, and I can't believe that I have remind these here *Smart People* about this reality, although it's completely understandable why the 'Evil Ukrainian' (and other fantasists) prefer a happy lie to unpleasant reality.

As Scidata says, it's pure poison for Romanticism to be used as a pattern, guide or heuristic for sociological development, yet this is exactly the kind of romantic (as in 'delusional') behaviour that our Enlightened West actively engages in when it uses the 'Superior Virtue of the Oppressed' fallacy as its moral guide.

In the sense that I hold to a Romantic Goal (as I desire the same 'Life, the Universe & Everything' that Dr. Brin wants), then it's clear that I am as hopeless a romantic as is Dr. Brin, the only difference being that I willing to sacrifice many of our civilized falsities in order to achieve this goal, including Ukrainian Self-Rule & NASA's ridiculous safety protocols, because a global nuclear war & a 100% safety guarantee would decrease our chance of success in this endeavour, imho.

From the purely emotional perspective, however, I empathize and 'feel real bad' for history's losers, casualties & victims because (except for grace & random chance) they could have been me, but they are NOT me, and they would in no way trade places with me if our positions were reversed, just as our very own 'Evil Ukrainian' sheds no tears over the graves of many dead Russians.


Best

scidata said...

@Alfred Differ
See Jeff Hawkins' "A Thousand Brains: A New Theory of Intelligence"
30 years ago, Hawkins was the brains behind Palm Inc., at which point, he came to my attention (line from CONTACT).
TLDR: When we look at a cup, we actually 'see' many cups, and our (entire) brain synthesizes the single model that pops into our conscious mind.

Anonymous said...

LoCum,
A definition of meritocratic is deserving. The meritocratic surgeon is considered more deserving than Ol’ Sawbones, who gives a patient moonshine whiskey as a painkiller. A meritocratic airliner is considered more deserving than Acme Airlines: “we provide a parachute to every customer.”
——
I also don’t get what you’ve written re the ‘cold’ scientific method being ‘rebranded’ as ‘ecstatic religion’ by Dr. Brin, or others. A writer makes things more interesting to appeal to a diverse readership. Is a science writer supposed to write in a style similar to the clinical manner in which Data wrote poetry in Star Trek?

Larry Hart said...

locumranch:

"The only criteria for Human Self-Rule (Autonomy) is the ability to defend oneself against all challengers, and relative 'deservingness', 'rights', 'fairness' or 'entitlement' has absolutely nothing to do with material reality."

This truism has been common human knowledge for thousands of years, and I can't believe that I have remind these here *Smart People* about this reality,


If someone breaks into your house, intent on who-knows-what, and you shoot him in self-defense, you will likely not shed tears about the fact that he's dead. It sounds like you're claiming that that fact justifies his breaking into your house in the first place and not caring whether he kills you.

Some of us happen to believe that the ability to defend oneself against all challengers includes participating in a society which does so. I realize you don't share that belief, but that doesn't make it wrong. And our society chooses to repel invaders as a society.

Ukraine deserves its autonomy because it acted in good faith within UN society by giving up a nuclear arsenal in exchange for a UN guarantee of that autonomy--including from pre-Putin Russia itself. Since I know you don't accept that line of argument, then they deserve our protection because they've appealed to western civilization in a manner which causes us to want to defend them. Maybe its toxoplasmosis, but whatever it is, it's working.


the only difference being that I willing to sacrifice many of our civilized falsities in order to achieve this goal, including Ukrainian Self-Rule & NASA's ridiculous safety protocols, because a global nuclear war & a 100% safety guarantee would decrease our chance of success in this endeavour, imho.


An authoritarian hegemony would also decrease our chance of success, so letting Putin hold us hostage to the nuclear threat is as bad an idea as calling his bluff is. I thought you were in favor of fighting for what you believe even if you can't win, and that you just a few hours ago chastised Alfred for suggesting capitulation. Now you're in favor of cowardice because the bully just might leave you alone if you let him do whatever he wants?

db said...

Guy seriously you are giving locum this much attention? I'll grant he stated a case this time that's not dizzyingly illogical. It still is dumb. It may be 'romantic' to imagine things much better than they are. But since they ARE much better than they WERE, that's not impossible.

Don Gisselbeck said...

Shorter locum, "If you can't compete, die."

Larry Hart said...

Don Gisselbeck:

Shorter locum, "If you can't compete, die."


Eight Billion Little Indians. Everybody kills or is killed by everyone else until there's one guy left. He alone deserves to live. Yay!

duncan cairncross said...

Larry Hart - Musk and Twitter

YES making such a forum is difficult - or nearly impossible
But that is why we should let the guy who has already done several "impossible" things have a go!

Our Hosts "Disputation Arenas" may be part of the solution
As may the massive "Artificial Intelligence" that Musk has got working on Full Self Driving

IMHO - its worth a try!!

Alan Brooks said...

I was the Anonymous a few comments back, to see if LoCum would reply differently. There is a logic in him—but it’s just too vague; though it does seem to be based on ‘nature being superior to nurture’. Yet it’d have to be backed up with a full-length article in the Extremist Digest.
——
Russia’s harsh treatment goes at least as distant in the past to the Holodomor, when between five and ten million Ukrainians were killed. And now this “Special Operation.” What are critics of Ukraine saying? That the population of Europe is to be reduced by murdering Ukrainians?: what Hitler was about.

Jon S. said...

Duncan, the only "impossible" thing Musk has done is manage to convince thousands of people that he alone managed to create a car company that he purchased, design all their cars single-handedly (until it came time to apportion blame for cars bursting into flames or auto-driving systems that didn't work), build rockets all on his lonesome (presumably in a garage somewhere), and created a magical underground tunnel that cannot flood in the event of a hurricane. (Seriously, he proposed building one of his Hyperloop one-car tunnels to evacuate New Orleans in the event of a hurricane, stating in all seriousness that since tunnels are underground, they're "immune" to weather above ground. Several people have referred him to images of the New York subway during Hurricane Sandy, as well as New Orleans' elevation compared to that of the Gulf of Mexico; others have leapt to "defend" Musk by denying those basic realities.)

Also, should you trust an AI being designed by a company whose head honcho believes that AIs are the gravest threat humanity will ever face, more frightening than nuclear war or climate change?

Slim Moldie said...

Locumranch's "In effect, he (Brin) appears to be rebranding and selling the cold, immoral & cruelly rational scientific method as a more palatable subtype of old-timey ecstatic religious faith, as if rationalism will make your fondest dreams come true."

This straw-man seems like it could have been inspired from Poul Anderson's "Earthman, GO Home! / A Plague of Masters" (the Flandry story where he gets stuck on the planet ruled by the pseudo scientific priests of Biocontrol where everyone has to take a pill every 30 days to ward of excruciating death by the poisonous atmosphere.) Following LR's logic is not a little unlike waiting in a long line to piss at a baseball game and you realize the drunk guy leaning against the urinal in front of you is asleep. Anyway in our revised Plague of Masters, the Locum edition, instead of demonstrating the health of competitive, regulated (fair) free enterprise and the need to make it transparent in order to continue uplifting our civilization, our host obviously would want to maintain the status quo of the Biocontrol establishment while Putin/Trump and their cabal of oligarchs are simply the heroic Dominic Flandrys striving to free us all from the oppressive yoke despite the impending doom of our decadent over-reaching empire.



Alfred Differ said...

David,

Heh. I used locum as an example for Larry and the things bloomed from there like mold after a rainy day.

For everyone else,

I'd say "sorry about that" except I'm not. I find it highly amusing we got to talk briefly about various definitions of 'courage' and then Musk goes and portrays one of them. He's buying a modern day printing press and displaying the kind of courage we call "Put your money where your mouth is."

Larry,

Yah. That's another one of those idioms like "put up or shut up". Humans do it all the time, but we Americans revel in them like pigs in the mud. [Snort! Grunt!]

I don't think the translation problem would be as difficult as we imagined it when that TNG episode came out. Look to how Google currently translates between languages. They read everything written in each language and make use of the fact that humans have already translated. "Turtles all the way down" as an idiom is already present in languages beside English, so its meaning as an idiom can be traced to the particular books and the context parsed.

"Sour grapes" as a phrase means what it means because the fable is invoked in our minds upon hearing it. That particular idiom is MUCH more widespread, though. We've written something like it into many more stories making it easier to find if you approach things like Google's AI does. Read every damn thing ever written in every language big enough to matter! Is that not what the Federation "database" would do? 8)

Alfred Differ said...

scidata,

Cool. I've mostly seen the multiple intelligences notion portrayed in fiction and encountered a few that I deemed 'plausible'. My favorite, though, is what V.Vinge did with Tines.* They had a higher bandwidth capability for tying individual animals together. He portrayed it well enough to make me go "Hmm... Wouldn't that be enough to break through to larger minds?"

I won't say more in case anyone here has been foolish enough not to read the novels. 8) [I was one of them for many years.]



* Yes. I've read our host's variations on multiple minds too. The primary reason I like Tines more was the description for how the communication worked. Sometimes I love for a story to get that detailed. That's what initially captured me many years ago with Sundiver. The description of the laser.

Alan Brooks said...

The complaint of [no need for name] is a prevalent one: progress is so iffy that it is religious in nature, and its protagonists are techno-priests. Following such logic, the Renaissance was a mistake because it paved the way for the eventual Enlightenment. Now, from a strictly religious viewpoint such would be correct, but so-and-so isn’t claiming to be strictly religious.
Thus it smacks of hedging: leaving options open in the event of opinion-revision.

Larry Hart said...

