[MD] BBC documentary 'the trap'

[John Carl]

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Ian Glendinning <ian.glendinning at gmail.com
> wrote:

OK Dave, (John, I'd be interested in your input too)
>

Ok, but just remember, you asked for it...

And I should mention that I started this a while back, but didn't get around
to sending it till just now.  Sometimes you write something and then pause
before you hit the send button.  Sometimes the pause is longer....


 Anyway - I already said it was an interesting documentary full of good

> stuff, if you strip out the "silly" political conspiracy-theory
> motivated style and agenda - but hey, "that's entertainment" - it's
> TV, it's meant to be silly.


Well I never viewed the thing, though I did look up Dawkins and memes cuz I
figured if you want my input and all, I oughta have some kind of idea of
what you are talking about.


>
> So next, let's find some substantive content to discuss.
>

Why not.  I don't have anything else going on at the moment.



>
> My contention is that the "mimesis of ideas" (to avoid the word meme)
> is the problem. And my contention is that this is entirely consistent
> with the MoQ - evolutionary stance on levels, not just in biology, but
> in the socio-intellectual levels, throughout in fact.
>


Well I'm a bit hazy still on the definition of "concept".  Not like in my
earlier discussion with Dave on where it starts, but like the girl who knew
how to spell banana, just didn't know where to stop.   A concept can
encompass the whole cosmos and you can't get any bigger than that. Thus to
my understanding a meme is just another word for concept,  one that
propogates socially rather than biologically.  If that reading is right,
then what you're saying is this propogation of conceptual realities is "the
problem".  If so, then we are in agreement.

For technologically empowered social giants having within their control the
propogation of concepts for their own narrow profit ends IS the biggest
problem to intellectual evolution that intellect has ever faced.  Worse by
far than the control of biological bodies with police and guns is the
intellectual control of ideas by Rupert Murdoch and Co.

Ian]

The prevailing idea in the world (and therefore in economists,
> politicians and business people of all kinds, not to mention
> scientists) is SOMism.
>
> The idea that people are subjects, money and products and services -
> even health-care - are objects. This misunderstanding leads to all
> manner of hypocrisies and evils ... as we all know.


John]

 Money, products, health-care, *are* proper objects of analysis, but
analysis in relation to what value? There is where the problems come in.
Since SOM has no definitive category to believe in any absolute value, it
works out to assign purely subjective based narrow values.  In this
paradigm, Money is treated as the expression of objectified  value and
istaking objects for values is another word for idolatry and it's been a
problem of differing aspect for a long time.

 That old programming bug, recursion.  Housing values in a neighborhood are
determined by the housing values of other houses in the neighborhood... any
professional  logicians see a potential problem with this equation?

Ian]


>
> My agenda is to replace SOMism with MoQism.
>

John]

Nice agenda, what is your methodology?  How's that working for ya?

Ian]

Discuss what I say here from "let me explain" - without baggage and
> bugs (and sarcasm if possible).
>

John]
Wow.  I thought about that for a minute and I realized that for me, your
requirement is barely possible.  I honestly cannot say anything without
being just a bit sarcastic.  I mean, just a little bit.  It's impossible.

No, I take it back.  When I said "it's impossible", I was exaggerating.  I
didn't really mean it.  I was being a bit sarcastic.

Oops.  I take taking it back, back.


Ian]

Maybe I can suggest we add tangible - first hand experience - content,
> rather than TV documentary hear-say.


John]

Ian, you are demonstrably a man after my own heart.  And that was not
sarcastic.

Ian]


> We could apply what I just said
> to the interaction between me and you. Why my idea bugs you and why
> that fact that it bugs you means that your "drivel" response actually
> gets in the way of discussing or even seeing any content. Or you pick
> a substantive point out of the above, Dave, or John, anyone ?
>

Ah well, you're mostly talking to Dave there.   I don't bug easily.  Fear of
bugs is in the mind of the ewww'er,  and all we know of Dave's mind is what
his words express.  Why don't we analyze them?  Just for fun.



> > dmb says:
> >
> > I don't think it's about your sensitive soul or what's close to your
> heart. I think it's about your ego and what's in your hairy brain. If you
> had a sensitive soul, you wouldn't be defending game theory.
>

Ok, here Dave is concerned with three main issues - ego, sensitivity and
hair loss.  From this we can intuit that Dave is going probably going bald
and resents people of hair.  What is our empirical evidence?  Have you a
hairy brain Ian?

dmb]

> If you were interested in debating these points you'd offer some actual
> explanations of the various theories (game theory, system theory, network
> theory and social evolutionary models) instead of just naming them.
>

John]
 Here Dave is stating his need for the Cliff Note versions of these various
theories, probably so he pass himself off as an expert on these subjects in
world famous academic circles.

dmb]

>  Without that, you're not defending any theory so much as you're just
> defending your bruised ego. Intellectually speaking, your response was full
> of emptiness, almost entirely free of content.
>

John]
Now these words demonstrate a certain interesting psychological phenomena we
armchair psychoanalysts like to term, "projection".  Wherein the accuser
critiques the creations of his own mind upon the "other".

Try re-reading Dave's accusations back with this insight...

"bruised ego"  (obvious- the only thing that generates hostility is ego and
thus Dave's demonstrable hostility is based upon only this very phenomena)

"intellectually empty" (note the  refusal to debate game theory, just a
castigation of it and a veiled plea to explain it)

"entirely free of content" (a redundancy, simply repeating the refutation of
"intellectually empty" that is actually a confession of intellectual
emptiness in  a sort of interesting  way,  confessing  as  an accusation of
intellecually emptiness being itself, demonstrably intellectually empty)

Having this psychological insight at hand, we can now further dissect the
mind of the bugged one with the understanding that his accusations are
veiled confessions.

And we can pray for him.

John the humbly snide