An alphabet of 26 letters can yield a vocabulary of 50,000 words, which can then be recombined in a functionally infinite combination of fiction, nonfiction, treatises, blog posts, and tweets.
I've been learning about metamodernism but I never contextualized it with emergence until now. I've mainly been trying to understand how it applies to behavior and ideology formation so I've been viewing it as a "both-and" perspective. In our case, it seems like we have two political ideologies that are failing because they're both partially correct but also too extreme. Neither ideology can fully have all of the referents it needs to succeed, so a more metamodern "purple" ideology seems like it's the eventual progression. Probably not happening anytime soon though.
Michael Levin is a good call. But I would also bring in the term 'emanation'. Emanation is the top down constraints that interacts with bottom up emergence. Emanation points ultimately to The Source / God / other mysterious phenomena like truth, goodness and beauty. John Vervaeke, Jonathon Pageau, Iain McGilchrist get into this stuff. It helps to be open to mysticism but to me that doesn't mean it's less real.
Another bell-ringer. I'll take some time to internalize/incubate on this one. Emergence, yes, your description is attractive and I see that happening. PM is repugnant to me, true.
Haha, I consider Sabine to be a sassy sister, full of spunky ideas emitting like a sparkler. I only pay close attention to her physics opinions where she is authoritative and contributes generously. Outside of her expertise, she wants me to eat grasshoppers. No, sis, no.
Yeah the problem is most people don’t have the capacity to differentiate when she is knoweldgeable and what she is off her rocker. Professor Dave Explains did a few good videos on this
David, have you listened to Michael Levin at all? I think you'd like him. If I'm not misrepresenting him, some thought-bites: Very few binaries in nature. Intelligence is the competency of a system to navigate a problem space, however you care to define the problem space (physical, morphological, chemical, mathematical, social, etc) All intelligence is collective intelligence. Emergence is subjective.
When I first heard the idea of collective intelligence, and a casual mention of "smart matter", I was wondering how far down you could go with it, and I got to sub-atomic particles and the Least-Action Principle. But then I listened to the talk called Agency at the Very Bottom, an argument for the agentic properties of math, and my brain is still a little bent by it.
There's still the question of whether math is physics, or merely describes physics very very well. But this agentic affordance argument tips the scale some toward the former, IMO
I personally don’t get the impression that Peterson is having the discussion you describe. He states what he thinks ‘there are only two genders’ and bases it on free speech and that’s pretty much that.
I’ve never had the impression of him viewpoint as: ‘well yes viewing gender and sex as constructs with spectrums is a more accurate representation, however a binary classification is an easier alternative for society to interpret.’
I personally think it’s a shitty argument but it would be better than what I see Peterson saying publicly.
If you could provide videos of his stating the views you describe I’d be happy to check out.
Decided to dig a bit more here. I think my interpretation of Petersons stance is accurate. He doesn't voice it aloud in video form, but does imply the above in writing. You can read it in the second paragraph, found here:
Yeah okay, I see where you are coming from. Of note, 2019 JP is very different to post-benzo JP, he's become way more conservative and religious. I also do tend to agree without your wondering of being overly charitable. I think that your charity would be much better spend on more deserving individuals than JP.
I find the lack of nuance in the perspective to be inherently flawed. Here is a dramatic view of how i see it (oh well its too complicated to recognise that a minority of people don't fit clearly into a category, and it ruins our symbols, so we will just hold onto tradition and pretend like these people don't exist to make it easier) rather than educating a population and creating new shared meaning and getting rid of stigma. I understand: pragmatism, people are lazy. But I see it as a cop out and kicking the can down the road. Its also a great way to hide bigotry, which is not so great. Daves reference to the post for children to understand spectrum of gender sex etc shows its not that hard to understand. peterson talks alot about masculinity and femininity so i am sure he could grasp it
I've been learning about metamodernism but I never contextualized it with emergence until now. I've mainly been trying to understand how it applies to behavior and ideology formation so I've been viewing it as a "both-and" perspective. In our case, it seems like we have two political ideologies that are failing because they're both partially correct but also too extreme. Neither ideology can fully have all of the referents it needs to succeed, so a more metamodern "purple" ideology seems like it's the eventual progression. Probably not happening anytime soon though.
Michael Levin is a good call. But I would also bring in the term 'emanation'. Emanation is the top down constraints that interacts with bottom up emergence. Emanation points ultimately to The Source / God / other mysterious phenomena like truth, goodness and beauty. John Vervaeke, Jonathon Pageau, Iain McGilchrist get into this stuff. It helps to be open to mysticism but to me that doesn't mean it's less real.
The notion of polycomputing is also very interesting.
In the Beginning, there was the Word, and it was very Compressed. And so, with Agents interpreting Agents, the Universe was Inferred. :-)
Another bell-ringer. I'll take some time to internalize/incubate on this one. Emergence, yes, your description is attractive and I see that happening. PM is repugnant to me, true.
Haha, I consider Sabine to be a sassy sister, full of spunky ideas emitting like a sparkler. I only pay close attention to her physics opinions where she is authoritative and contributes generously. Outside of her expertise, she wants me to eat grasshoppers. No, sis, no.
Yeah the problem is most people don’t have the capacity to differentiate when she is knoweldgeable and what she is off her rocker. Professor Dave Explains did a few good videos on this
David, have you listened to Michael Levin at all? I think you'd like him. If I'm not misrepresenting him, some thought-bites: Very few binaries in nature. Intelligence is the competency of a system to navigate a problem space, however you care to define the problem space (physical, morphological, chemical, mathematical, social, etc) All intelligence is collective intelligence. Emergence is subjective.
When I first heard the idea of collective intelligence, and a casual mention of "smart matter", I was wondering how far down you could go with it, and I got to sub-atomic particles and the Least-Action Principle. But then I listened to the talk called Agency at the Very Bottom, an argument for the agentic properties of math, and my brain is still a little bent by it.
There's still the question of whether math is physics, or merely describes physics very very well. But this agentic affordance argument tips the scale some toward the former, IMO
I personally don’t get the impression that Peterson is having the discussion you describe. He states what he thinks ‘there are only two genders’ and bases it on free speech and that’s pretty much that.
I’ve never had the impression of him viewpoint as: ‘well yes viewing gender and sex as constructs with spectrums is a more accurate representation, however a binary classification is an easier alternative for society to interpret.’
I personally think it’s a shitty argument but it would be better than what I see Peterson saying publicly.
If you could provide videos of his stating the views you describe I’d be happy to check out.
Decided to dig a bit more here. I think my interpretation of Petersons stance is accurate. He doesn't voice it aloud in video form, but does imply the above in writing. You can read it in the second paragraph, found here:
https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/blog-posts/on-the-psychological-and-social-significance-of-identity/
Yeah okay, I see where you are coming from. Of note, 2019 JP is very different to post-benzo JP, he's become way more conservative and religious. I also do tend to agree without your wondering of being overly charitable. I think that your charity would be much better spend on more deserving individuals than JP.
I find the lack of nuance in the perspective to be inherently flawed. Here is a dramatic view of how i see it (oh well its too complicated to recognise that a minority of people don't fit clearly into a category, and it ruins our symbols, so we will just hold onto tradition and pretend like these people don't exist to make it easier) rather than educating a population and creating new shared meaning and getting rid of stigma. I understand: pragmatism, people are lazy. But I see it as a cop out and kicking the can down the road. Its also a great way to hide bigotry, which is not so great. Daves reference to the post for children to understand spectrum of gender sex etc shows its not that hard to understand. peterson talks alot about masculinity and femininity so i am sure he could grasp it