Alfred Differ:

That particular idiom is MUCH more widespread, though. We've written something like it into many more stories making it easier to find if you approach things like Google's AI does. Read every damn thing ever written in every language big enough to matter! Is that not what the Federation "database" would do? 8)


I was gonna say...a translator that works as well as Star Trek's would have to know more than dictionary definitions of alien words. They'd have to know alien literature and culture (and probably history) as well.

They'd also have to assess probabilities in context. While the phrase "sour grapes" is most often used as an allusion to a fable, it could also just mean what the words say. A translator would have to know how it is being used.

"Turtles all the way down," while it could have a literal meaning is probably only used as an allusion to the joke which spawned it.

"Fruit flies like a banana," could possibly mean "(Any) ripened seed-bearing pod tends to fly in the same manner that a banana does," but it's very unlikely to be intended in that manner, and more likely to mean something completely different. The similarly constructed, "Time flies like an arrow" could be taken to have the same ambiguity unless one knows that there is no such insect as a "time fly", and that even if there were, it would be unlikely to care one way or another about a ballistic weapon or a cat laser.

I'm sure that early 1.0 versions of a universal translator would often be as unintentionally amusing as closed caption can be during live broadcasts.

Larry Hart said...

Alan Brooks:

The complaint of [no need for name] is a prevalent one: progress is so iffy that it is religious in nature, and its protagonists are techno-priests.


He (willfully, IMHO) mistakes "Accurately describing how things work," with imposing restrictions by force. Like, if I tell you that jumping off that cliff will result in your death, I'm ordering you to behave the way I want, or punishing you with death if you disobey.

It's not oppression to inform Stan that he can't have babies, even if he wants to have babies. That's nobody's fault, not even the Romans'.

Alan Brooks said...

If [un-named] were seeking holism, there’s a way to find it: in a shack in a remote area. Forage for food, talk to no one—‘ask me no questions, and I will tell you no lies’. One’s conscience would be clear, however the tradeoff would mean a boring, short life.
Can’t think of another manner in which to discover true holism.

Larry Hart said...

Concerning Twitter...

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/26/opinion/elon-musk-twitter.html

...
Mr. Musk operates from a flawed, if widespread, misapprehension of the free speech issue facing the country. In his vision, what we may, with help from the philosopher Isaiah Berlin, call negative freedom of speech, the freedom to speak without restraint by powerful authorities, is the only freedom of speech. And so freeing Nazis to Nazi, misogynists to bully and harass and doxx and brigade women, even former president Donald Trump to possibly get his Twitter account back — this cutting of restraints becomes the whole of the project.
...
The constitutional protection of speech does not, on its own, engender a society in which the chance to be heard is truly abundant and free and equitably distributed.

“Freedom for the wolves has often meant death to the sheep,” Mr. Berlin once said. This is a point often lost on Americans. Government — or large centralized authority — is one threat to liberty but not the only one. When it comes to speech, what has often kept a great many people from speaking isn’t censorship but the lack of a platform. Social media, including Twitter, came along and promised to change that. But when it became a cesspit of hate and harassment for women and people of color in particular, it began to offer a miserable bargain: You can be free to say what you wish, but your life can be made unrelentingly painful if you so dare.
...

scidata said...

Re: Twitter
Obviously what's needed is a truly grassroots SM platform. The biggest obstacle to that is the soma-level stupor ever since the coding vs sifting eye candy watershed. This is why I'm so adamant about WJCC. It's not nerdism, it's the caves/stars fight.

Alan Brooks said...

To sum it up: sacrifice is the key word regarding religion, and in escaping coercion/being forced. So-and-so would have to abandon modernity altogether—but he is not prepared to accept a self-abnegating life. Who today is: solitary sheepherders in the Yukon?

Alfred Differ said...

Alan

The unnamed one's broad complaint about treating progress as a religious objective isn't unfounded. There are many who are loyal to an ideal of progress that many find conflicts with their own loyalties to past-loving ideals.

Attacks against progress-as-religion come in few forms. The ones I see most often are ad-hominem or simple mockery through exaggeration. There isn't much point arguing against those attacks since they aren't arguments. We just have to fight them.

Attempts to apply logic and construct a counter-argument are more interesting. For example, one might as "Progress to where?" and then build the essay around possibilities that can be individually reduced to shreds. It's actually not a bad question. Where exactly are we going? This invites debate and we all learn something. For me that question is best answered with another question. It is better to ask "Progress from where?" since most of us agree it is away from famine, plague, misery, and the other horrors of our past.

Turning the debate slightly to ponder "from where" also makes it clear that progress isn't iffy lately. It was many centuries ago. Civilizations came and went, humans still lived near subsistence level, and lord and priests still stole from the peasants. Lately, though, we've moved away from all that. We haven't gotten away, but we HAVE moved away. That's progress, no?

The unnamed complainer likes to paint our host as a believe in the religious objective of progress. Maybe I should say weave instead of paint because it's a strawman he attacks. Read what our host writes and it's obvious his religious beliefs are CONSISTENT with progress objectives, but aren't aimed at those objectives. He finds a kind of joy in a God who steps back incrementally leaving room for a child to learn, explore, and work the world around it. Such a God might want progress the way a parent wants their child to grow and eventually join or surpass them, but it would be a faith error to be loyal to the progress instead of the father figure. It's pretty obvious from what our host writes and easily explains his defense of Enlightenment civilization.


Instead of "explains" another equally fitting term is "rationalizes", but it doesn't matter. These faith ideals are elements of our character. We use them to answer "Who are you?" when someone wants more than our names. I am Alfred, son of Robert and Janet, physicist, software engineer, believer in… the list goes on and on through my ideals big and small. Explains, rationalizes, justifies. Whatever.

Our unnamed complainer simply holds loyal to a different set of ideals. Many of them we share with him, but not all and especially not a particular one.

Alfred Differ said...

Larry,

I can't read the NY Times article right now. No subscription and I drop by often enough that they want $$ from me now. 8)

I think the opinion writer is aiming at a familiar strawman. Musk is more than a little inclined toward libertarian thought, though he doesn't want to be associated with some of the crazies among them.

We might doubt his engineer skills (he actually HAS learned quite a bit about rockets), but we shouldn't be doubting his understanding of the difference between negative and positive freedom. That one of the few commonalities among libertarians. Many think the primary trait in common is selfishness, but it's really "Leave me be… I'm not hurting anyone." Negative freedom is the air we breath.


NO ONE can offer a promise of positive freedom of speech that gets past my bullshit filter. IF I own a press (takes many forms nowadays) I'm protected from government limiting my use of it in certain ways, but I have no protections from my neighbors responding to what I print. The threat/counter-threat for neighbors involves lawsuits restricted to civil courts.

Musk's ownership of Twitter will be yet another example of a rich man buying a "printing press". The one person protected from certain government limits is the owner of that press because it is his property. The rest of us simply aren't covered, but that doesn't mean he'll limit us.

Twitter is nothing without all of us tweeting. It can easily become a multi-billion dollar hole in the ground if he's not careful. He'll have some protection from government telling him what he must and must not do with it, but none from rest of us.

Alfred Differ said...

Larry,

Language translation tools are still amusing from what I've seen, but in a way I did not expect to live to see. Way back in the stone age of early Pentium chips, I pondered what translation would require. It was in a class of problems I thought could be solved eventually, but might require transcendence making the distinction between program and intelligence moot. Boy oh boy was I wrong.

I had no f#$@ing clue what we might accomplish with expert systems and astonishingly huge piles of data. I thought in terms of the human model for minds. We actually preprocess a lot of sensory data before transmitting it into the brain. For example, retinas are four-layered neural networks. Very little information passes down the optic nerves. I thought in those terms with slowly growing symbol catalogs built from repeating patterns learned by those nets.

That's not what Google did. They drank from the firehose. Massive data streams feed their AI. "Reading all books" isn't a nonsense objective. "Parsing all english text into data structures" became achievable. "Keeping up with humans fluently using English" turns out to be easy if you successfully invite them to talk to you. You want to find the cheapest gasoline within a mile of you? Let me help. You want to find out what "Onomatopoeia" means? Here's the dictionary definition. How do you use it in a sentence? Well… I've got a few book snippets for you.

Way back in that pentium stone age, I remember early search engines with far less capability. First one I learned to use was Alta Vista (I think) when I used to hunt for NASA technical reports. It used to burp a million possibilities into my browser and sort them. Besides the fact that others could pay them to land higher in the search, their guesses were as laughable as language translation programs. I had to learn to use them only just long enough to find a server that focused upon a topic. Once I found NASA's technical report services, I ditched the search engine and use that server's "find" capability. NONE of that remotely looked like me talking to anything.

Google got us to train its AI that is capable of attacking that whole class of problems. Want to sound fluent in a language? Get fluent people to talk to you long enough to learn. Turns out that's exactly what they tried to do, but with an expert system instead of a general intelligence. What I didn't expect was for any problem in that class to fall to an expert system. I thought that whole class required general intelligence or higher. Boy oh boy was I wrong.

Cari Burstein said...

Alfred, I do have a NYT subscription, and I don't use my gift articles nearly enough, so here's a gift link so that you can read the full article:

Elon Musk Is a Problem Masquerading as a Solution

Larry Hart said...

Since Russia already did sign a security agreement with Ukraine in 1994, in exchange for which, Ukraine voluntarily gave up the nuclear weapons which could have been useful to have today, why would any agreement that Putin signed be worth more than the resale value of the paper and ink?

