From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Sep 21 2002 - 22:52:08 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
>
> 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. 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.
I interpret this to mean that this is how some people
see themselves and see other people, as nexi of will,
and as also possessing the masculine value of self-
reliance.
Watching a libertarian man argue with a sort-of socialist
woman at dinner one night made me realize that self-reliance
could very well be more programmed into men in general than
women, with rather obvious political consequences! And why
the hell not; in pre-history women needed more support, and
men might have needed to be more self-reliant. Baby stuff.
That can hardly be a new observation.
> 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.
Yes. Interestingly, (continuing on my gender analysis),
men are swayed by flags, tribal allegiance, "us" vs. "them"
perhaps more than women are, but then this gets turned off
somehow below the level of tribe. Um, normally on Extropians
the following would not be necessary IMO, but these are
strained times: OF COURSE this does NOT apply to individuals
and there are women who'd punch you out if you dared imply
that their love of country was less than anyone else's :-)
> Adjoining them are two other triangular faces representing... what?
Sorry to interrupt my analysis: but I think that this might
have been one of the reasons that I while rapidly reading
your initial post wondered if you were at all serious. Why
would one expect four aspects? Yes, Kepler might have, and
he was a great scientist and all, but that was along time
before Newton ;-) and I dunno, the colors and stuff never
do anything for me.
> Brown, for the subtle, usually hidden priority of genetic
> constraints and imperatives?
I'd think that this would underlie the earlier two
aspects you delineated. As for "brown" and "tetrahedron",
hmm, if it's going to inspire you, then I'm all for it.
> Grey, for the surging memetic pressures that perhaps
> supervene from above upon the other factors?
Ja, this is certainly complementary to your "brown"
side. And I do admit your model of having but two
sides visible is starting to appeal.
> 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...
well, I'd say that the first two seem to form one
complementary pair, and the second form a different
such pair. If Neils Bohr or his father were here,
they might advise that you always must hold the
tetrahedron so that your line of sight lies in a
certain cone (I'll calculate the angle if you want)
so that the projection from your line of sight
always produces a range (0%-100%) for the red/blue
side and the same range, though independent, for
the brown/gray side. In other words, the exclusion
principle forbids seeing three sides at once!
> or the less validity its representations hold as
> they abstract away from the gritty realities they
> are chunking for convenience...
but hey, that *has* to be true of all our descriptions
and abstractions (as the General Semanticists are so
adamant about---"The Map is not the Territory", "bah,
I speak baby-stuff" - Count K.)
> or... Or maybe there are only two sides to a strip
> of paper, Moebius-twisted, or a dodecahedron
> with re-entrant Strange Loops, or...
yes, yes, keep going... you're hot! The tetrahedral
theory looks good, at least when seen in a certain
way :-) (pun intended).
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:13 MST