From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Sep 19 2002 - 23:27:38 MDT
Damien wrote
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-extropians@extropy.org
> [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]On Behalf Of Damien Broderick
> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 12:30 AM
> To: extropians@extropy.org
> Subject: RE: *Why* People Won't Discuss Differences Objectively
>
>
> At 11:15 PM 9/16/02 -0700, Lee wrote, as he has been for a while now:
>
> >Don't you get tired of writing the same old thing over
> >and over, and reading the same retorts over and over?
>
> Um...
>
> >Don't you yearn to know *why* the others keep on
> >persistently thinking differently from you?
>
> One of the same old things *I've* written over and over is that the
> problematic of ideology, mental modeling, `world-building', subject
> positions and like has been *exhaustively* analyzed during the last 30
> years and more, and no short and pithy posts to this list will add much to
> that discussion, especially when its history seems to be ignored.
Well, perhaps *you* have indeed written about this a lot,
and even on this list. However, *if* political discussions
are going to take place, and emotions aroused, don't you
think that it would be healthy for people to talk about
the *real* reasons behind the disagreements, the real
differences in values, or whatever, or at least try? It
seems to me that it might be more pacific. E.g. "Ah, yes,
that explains why you all always say *that*, and we always
say *this*!" One big happy family.
Also, are there URLs that you would suggest? Seems a little
hard to google for, but I'll do that when I'm done with this
note.
But you could be right. Perhaps nothing will come of trying
to find out deeper reasons for ideological conflict. But it
also seems that it would be instructive to find out *why*
nothing comes of it ;-)
Hmm. Now I see that you were perhaps serious about your
tetrahedron model. I thought at the time that you were
being facetious, mocking the quest for models ;-) tomorrow
perhaps I'll take another look, when I'm fresh.
Lee
> But look, how about this dinky little toy:
>
> I have in my hand a tetrahedron, four equal sides. Sit it down and you can
> only see a maximum of three of the sides, often only two. Paint the sides
> bright colors.
>
> There's a blue side, which represents the people whose social model most
> powerfully emphasizes the priority of individual consciousness, conscience,
> will, self-reliance.
>
> Next to that is a red side, where people especially emphasize the communal
> aspects of human life, arguing that self is above all a mutable construct
> of language, reflection of others, family and social traditions, mutual
> support.
>
> Adjoining them are two other triangular faces representing... what?
>
> Brown, for the subtle, usually hidden priority of genetic constraints and
> imperatives?
>
> Grey, for the surging memetic pressures that perhaps supervene from above
> upon the other factors?
>
> In any event, it seems obvious to me that all these levels of analysis are
> legitimate, none of the drives and roadblocks are without their effect. But
> maybe the toy is misleading. Perhaps the four schemata frames are more
> usefully represented by an ascending hierarchy, in which the higher you go
> the more moral authority the level owns over impulses from below... or the
> less validity its representations hold as they abstract away from the
> gritty realities they are chunking for convenience... or... Or maybe there
> are only two sides to a strip of paper, Moebius-twisted, or a dodecehedron
> with re-entrant Strange Loops, or...
>
> Damien Broderick
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:11 MST