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/04/26/world/ukraine-russia-war-news

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia told the U.N. secretary-general, António Guterres that peace talks with Ukraine are ongoing via a video link and that he hopes they would bring “some positive result.” In a meeting in the Kremlin, Mr. Putin said Russia would not sign a security guarantee agreement with Ukraine without the territorial questions of Crimea and Donbas being resolved.

Larry Hart said...

Alfred Differ:

I think the opinion writer is aiming at a familiar strawman. Musk is more than a little inclined toward libertarian thought, though he doesn't want to be associated with some of the crazies among them.


I think he's aiming at the image of Musk relative to Twitter that the right-wingers are currently masturbating to.

Alan Brooks said...

Alfred D,
not to pick on the un-named, it could be anyone similar. I don’t say they are Wrong-wrong—but that is because what they say is still mysterious...ill-defined.
‘Science is a religion’ is such a common complaint, it has become insipid.
Someone less vague than the un-named could back up the complaint somewhat; they could say something along the lines of:
“Pure science isn’t faith-based, however engineering can be thought of as ‘Playing God’ because it alters our surroundings drastically.”
I wouldn’t agree that “engineering is Playing God”, but it does provide more detail than the familiar, ‘science is a religion and scientists are high priests’.

Larry Hart said...

Alfred Differ:

For me that question is best answered with another question.


Are you sure you're not Jewish? :)


It is better to ask "Progress from where?" since most of us agree it is away from famine, plague, misery, and the other horrors of our past.


Yes, most of the arguments against progress-as-religion come from people who don't usually think of religion as a bad thing. And they do seem to yearn for something akin to the W Bush-era Onion headline, "The Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity is Qver!"

Larry Hart said...

Alfred Differ:

NO ONE can offer a promise of positive freedom of speech that gets past my bullshit filter. IF I own a press (takes many forms nowadays) I'm protected from government limiting my use of it in certain ways, but I have no protections from my neighbors responding to what I print. The threat/counter-threat for neighbors involves lawsuits restricted to civil courts.


I don't think anyone is seriously calling for Twitter to guarantee safety for all posters. My point is to notice that unregulated posting by all does not lead to the free marketplace of ideas that libertarians think it will. It leads from which most non-angry people will eventually flee because there's too much noise to make any signal detectible.

This particular discussion here began when someone posted that Musk wanted a virtual town square with maximal trust and maximal freedom. And my point is that you can't have both--the more anyone can say anything (especially if we don't know their trustworthiness, expertise, or reputation) the less trust users will have concerning POVs they don't already agree with. And the more one attempts to make the information trustworthy, the more people will feel their side is being censored. It's a Heisenberg uncertainty principle that you can't maximize both, for the same reason an engineering project can't simultaneously maximize efficiency, minimize cost, and minimize time to production.

(Likewise, Dave Sim wanted his 300-issue opus to make sense as the story of a life in a way that, say, 300 issues of "Superman" or "Spider-Man" did not. Same problem. A story is not a life and a life is not a story. The more you make the book resemble one, the more it takes away from the other.)


Musk's ownership of Twitter will be yet another example of a rich man buying a "printing press". The one person protected from certain government limits is the owner of that press because it is his property. The rest of us simply aren't covered, but that doesn't mean he'll limit us.


I hear people say that, but the analogy doesn't quite work for me. Buying a printing press suggests that he--the owner--is free to publish or not publish whatever he wants. He seems to be aiming for something more of a facilitator on which anyone can express what they want, and he is not responsible for the content. I'm not sure what a proper analogy would be--maybe short-wave radio?

I'm not arguing whether or not he has the right to do so with his own company. I'm saying that the result won't be what it's being advertised as. Either he will get what he wants and still not be very happy, or else the inevitable cesspool of hate-speech, misogyny, conspiracy theories, and spam advertising as far as the eye can see ("It will be glorious!") is his true goal in the first place. Or else he'll have to take steps to avoid that result, which is what is happening already.

Alfred Differ said...

Cari,

Thank you. I read it top to bottom, through grumbles and eye rolls. 8)

Sadly, it is another "no good billionaires" piece of crap. The author is welcome to their opinion (of course), but I think them guilty of demonizing an adversary they don't want to know well enough to see his humanity.

At least at the very end the author did offer up the obvious solution. Make your own damn platform. That's what non-profits are for. When the public is to be served and profits serve as a distraction, fill in the 501(c)3 paperwork and roll up your sleeves.

Twitter wouldn't be the first social media platform to rise and then fall in the face of legitimate competition. Serve the public well and compete for their backing!

Alfred Differ said...

Alan,

I used to argue that science wasn't a belief system, thus not a faith. I don't anymore. After going a round or two with the virtue ethics folks I learned the difference between Faith and faith and faiths.

Scientists DO believe things.
Scientists DO have loyalty to belief systems.

Some scientists violate the first commandment, but I've never met one who treated their belief system as a replacement for the Christian's singular God. It's more accurate to say that faith simply isn't there. No replacement occurred. This makes them technical violators of the first commandment because something else is at the top of their list of ideals to which they are faithful. It might be their loyalty to science… or it might be they are Cubs fans. Who knows?


As for the folks objecting to "Playing God", there are times I just want to smack them. I refrain from physical violence, but not so much from glaring at them. How dare they!

Anyway, our unnamed one isn't that bad. His belief system isn't all that wild or obscure. It's just that it's old and illiberal.

Paradoctor said...

Do beavers play God? Do bees? They're both engineers.
So is every living cell. How dare we locally reduce entropy?

Alfred Differ said...

Larry,

I absolutely LOVE good sarcasm. Intelligence humor. I've long known I'm sapiosexual. I met my wife-to-be over a Scrabble board in a bookstore. She proceeded to thrash me and I came back for more the next night… and the next… 8)

does not lead to the free marketplace of ideas that libertarians think it will

Ha ha! What a shock! Libertarians have ideals to which they are loyal against all evidence to the contrary. News at 11.

…maximal trust and maximal freedom. And my point is that you can't have both…

Ah. I do recognize the interdependence of these, but I'll reject any argument that one must trade one for another. I don't think you are making a zero-sum argument, but I get real wary when someone asserts a thing like this when it is less than obvious to me. It's like when someone asserts that we must trade between security and freedom. Bullshit.

We CAN have trust and freedom and the evidence is all around us. We are fairly trusting of each other and inclined to be supports of (at least) negative freedom.

If, however, you argue against the maximal corner case where trust and freedom have to be independent functions… then I suspect you are right.

Buying a printing press suggests that he--the owner--is free to publish or not publish whatever he wants.

Yes… and if what he wants is a reality TV kind of platform, he's largely free to have it be so. Such a platform would have us writing pretty much anything we damn well felt like writing. Anarchy rules would apply… meaning essentially no restraints on us. That's likely what he will aim for. Anyone who knows him moderately well knows he leans to the anarchist side of the libertarian camp.

(Short-wave radio is actually highly regulated. Frequency bands are treated as commons property and either leased or sold by the sovereign owning the commons. Even ham radio amateurs live within a strict rule set.)


I'm saying that the result won't be what it's being advertised as.

I quite agree. That's why I grind my teeth at the 'no good billionaire' argument right now. They DON'T KNOW what is going to happen, so they leverage fear of change to grind their axe against billionaires. What's the phrase again? Never neglect an opportunity to exploit a dramatic event? Meh. I'm mangling it, but I remember the point of the idiom.

Larry Hart said...

Alfred Differ:

Some scientists violate the first commandment, but I've never met one who treated their belief system as a replacement for the Christian's singular God. It's more accurate to say that faith simply isn't there. No replacement occurred.


Many religious evangelicals honestly can't seem to comprehend what you just said. They seem to sincerely believe that if you don't worship God, then you must worship something else in place of God. They often say of atheists that we worship ourselves as God. And they say of scientists that they worship science as God. CS Lewis put it something like (paraphrasing), "You can't eat without using a knife and fork, but also not using your hands".

In contrast, I'm partial to Dave Sim's observation from back before he became religious. "There is no Church of Newton's Laws in which we give thanks that an object at rest or in motion remains at rest or in motion unless acted on by an outside force. What exactly would we be giving thanks for?" (I remember you have said that the fact that the laws of physics work is something to be grateful for, but that's not the same thing as having to grovel before those laws in order to win their favor.)

Religious Dave asserts that if you don't worship God, you are doing His Adversary's work, but to Dave's credit, he doesn't mean that you must be actively worshipping the devil. Just that the devil doesn't care whether you worship him or not, as long as you're not worshipping God.

Larry Hart said...

Alfred Differ:

"Buying a printing press suggests that he--the owner--is free to publish or not publish whatever he wants."

Yes… and if what he wants is a reality TV kind of platform, he's largely free to have it be so.


I didn't want to spam the board more than I already have, but after I posted that, I did think of a better analogy for what Musk claims he wants from Twitter. It's not so much like his buying a printing press as it is him manufacturing and selling cheap, easy-to-use printing presses to everyone.


Such a platform would have us writing pretty much anything we damn well felt like writing. Anarchy rules would apply… meaning essentially no restraints on us. That's likely what he will aim for. Anyone who knows him moderately well knows he leans to the anarchist side of the libertarian camp.


And again, I'm not saying he can't do that. I'm saying it won't solve the problem he's saying it will solve.


"…maximal trust and maximal freedom. And my point is that you can't have both…"
...
We CAN have trust and freedom and the evidence is all around us. We are fairly trusting of each other and inclined to be supports of (at least) negative freedom.


I just said you can't maximize both.

Your engineering project can have good performance, reasonable cost, and come on line at an acceptable time too. You just can't maximize all three pillars.

Jon S. said...

"CS Lewis put it something like (paraphrasing), 'You can't eat without using a knife and fork, but also not using your hands.'"

It's clear that someone has never seen a pie-eating contest.

Alan Brooks said...

Alfred D,
Yes, there does need to be some faith involved; say a faith that when one goes to sleep at night the world will still exist in the morning. Or that the sleeper will still exist in the morning.
And yes, the un-named one isn’t so bad, otherwise he wouldn’t be worth discussing or replying to. I meet worse than he every day. For instance religionists who say if we don’t unite under God’s authority, we will fall—“united we stand, divided we fall.”
They link God with the Flag, and say/hint that if one isn’t willing (if necessary) to die for God and the Flag, one is damned. And must cover oneself with sackcloth and ashes. “For we are all soldiers of God...”

duncan cairncross said...

Larry

"You can't maximize all three" - I would agree and I suspect that Musk would agree completely

However you can optimise the process and will often actually improve all three

If I was Elon Musk I would now be creating a "Brains Trust" to work out how to do that - and I would be inviting our host to join the trust

Alfred Differ said...

Larry,

Not only do we not need to grovel before the laws of physics, there is no point in being loyal to them. The paradigms described by Kuhn ARE about loyalty to understandings of how the world works, but they are more about how we identify ourselves than any obligation to science theories.
———
For example, it was argued last century that classical/deterministic theories of physics were dead. They couldn't work. At all. Quantum theories and their probabilistic approach were the only way forward. Some physicists remained 'loyal' to deterministic models and fought on. They didn't grovel before those models. They didn't anthropomorphize them. Their loyalty eventually paid off, though. Determinism isn't quite dead IF you are willing to give up locality.

To people outside the physics community, that's likely as intelligible as alien script, but that's not the point. There ARE loyalties within science and Kuhn did a decent job of describing their rise and fall. It's a huge error to think of them as replacements for God, though.

I get your perspective on this, but Sim's approach is intellectually lazy. It boils down to "If not A then B." What? That's just an assertion and not one supported by much that could legitimize belief in its truthiness.
———
The thing about loyalties within science that distinguishes them is the same thing that separates natural philosophy from other fields in philosophy. The ideal to which we are loyal has a purposeful design that generates evidence that either falsifies a belief or contributes to the legitimacy of its truthiness. If we are loyal to the ideal, we sift information from data and hone it into knowledge.

This is exactly what Prudence is supposed to do for us! Practical knowledge! Science as an ideal provides a toolset leading one along a path toward being a person of good character.

In other words, there is payback for this loyalty.

———

manufacturing and selling cheap, easy-to-use printing presses to everyone

Well… yah. That's what the internet does for us. We are already there. Buy a little website and run a blog. Poof! you have a printing press. Social media just improves on your chances your words will be seen and read.

The opinion author seemed bent on blaming billionaires for the ills of the world. No doubt some are. When it comes to the crap-ton of hate spewed on social media sites, though, it is We The People who generate it. (Okay… I know Ivan has been hard at work dividing us. I get that. Ivan isn't a billionaire, though.)

Nothing is going to magically stop us from writing hateful things on social media… except ourselves. I'd bet every dollar I have Musk gets that. I've watched how he toys with people on Twitter. Especially people playing in the crypto markets. Ugh. I've also watched him interact with people who added value to him. He's very straight forward with them when they do.

So… I don't quite know what he thinks is possible in buying Twitter except that he is probably optimistic about goals and schedules. I know better what he does NOT intend to do, because his character isn't opaque. He's not going to spend billions to piss it all down a hole for the sake of vanity. He intends to make things better and throws is money into that.

Alfred Differ said...

Alan,

Heh. I'm not inclined to express faith in the notion the world will still exist tomorrow morning. It's not that I think it will vanish in a puff of smoke, though. It's that I'm not "loyal to" the notion. I believe it, but I'm not loyal to it. See?

We English speakers brought this upon ourselves when we decided to overload the verb "to believe". Consider these two sentences.

1. I believe in God.
2. I believe one and one is two.

The first is best thought of in terms of loyalties.
The second is best thought of in terms of propositional logic.

Overloading the verb goes back at least a few centuries. The project undertaken by Thomas Hobbes when he wrote Leviathan was to axiomatize the knowledge we'd assign to sociology today. He was enamored by the work of Euclid in formalizing geometry and wanted to do the same for society. Had he succeeded at that, we'd treat "loyalty to King" much like we treat "Interior angles of a triangle add to 180 degrees." Truthiness would be provable in the sense of geometry proofs.

Leviathan is part of this grand project that failed miserably. Yet… we still place the two kinds of belief close in our minds.


For me, the world's continuity while I sleep has nothing to do with loyalty and is more about logic. If it has some kind of objective reality, my sleep patterns are highly irrelevant. If it doesn't, my mind's continuity is likely to ensure the subjective continuity of the world I perceive. Both paths lend legitimacy to the propositional truth "The world will still be here tomorrow morning."

I meet worse than he every day.

Heh. I used to, but I'm getting too old for that s$%t.
The older I got, the quicker I judged people and then avoided them.
Helps that I live on the California coast. 8)


Duncan,

However you can optimise the process and will often actually improve all three

I'd say something almost the same…

"However, you can agitate the process and find local inflection points improving all three."

Yah, yah. I'm in a pedantic mood tonight.

Agitation as a technique avoids a lot assumptions about the underlying fitness function. I think engineers lump this under 'simulated annealing'. [If I'd remembered that term a few years ago, you and I likely would have avoided going a few rounds because I'd have pointed to assumptions in the algorithm instead of my biological handwaving.]

duncan cairncross said...

Agitation as a technique avoids a lot assumptions about the underlying fitness function.

Yep that is exactly what we do when we don't have a good "theory" - or when the "theory" is not working

And it DOES work! - sometimes it makes things worse - then we learn not to do that!

"It seemed like a good idea at the time" is a common engineering phrase

In our earlier "disagreements" I obviously did not make that clear

This is the process that Musk is using for self driving - each car has two computers - when he has an idea about how things work one computer runs in parallel predicting what the driver will do
If the driver does something different that data point is sent back to base

I wonder if he could apply a similar logic to Twitter - with a system that puts "virtual bans" to train it in actual sensible control

Jon S. said...

Musk's process for teaching a car to drive itself, however, demonstrably does not work. It can't even reliably identify a bicycle - or an aircraft on a field. And I see no reason to believe it would work any better for Twitter.

Tiktok is moderated almost entirely algorithmically. Go ask Tiktok users how well that works.

Alfred Differ said...

Jon S,

I'm not even remotely convinced that demonstration has occurred.

I know some drivers are far too trusting of it right now.
I know it can't identify everything.
Human drivers make these same mistakes... more often.

My figure of merit for success is whether or not fewer people are dying or being injured by these cars than would be happening without the partial automation.

Did Musk hype the system and over-promise? Yup. Some. Not as much as many accuse him of doing.

One evil Ukrainian) said...

.

Blogger Paradoctor said...
So is every living cell. How dare we locally reduce entropy?

Go google word "synergetics" -- that's new scientific discipline that researches in that field.


Blogger Alan Brooks said...
Are we half-civilized, or half-barbaric? An open question—but considering the Ukrainian war, I’d guess the latter.

What Putin do is 100% civilized and rational. About need of teritories and population to boost one's economy. Rational ideas about how to fight a war, how to subjugate and enslave.
Barbarians CANNOT even start to imagine something like that.
Otherwise, indians or maya would not allow yourself to be killed so easily.


Blogger Alfred Differ said...
I'm not going to argue against any of these definitions today even if they don't match mine. What I point out is they don't match the classic definition...

Your problem starts when you start calling "courage" a virtue. While that is not. That is personal ability, that manefistate itself under certain circumstances. Like that sheriff in recent news feed, who climbed couple of floors to save a child. Was it courageous act? Of course.
But was there any inner debates about cost/benefit of such bechavior, danger to a property or etc? No.
That was just a cognitive act of a brave man "yes, I can do that".

On the contrary, Bravery - that is that Virtue you seeking, as an ability to show Courage deliberately, or even seeking for such chances.


I'm with the anonymous evil Ukrainian on this. Some of them appear to want to join The West. I say we encourage them. Help them move to a vision of their future they prefer.

From perspective of Ukrainian... that is more like YOU are, trying to rub in some fame from that courage Ukraine showing. As that is YOU are ones who was destined to withstand and tame that beast. But you frowned. And tryed to evade that fate.
West.
Because of lack of courage.
And now trying to mitigate that lose... lose of self-image being courageous and powerful.



Blogger locumranch said...
This point is emphasized NOT to discount the rational, scientific, matter-of-fact, anti-romantic & pro-enlightenment aspects of our fine host's personality, education & collective works, but to merely indicate that his stated goals (or, at least, the rational behind his stated goals) are emotive Grade A romantic horse-pucky.

That way you just showed that you really are stoopid, like Alfy said.
But well, Alfy not that bright himself. So what again it means when one stupidity call others stupid, ah? What a darn stylish phylosopical question. :-)
Davy doing it not because he is "emotive", but because THAT is sole possible for him level he understands science (given only his cooling lazer which outrightly violates laws of termodynamic, as example)


From a coldly rational perspective, the Ukrainians do not 'deserve' autonomy, no one has a 'right' to a full belly, no human is 'entitled' to peaceful life, and 'fairness' has nothing to do with whether or not a rabbit becomes predator chow.

Thank you for showing how narrow your "rational perspective" is.
But well, we know it already. :-) Far too well.


The only criteria for Human Self-Rule (Autonomy) is the ability to defend oneself against all challengers, and relative 'deservingness', 'rights', 'fairness' or 'entitlement' has absolutely nothing to do with material reality.

Em... baby infant. HOW it can protect itself? AH?!! :-)


just as our very own 'Evil Ukrainian' sheds no tears over the graves of many dead Russians.

Only one tinsy little problem here - they do not have graves.
Because their own kin do not care about their corpses being scattered across Ukrainian territory.
So? Yeah, what was your argument here again?



duncan cairncross said...

Alfred
I worried about the eventual shift to full self driving because there will ALWAYS be cockups

Then I realised I was looking at it wrong - there are always going to be cockups and the insurance company pays for them

With full self driving we just need to be better than human - there will be cockups but as long as there are LESS cockups - then the insurance companies will pay less

I'm pretty sure that we are well past that point in the development

Jon's aircraft example was when using "summons" - and the instructions are that the summoner must be able to watch the car - it was the plonker with the cellphone who did not see the aircraft


DP said...

Alfred - to a faith based mindset science is just another rival faith, and not a methodology separate and independent from faith.

Larry Hart said...

Alfred Differ:

I get your perspective on this, but Sim's approach is intellectually lazy. It boils down to "If not A then B." What? That's just an assertion and not one supported by much that could legitimize belief in its truthiness.


Personally, I agree with you, but I think I do understand Dave Sim's belief about God's Adversary*. If you accept that God exists and that faith in God is paramount, then it is not hard to imagine a "bad guy" whose goal is for you to not have faith in God. It doesn't require you to replace that faith with something else in particular.

Think of "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists." I didn't exactly agree with Bush at the time he laid that out, but there are some circumstances in which is would be more valid. Or consider Putin in the "God's Adversary" role. Pre-Ukraine, I mean, when he was just messing with elections in Britain, the US, and France. His goal wasn't necessarily for us to make him our leader. Undermine our democracies was enough.

* Dave never explicitly refers to "the devil" or "Satan". In fact, his pet theory is that the YHWH of the Old Testament is not God, but a misguided earth spirit (think C.S. Lewis's Oyarsa of Earth) who the ancient Hebrews mistakenly worshipped, thinking it to be God. He reads the Bible as an extended conversation between God and YHWH, with God patiently explaining why YHWH's suggestions wouldn't work out the way they are intended.

Larry Hart said...

Alfred Differ:

We English speakers brought this upon ourselves when we decided to overload the verb "to believe". Consider these two sentences.

1. I believe in God.
2. I believe one and one is two.

The first is best thought of in terms of loyalties.
The second is best thought of in terms of propositional logic.


Yes, and that's why it's ridiculous and pointless to try to trip someone up by asking whether they "believe in evolution." Scientists believe the theory of evolution to be sound science, but they don't worship at some sort of altar and ask forgiveness of evolution. And many religious people might well accept that evolution takes place in the world, but they're not about to profess "belief in" anything other than God (nor should they).

I will say of your first example that it does contain a sense of "I believe that God exists" and furthermore, of "I believe that loyalty to God is a desirable thing", both of which are propositional statements. Along with the underlying assertion of loyalty.

Larry Hart said...

One evil Ukrainian) :

On the contrary, Bravery - that is that Virtue you seeking, as an ability to show Courage deliberately, or even seeking for such chances.


I'm wondering if those definitions are exactly backwards. Courage being the one seeking out opportunities to display bravery, rather than the other way around.

But I have to admit, I've been using the two words interchangeably, which might have had some affect on our recent discussions.

* * *

Alfred Differ:

Heh. I'm not inclined to express faith in the notion the world will still exist tomorrow morning. It's not that I think it will vanish in a puff of smoke, though. It's that I'm not "loyal to" the notion. I believe it, but I'm not loyal to it. See?


Well, I'd say I believe it (in the sense of loyalty) to the extent that I make future plans without considering "What if the universe disappears while I'm not looking?" in my calculations. I acknowledge that such a thing is possible (in the sense that "everything is possible"), and that if it did happen, it would be quite significant, but I still choose to live as if that's so unlikely as to be not worth the time for consideration. Isn't that a kind of loyalty (Your Honor)?

When I was in college, a quad preacher actually used something like that as an argument for God's existence. Like, "Only God makes sure that gravity continues to work from moment to moment. Without God, there's no reason you couldn't suddenly be flying off into space." Seemed exactly ass-backwards to me. From observation and experience, I have faith that gravity will still be here tomorrow or next year all on its own. If God does exist, then He could change that on a whim if He wanted to.

Alan Brooks said...

Alfred D,

“Helps that I live on the California coast”

Save for bubble communities, MAGA-types have a death grip on the rest of the country.

“Evil Ukrainian” (?)

It’s a stretch for you to write:
quote Putin is 100 percent civilized...unquote,
no matter what the context of the comment. I wrote that it’s a matter of opinion whether we’re partially civilized (‘the glass half full’);
or partially barbaric (‘the glass half empty’).
I think the latter is the case.

Larry Hart said...

Aren't we all missing something in the discussion of Twitter?

Twitter, like social media in general, is not just a list of every post that everyone writes as they come in. There are algorithms and rules (sometimes self-generated, sometimes not) determining which posts get widely noticed. Whoever controls how those work determines the character of the platform.

Somewhat tangentially, how does an AI determine truth from the mess of stuff that's out there on the internet? If it's simply by volume, then the paid right-wing agents who currently re-write Wikipedia posts all the time will be believed more than anyone else.

If I were to post "This sentence is a lie" on a blog, what would keep the AI reading it from short circuiting? :)

Tim H. said...

A question to consider: Will Twitter be the large shiny thing that distracts Elon from Spacex and Tesla?

scidata said...

We all have our toolboxes and biases, and they may not fit social media projects. Ask Google or Apple. Elon may find that it's not so easy to build a SpaceTwit or TesTwit.

Larry Hart said...

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/27/opinion/elon-musk-twitter.html

...
I tend to agree with the technology writer Max Read, who predicts that Musk “will strive to keep Twitter the same level of bad, and in the same kinds of ways, as it always has been, because, to Musk, Twitter is not actually bad at all.”
...
What will Twitter feel like to liberals when Musk is mocking Senator Elizabeth Warren on the platform he owns and controls as “Senator Karen”? Will they want to enrich him by contributing free labor to his company? Conservatives are now celebrating Musk’s purchase of the platform, but what if, faced with a deepening crisis of election disinformation, he goes into goblin mode against right-wing politicians who are making his hands-off moderation hopes untenable or who are threatening his climate change agenda?
...
Unless Musk changes his own behavior radically, and implausibly, I suspect his ownership will heighten Twitter’s contradictions to an unbearable level. What would follow isn’t the collapse of the platform but the right-sizing of its influence.


From your lips to God's ear.

Alfred Differ said...

(evil?) Ukrainian

Dude. Argue with Aristotle about virtues if you want. I'm not interested.
I'm also not inclined to take English lessons from you.

You are mistaken about us acting over there. I know people who have been helping you. Fortunately I don't know their names and can't get them on someone's target list. The point I make is that American's tend to act as individuals and through NGO's more than we do as a national force. We ARE over there even when it annoys our national government.

Liberty requires blood now and then. Yours and theirs.

I'm done on this topic. What I do is my business.

Alfred Differ said...

DP,

Your observation is consistent with what I've seen for many of them. Not all (fortunately), but many.

It reminds me of the history of the number zero. It wasn't treated as a number for a very long time, but it's usefulness eventually penetrated our thick skulls.

A difference between us all is how many 'faiths' we have. In the sense of gods or supernatural beings, I just happen to have one less than most Christians.


Another observation I'd add to yours is they often object to 'faith' and 'faiths' as terms. Faith is like a proper noun implying one and only one thing bringing it all under Commandment #1.

Pfft.


Larry,

Okay. That makes a bit more sense of Sim's beliefs. It's territory already covered by theology scholars, though.

I will say of your first example that it does contain a sense of "I believe that God exists" and…

A former business partner pointed out to me it was possible to be loyal without belief in the proposition. We talked all day about it on a long drive to a possible HQ site.

Another former partner made it much clearer. Certainty in the proposition got in the way of his loyalty. A big part of his identity was wrapped around the notion that the ideal had to be represented to people who did not believe the proposition. Therefore, he had to exemplify faith from the other direction.

Another guy I argued with on a board said much the same thing and pointed to Matthew 5:16. His 'shining light' had to be loyalty and not confidence in the truthiness of the proposition.


So... I did not mean to imply #2 in #1. 8)

Larry Hart said...

Alfred Differ:

Another former partner made it much clearer. Certainty in the proposition got in the way of his loyalty. A big part of his identity was wrapped around the notion that the ideal had to be represented to people who did not believe the proposition. Therefore, he had to exemplify faith from the other direction.


I think you are asserting that one can have faith in God without believing that there actually is a God. And that your former partner even felt that believing that there is a God is an impediment to faith in God.

Sorry, but I don't get it.

I can understand the notion that one is supposed to have faith without evidence or proof of God's existence. But faith without even thinking that He's real?

I can't wrap my mind around that concept.

Alan Brooks said...

Centuries ago, esp before the Renaissance, people Believed in God. They'd look at the sky and frequently see the face of ‘God’. Perhaps it was sometimes mild ergotism or somesuch.
Today it is more like they believe. (Small case ‘b’.) Now it might be more akin
to what used to be called ‘collective consciousness’, but is today termed something else.
God nowadays might be considered by believers to be internal—rather than an external cosmic Being.

Alan Brooks said...

...In the distant past, Believers were the majority; now Believers are in the minority; believers (again, small case ‘b’) are the majority.
We can’t go by what they say: unless they’re simpletons, there’re all sorts of things going on in their minds.
——
We could term what they believe in, deep down, as the collective conscious.
•The collective unconscious.
•The collective superego.
•The collective conscious superego.
•The collective unconscious superego.
Or whatever the latest terminology is.
You’d have to ask them; however not only go by what they say, but also by their demeanors and body language. Some part-Believe and go along—pro forma—in social clubbing/interfaith ecumenicism.
And those who are dying have nothing to lose by Believing rather than believing.

Pappenheimer said...

I've never understood the point of creating a universe if you already know what's going to go on in it. If we live in a creation, it's likely to be somebody's half-assed experiment/master's thesis.

See "Implied Spaces" by W J Williams, about (spoiler) a Thanos-style villain who has found incontrovertible proof that he lives in an artifice universe, and decides to conquer humanity to mobilize us for the grand purpose of breaking out and confronting the implied Uranian(s)* who started the whole thing.

Pappenheimer

*If Jovians are jovial and Mercurians are mercurial, Uranians...well, we already did this bit.

Alfred Differ said...

Larry,

Sorry, but I don't get it.

Yah. We drove an entire day talking about that. (There wasn't much else to do when crossing NV from CA to get to the UT border.) By the end of the day I'd come around to seeing it as "he wasn't certain" in the same sense where he IS certain that one and one is two. There was also a touch of Pascal's wager in his explanation along with "It feels good."

It was the other partner that got through to me, though. Certainty was to be avoided. He WAS certain God existed in the sense that one and one is two, but it got in the way of his mission.
-----

There is a middle ground between believing the proposition true and believing the proposition false. It's called non-belief. Imagine being confronted by a logic table and trying to fill it in. Keep it simple. A and B could be true or false. The statement they are in is to be evaluated. (Statements with ANDs, ORs, NOTs)

As you are about to fill in the table, you meet someone who disagrees with you as to what AND, OR, and NOT mean. Now what?

Without agreement on the definitions, the table can't be filled in. The statement has no truthiness measure.

What does this have to do with the faiths expressed by my friends? We didn't agree on what God is. That means propositions should be challenging to evaluate. However, loyalty to whatever ideal we identify is still possible. Since most of my friends COULD agree on roughly what God is, those ideals overlapped a great deal.

Ultimately, faith as "loyal to" is pretty easy to spot in other people. We don't have to agree on all the propositions to have a great deal of overlap. Enlightenment civilization depends on this in a fundamental way. Free Thinkers found common cause with Believers and helped build the world we see today. Pretty amazing since most of us were punished not that long ago.

Alfred Differ said...

Pappenheimer,

What's the point in having a kid if you know they are going to grow up and die eventually? 8)


My point being... People with preferences don't have to have points. God as He is portrayed by many of his believers has preferences like we do.

If this is a half-assed master's thesis, though, no one has to conquer me to get my help in arranging the confrontation. I'd want this whole mess reported to their cosmic Internal Review Board. 8)

locumranch said...


God is natural order, cause & effect, reaction/response, aka mother nature (a term that means 'material reality') which comes to us from the Latin phrase 'mater realis', and it's continued existence is in no way dependent on either human belief or worship.

Science (aka 'empiricism') is the matter-of-fact study of the natural order, cause & effect, reaction/response and mother nature in an attempt to gain competitive advantage, and it's pursuit requires 'skepticism' (the opposite of belief) and mental stillness (the antithesis of emotion).

Religious Worship has nothing to do with either as it is an attempt to curry favour, exercise influence and alter the natural order through the use of bargaining, toadyism and rampant emotionalism, as if the nature order was an anthropomorphic organism with influenceable human feelings.

Granted: There is a sort of cultural efficiency from a population that shares the same homogeneous moral, religious & philosophical beliefs

In terms of the inflexible natural order, human laws are irrelevant as human prescriptions & prohibitions neither prescribe nor prohibit, but only reward and/or punish after the fact, and those who insist otherwise are either mistaken or delusional, much like those who believe that the universe owes them long lives, autonomy or full bellies.

It was a statement of fact (not an insult) when I wrote earlier that Dr. Brin is selling Science AS IF it was Religion, as he seems intent on imbuing science with sacred passions, emotional intensity & religious revelation, perhaps in the erroneous belief that slack-jawed country yokels will be more accepting of a competing religion rather than cold hard rationalism.

This a mistake as the average country dweller is much more practical & more in touch with nature than is the over-educated city dweller who thinks that milk comes from a carton, corn grows in flake form & valuable resources come from the government.

The deplorable American Kulak learns from a young age that hard work, study & physical effort are the most reliable source of comfort, reward, security & social progress, which is probably the reason why socialists, communists & other lying intellectuals target them for destruction first....so there is no one left to challenge their tissue of lies.


Best

One evil Ukrainian) said...

.


Blogger Alan Brooks said...
“Evil Ukrainian” (?)

It’s a stretch for you to write:
quote Putin is 100 percent civilized...unquote,


You are free, of course, to explain to me how his civilized bombs and civilized missiles -- civilized because AND by itself it is a PRODUCT of civilization, as well as reasons and methods of using it...
really is barbaric.
Well, I'm not sure that you'd be same swift to admit that respective USA's bombs and missiles are barbaric too... isn't it?



Blogger Larry Hart said...
I'm wondering if those definitions are exactly backwards. Courage being the one seeking out opportunities to display bravery, rather than the other way around.

Denotat. Konotat. Word is not that thing it refers to.
See explanation to Alfy below.

Well, Bravery that is lasting. We wait from brave man to be brave always. While courage oftenly assigned to ones who show it suddenly.
Isn't it?



Blogger Alfred Differ said...
(evil?) Ukrainian

Dude. Argue with Aristotle about virtues if you want. I'm not interested.
I'm also not inclined to take English lessons from you.


It seems I understand who you are now - you are from that people (most of us) who thinks with words.
But words... that is just a labels. Can change meanings, can be used some other way. Wrong way mostly.
But that do not mean that with change of a word, THING they depict changes too.
Am I clear and easy to comprehend?




Blogger locumranch said...

BINGO!

Only... "so there is no one left to challenge their tissue of lies"
that is only intellectuals who care about that "tissue of lies".
Trying to cut it in prefered to them way. And to craft dresses for a Naked Kings.
Intellectuals like you and Brin.

So? Yeah, what is your argument again?


Alan Brooks said...

Saturnians are saturnine.
——
LoCum,
In the past, rural dwellers were indeed self-reliant. For decades, they’ve been subsidized. For the last couple of years they’ve been receiving pandemic relief funds. Retired rural denizens get full retirement packages. Many purchase milk in cartons and buy corn flakes at modern markets in town. Numerous rustic offspring leave their homes to attend university/live in cities.
You have a good mind—for the 19th century. The 19th was such an enjoyable century, people attempted to recapitulate it in the 20th.
——
Evil Ukrainian: you could think of America as not being more civilized than Russia and China but, perhaps more accurately, less barbaric.

Larry Hart said...

Alfred Differ:

At the end of the day I'd come around to seeing it as "he wasn't certain" in the same sense where he IS certain that one and one is two. There was also a touch of Pascal's wager in his explanation along with "It feels good."


Pascal's wager treats belief as transactional, something I have never been able to do myself. One of those "There are two types of people in the world," things. A conservative on the old "Cerebus" list used to say that I "choose not to believe" in God because I don't want to face the consequence of His reality. Not so. I came to my atheism reluctantly, preferring to believe but accepting the evidence of my lying eyes.

"It feels good" treats religion as a form of fiction. One doesn't truly "believe" (in the propositional sense), but it's enjoyable to immerse oneself in the story.

As a youngster, I thought everyone's religious "beliefs" were like that. We all paid homage to the same words and commandments, but we didn't really believe in the supernatural any more than we believed in Santa Claus or the Easter bunny. I was kind of shocked to discover that many people I knew really did think that God existed and acted as our religions described.

At one time, I would have said that this sort of belief-as-entertainment wasn't truly "belief" in the loyalty sense. More like play-acting or watching a play. I mean, I can enjoy pretending that the Marvel super heroes really exist in the same world I live in, but I don't honestly "believe" that to be the case.

Q-ANON and its ilk have changed my mind. People who can't possibly actually believe (propositionally) the things they are saying really do feel loyalty to them nonetheless. I see it happening--I just don't understand the mindset.

Well, that's not exactly true. I do have a theory, although it's draconian. These people's real lives suck so badly that they see no percentage or hope in maintaining Loyalty to reality. "What has reality ever done for me, or what is it likely to ever do for me?"


It was the other partner that got through to me, though. Certainty was to be avoided. He WAS certain God existed in the sense that one and one is two, but it got in the way of his mission.


Is this like my hypothetical in which our host's novel characters intuit the existence of David Brin, who controls their destiny, and at whose sufferance they live and die? If those characters would decide that their creator wants them to kneel in obeisance and praise his greatness all day long, that would interfere with their "mission", which is to act out scenes in a story.

That's the only sense I can envision in which (propositional) belief that God exists gets in the way of doing God's work.

Larry Hart said...

Alan Brooks:

The 19th was such an enjoyable century, people attempted to recapitulate it in the 20th.


Yeah, Civil War, KKK, and the Gilded Age included.

It is being relived in the 21st. Like a bad remake.

Alan Brooks said...

“I have seen the past, and it works!”

Howard Brazee said...

I'm trying to imagine a post-Putin Russia. Trouble is, Russia is such a pervasively corrupt culture that I don't see much changing.

Alan Brooks said...

...and there are two types of people in the world:
a. Those who say “there’re two types of people in the world.”
b. Those who do not say that.

locumranch said...


Alan_B unwittingly supports our (non) Evil Ukraine friend by paraphrasing Putin's Ukrainian rationale in support of his own Western Neocon agenda:

That those farmers, resource providers & assorted country bumpkins in both Putin's & Alan's flyover country are (1) too uncivilised to rule themselves, (2) too stupid to understand that the few beads, subsidies & benefits that their would-be rulers provide are essentially valueless and (3) too dim to realise that they exist solely to provide their more evolved, intelligent & civilised urban betters with cheap food, labour and resources.

You would understand that the Colonial Hierarchy Model (detailed above) is old & outdated thinking if you actually understood what Dr. Brin posts on this blog, as (according to Dr. Brin) this is both the Age of the Amateur and the Age of Information & Industrial Decentralisation, so much so that us slack-jawed country bumpkins no longer require the extraneous parasitic services of a concentrated urban intelligentsia.

Our big urban centers are now completely unnecessary, plus they are full of useless eaters who are the chief contributors to Climate Change & Greenhouse Gas Production, and humanity would be better off if these over-populated megacities disappeared tomorrow.

This is the World Economic Forum's Population Agenda, n'est pas?

And, as a spokesman for all the country bumpkins out there, you need to understand that we live to serve you & your uber-civilised agenda.


Best

Alan Brooks said...

LoCum,
I didn’t call them bumpkins living in flyover country—you did. Do you live in a rural area and till the soil? Are the other residents of your town or hamlet jealous of your erudition? Because if they are jealous of you, wouldn’t that set you apart from them? While you’re toiling in the hot sun of the fields, do you think of Higher Things?
——
Am not writing that you’re Wrong, because I don’t know what you’re getting at. Rustic residents don’t need cities anymore? Do they need suburbs? Do they need certain things that cities & suburbs produce in factories:
such as tractors, trucks, tools, rope, medicines, first aid supplies, shoes, socks...you-name-it...?
——
These are all open questions;
if you don’t care to answer the questions, wouldn’t that make you evasive?

Paradoctor said...

The difference between belief and Belief equals the difference between truth and Truth, which equals the difference between pravda and Pravda. The latter is for things called 'Faiths', but which I call 'Prides', as in 'mortal sin' and 'pack of apex feline predators'*. It can be hard to tell the difference between a Faith and a Pride. One rule of thumb is that a Faith can laugh at itself, but a Pride dare not.

Every religion tends to become a Pride, and every nationalism, and every ideology. Our gracious host swears that he does not hold the scientific method as a Pride. Well, I hope not.

Capital-B Belief in the Truth of one's Pride makes sense, in a Stockholm-syndrome way. But it's wise to leaven your heartfelt loyalty to your Pride's Pravda with a bit of prudent hypocrisy, just in case the inevitable collapse happens on your watch.


* Don't get me started about lions, those cub-killers. Truly the King of Beasts, and I don't like kings, either.

Alan Brooks said...

All I want to know from so-and-so is why he thinks, going into detail, rural people are morally superior to metros. Is that asking too much?
Life is simpler in the countryside—but unless simple is synonymous with moral, how are country folk better?

Tim H. said...

AFAICT, it's not so much morality as channelling their inner alpha baboon.

Alfred Differ said...

locumranch,

Your definition for 'Science' is too dispassionate. That's not what we actually do. I don't care what a dictionary says on the matter either. Science is what scientists make of it. The only legit definition is a working definition.

Granted: There is a sort of cultural efficiency from a population that shares the same homogeneous moral, religious & philosophical beliefs

I want to call attention to this line. Whether or not I agree with it (I do) I appreciate it being laid out for all to see. When we grant points others make, the discussion moves on to more interesting things. Thank you.

only reward and/or punish after the fact

Regarding human laws, I mostly agree. My quibble is they are mostly about punishing. Rewards arrive through the markets. There are rare exceptions where laws assign winners, though.

It was a statement of fact (not an insult) when I wrote earlier that Dr. Brin is selling Science AS IF it was Religion…

Uhm. No. It is not a statement of fact. You believe it is, but you are in error.

This doesn't surprise me, though, since your understanding of what science is also happens to be flawed. I get it. A lot of pre-med students got through our classes never really understanding what science is. They didn't have to know. It didn't contribute to their grades.

Alfred Differ said...

Larry,

I see it happening--I just don't understand the mindset.

Well… when it comes to Q-ANON, it think it best to see them as a living example of the real purpose of rational thought. Real in the evolutionary sense. Rational thought rationalizes.

They also provide a wonderful example for why belief in the truth of a proposition need not make it true. Philosophers have tangled with this beast for a long time. What is Truth? How do you know?

If I'm told you skinned a cat yesterday by someone I find reputable, I might have plausible knowledge, belief, and a justification for the belief. That's the trifecta for Truth. If my reputable source happens to be mistaken and I don't know or don't believe or don't think such a belief is justified, then the inoculation I need to defend against the first belief will be rejected and I wind up believing you skinned a cat.

Q-ANON folks get where they are because they can rationalize from whom they accept plausible knowledge. You aren't on their list.

You do much the same since they aren't on your list.

———

That's the only sense I can envision in which (propositional) belief that God exists gets in the way of doing God's work.

I think that's pretty close.

My other partner definitely believed the proposition and many others asserted in scripture. SO many, in fact, it gave me hives. Original sin was among them and it showed in his character as a kind of self-hatred that I found to be utterly wrong. He took what I think of as a healthy dose of 'love thyself' and turned it into 'love what I should be'.

Through all that, though, his mission clearly aimed at helping children of single parents (especially those with fathers in jail) get a leg up in life. There wasn't a hypocritical bone in his body AND he actually helped kids. He lived for it. Literally lived for it.

So… his loyalty was crystal clear. His need for the propositions to be true was irrelevant. He believed they were, of course, and then had to set that aside to work with mothers and kids who might or might not. His loyalty shone as described in Matthew 5:16.

One Evil Ukrainian) said...

.

Blogger Alan Brooks said...
Evil Ukrainian: you could think of America as not being more civilized than Russia and China but, perhaps more accurately, less barbaric.

That was NOT my point.
Again.
Putin attacks Ukraine because of perfectly *civilized* reasons. Not that outdated even. Many countries still on the same page today. And most of *civilized* countries in 20th century was WHOLEHEARTEDLY on the same page.
Like: conquer neighbour, make em kneel, grab their resourses.
What's so hard to grasp, I dunno?
UPD:That, that you call someone barbaric -- that is just a propaganda. As far as you CANNOT demonstrate any better bechavior yourself. "Higher moral ground" it's a scam that way. As far as our Ukrainians in Mariupol suffer from *civilized/barbaric* bombing, while YOU, who bestowed with "higher moral grounds", scared to help or even RISE your voice about.



Blogger Paradoctor said...
Our gracious host swears that he does not hold the scientific method as a Pride. Well, I hope not.

He do not know what scientific method are about. :-)))
That is some dogma to him. Some label of being smart-ass.



Blogger Howard Brazee said...
I'm trying to imagine a post-Putin Russia. Trouble is, Russia is such a pervasively corrupt culture that I don't see much changing.

Oh, yeah? And what was your opinion about Mother Russia year ago, 10 years, 20 years?
You allowed it to exist and to do its bloody business. And you cooperated with it. So, what it makes of you?



Blogger Alfred Differ said...
It was a statement of fact (not an insult) when I wrote earlier that Dr. Brin is selling Science AS IF it was Religion…

Uhm. No. It is not a statement of fact. You believe it is, but you are in error.


Well, if subst Religion with Ideology...

If I'm told you skinned a cat yesterday by someone I find reputable, I might have plausible knowledge, belief, and a justification for the belief. That's the trifecta for Truth. If my reputable source happens to be mistaken and I don't know or don't believe or don't think such a belief is justified, then the inoculation I need to defend against the first belief will be rejected and I wind up believing you skinned a cat.


Yep. That looks like VERY good explanation of Brinny's cowardly premoderation and slurr tactics... and your reaction to it. :-)))



Blogger locumranch said...
Alan_B unwittingly supports our (non) Evil Ukraine friend by paraphrasing Putin's Ukrainian rationale in support of his own Western Neocon agenda:

That those farmers, resource providers & assorted country bumpkins in both Putin's & Alan's flyover country are (1) too uncivilised to rule themselves, (2) too stupid to understand that the few beads, subsidies & benefits that their would-be rulers provide are essentially valueless and (3) too dim to realise that they exist solely to provide their more evolved, intelligent & civilised urban betters with cheap food, labour and resources.

You would understand that the Colonial Hierarchy Model (detailed above) is old & outdated thinking if you actually understood what Dr. Brin posts on this blog, as (according to Dr. Brin) this is both the Age of the Amateur and the Age of Information & Industrial Decentralisation


Can you be more clear about what is YOUR OWN statments is,
instead of trying to play with what other people (do/could/might/should) have?
Rethorical question, I presume.


One Evil Ukrainian) said...

Blogger Alfred Differ said...
(evil?) Ukrainian

Dude. Argue with Aristotle about virtues if you want.


Was Aristotle a neuroscientist? No.
That doesn't mean that he do not deserve our respect. Doing what he did in that ancient times was a great fit.
But.
Given what we know today. That, for example, when some people are fearless -- that is not because their "virtue of Copurage" level is too big. That mean that there is something pathological with mediators in their brains.
Yet again.
Was Aristotle an evolutionist? No.
But we, bestowed with knowledge about DNA, know that "pathological" that is, in most cases, is just a manifestation of evolutinal diversity, that boost our ability to survive through times of changes and do quantum leaps through bottlenecks.
So.
You coming here with your outdated non-scientific (Aristotle was not a scientist too, too bad) missives. While trying to hide behind wide back of that ancient authority.
And when someone shows promptly how dimwitted that is,
you promptly falling back to "WAT, you do not respect Aristotle???" lame underdog unwitty barking.
That promptly reminds usual tactic of cristian believer (WUT, you do not believe Buuuble/Jisus/Aristotle ... Aristotle one of their favourite too, too bad :-)))).

Who are you, dude?
And what you did with that sci-savvy and tech-loving brat Alfy.
I'm kidding. :-)))

Alan Brooks said...

“Perfectly civilized reasons” for invading Ukraine, Evil Ukrainian?

Perfectly uncivilized 20th century reasons. Just as Hitler had perfectly uncivilized 19th century reasons for invading eastward.
The weapons are sophisticated; the urges to kill, torture, mutilate, and rape are unsophisticated.

What was our opinion of Mother Russia a year, ten, twenty years ago? We allowed it to do its bloody business and cooperated with it? We’re not doing enough to help Mariupol, not raising our voices?

What should we have done in the past, and what are we supposed to do now, with a giant nation armed with more nukes than any other country? Are we expected to go directly to war against Russia?

One Evil Ukrainian) said...

Blogger Alan Brooks said...
What should we have done in the past, and what are we supposed to do now, with a giant nation armed with more nukes than any other country? Are we expected to go directly to war against Russia?

I'll answer to most important part. But you can ask for more, of course.

You have had it in your grasp in 90-x. To remove ALL of that scary nukes from them.

You have had that chance. But you spoiled it.

So.

HOW DARE you ask your scaredy cat questions from me, from my poor country Ukraine -- that gave up ALL nukes from its territory, BENEVOLENTLY, while recieving half-assed memorandum about "protecting in case of war"???

Larry Hart said...

Alfred Differ:

They also provide a wonderful example for why belief in the truth of a proposition need not make it true. Philosophers have tangled with this beast for a long time. What is Truth? How do you know?


I've pondered this question myself, without a good answer. What's the difference between knowing something and only thinking that you know something?


If I'm told you skinned a cat yesterday by someone I find reputable, I might have plausible knowledge, belief, and a justification for the belief. That's the trifecta for Truth. If my reputable source happens to be mistaken and I don't know or don't believe or don't think such a belief is justified, then the inoculation I need to defend against the first belief will be rejected and I wind up believing you skinned a cat.

Q-ANON folks get where they are because they can rationalize from whom they accept plausible knowledge. You aren't on their list.


Sure, but it blows my mind the sort of sources the are willing to accept "plausible" knowledge from. I tend to credit certain folks (Paul Krugman and our host here come to mind) as plausible sources of information in areas that they have shown to have knowledge of. That doesn't mean I accept every utterance as unquestioned truth, but it does mean I am biased toward believing what they say moreso than (for example) what Tucker Carlson or Donald Trump say. That's based on a good record of "correct" vs "wrong" over time. It's also based on some assumptions about personalities--I deem the latter two to intend deceit in a way that the former two seem not to.

Q-ANONs, and FOX/OAN/Newsmax viewers in general credit sources who are demonstrably mistaken in a factual sense over and over again. To me, it seems as if they are basing credibility on who makes them feel good rather than on who seems to know what's actually real.

They have the right to do this, of course, but this is exactly the sort of thing Orwell meant when he noticed that such people will eventually have to run into hard reality--usually on a battlefield. And this is what makes me think that the current crop of right-wingers don't care about that, because they already think reality is such a bad thing (for them) that there's no downside to retreating into fantasy.

Loco Motion said...

it seems as if they are basing credibility on who makes them feel good rather than on who seems to know what's actually real.

Yeah. And you.

"plausible" knowledge from. I tend to credit certain folks (Paul Krugman and our host here come to mind) as plausible sources of information in areas that they have shown to have knowledge of.

Because it "feels good" to be following someone with fame dangling.

Without regard to -- are they REALLY know something. :-)))

So.

The difference ONLY in WHAT fame-dangling you and they chose.
They favour might and money, like "anybody with lots of money are smart and all".

While you favour those who reeks of "being smart". :-))))


That's all, folks!

Larry Hart said...

I said:

Q-ANONs, and FOX/OAN/Newsmax viewers in general credit sources who are demonstrably mistaken in a factual sense over and over again. To me, it seems as if they are basing credibility on who makes them feel good ...


Maybe more to the point, they base credibility on who makes the people they despise feel bad. By that criteria, their "plausible" sources have a batting average approaching 1.000.

Alan Brooks said...

One wicked Ukrainian,
What America:
Should have done.
Would have done
Could have done.
Would’ve should’ve could’ve. Maybe you can peer into the future and see what can be done?
——
And maybe you grew up in a place where civilization and sophistication are conflated? Beria, Goebbels, and Pol Pot were sophisticated—but that doesn’t mean they were civilized.

One Evil Ukrainian) said...

Blogger Alan Brooks said...
Maybe you can peer into the future and see what can be done?

Just follow some the news.
Something like Land-Lease... quite late, but still right thing to do.

That mean that there still IS people that know how to Do The Right Thing.

And to *close* this talk for good -- I think that Doing Right Things IS MUCH MORE important than being civilized (if being *civilized* somehow stops one from it).

Am I satisfied you?
If not, whatever.

Jon S. said...

Okay, I'm starting to think that just letting folks post in here without owner review was a mistake.

I'm also starting to think that loco's doing some sockpuppetry disguised by an attempt at "typing like a foreigner", but that's a different issue.

Anonymous said...

Blogger Jon S. said...
Okay, I'm starting to think that just letting folks post in here without owner review was a mistake.

Yes. Censure is the real darn way to make world better. (SARCASM!!!)

Larry Hart said...

One Evil Ukrainian) :

Just follow some the news.
Something like Land-Lease... quite late, but still right thing to do.

That mean that there still IS people that know how to Do The Right Thing.


Yes, I was just about to post Paul Krugman's op-ed about that (below).

Plenty of Americans want to do the right thing. One of our problems is that the deplorables have effective veto power in Congress. It's not easy for the USA as an entity to do the right thing when so many wrong-doers are part of us. The United Nations has the same problem--asking the UN to do something means asking Russia to do it, since they have literal veto power in the security council.*

* It has been noted, though not acted upon, that the Soviet Union (not "Russia") was the founding UN member and permanent seat on the security council. That while there is no mention of Russia in the UN charter, Ukraine was admitted as a founding member, despite being part of the USSR at the time. You could look it up.

Larry Hart said...

The aforementioned Krugman column on Lend Lease:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/28/opinion/russia-ukraine-biden-aid.html

...
America, while not directly engaged in combat, is once again doing what it did in the year before Pearl Harbor: We, with help from our allies, are serving as the “arsenal of democracy,” giving the defenders of freedom the material means to keep fighting.
...
First, if Ukraine really does win, it will be a triumph for the forces of freedom everywhere. Would-be aggressors and war criminals will be given pause. Western enemies of democracy, many of whom were huge Putin fanboys just the other day, will have been given an object lesson in the difference between macho posturing and true strength.
...
Previous U.S. presidents have given stirring speeches about freedom: “Tear down this wall,” “Ich bin ein Berliner.” And it’s good that they have. But Biden has arguably done more to defend freedom, in substantive ways that go beyond mere words, than any president since Harry Truman.

I wonder whether and when he’ll get the credit he deserves.

One Evil Ukrainian) said...

Larry,

yeah, only, agression against my Ukraine has started in 2014.
And that was time when Obama was in his mightiest...

Larry Hart said...

@One Evil Ukrainian) ,

I am not denying that Ukraine is teaching all of us in the west what courage really looks like. As far as I'm concerned, President Zelenskyy is the leader of the free world.

Biden is at least helping, which is more than Trump would have done.


yeah, only, agression against my Ukraine has started in 2014.
And that was time when Obama was in his mightiest...


Obama was at his mightiest in 2009, when for a few months, there were 60 Democratic Senators. By 2014, the House of Representatives was in the hands of insane Republicans (the Tea Party), and the Senate was in the process of going Republican as well.

During the 2016 election season, the Republican convention had a platform which included aid to Ukraine against Russian aggression. When Trump became their nominee, he had that particular item removed from the Republican platform. It's as if Russia has a seat at the table in one of our major political parties.

David Brin said...

The experiment with loosened moderation rules appears to be okay... for now. Though I doubt it will last. Shrieks and mockery (e.g. "Alfy") will not be tolerated.

But we honor the courage and endurance of Ukraine. And that seems worth some tolerance in other ways. So long as the postings are polite and come just once per day.

I am back (tired) from my first speaking tour in 2+ years.

You all have been holding lively discussions without me! Keep it up and persevere.

Now...

onward

onward

gerold said...

To some of you this is probably old news but I just came across this website:
https://www.igorsushko.com/2022/04/food-shortage-luring-ukraine-to-counter.html

Igor Sushko is a Ukrainian-American race car driver who sort of accidentally became the translator of the letters sent by the FSB agent "Winds of Change" to Vladimir Osechkin, a Russian human rights campaigner living in exile in France. Sushko's website has all those letters but this link is to the latest.

Of course it's possible that windofchange is not who he claims to be. Osechkin is legit; he's been an advocate for prison reform in Russia for many years but whether these letters really came from an active FSB agent is unknown. Still they offer an interesting perspective.

Personally I find some of his analysis flawed; the idea that Ukraine would invade Russian territory, for example, seems very unlikely. Zelensky and his advisors are not so naive. But anyone interested in the Ukraine war will find these letters interesting.