[ExI] Devastated ideologies (was: italian politics as exi-chat subject)

[Jef Allbright]

On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 10:06 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com> wrote:

>  > >  But on the other hand, we have significantly
>  > >  large organizations ("Left" and "Right") and ideologies still
>  > >  propagating and still abducting new minds even though there's no
>  > > real power that is necessarily making news releases to gain eyes
>  > > and get possible neophytes to convert (peculiar).
>  >
>  > Strange statement, considering the obvious and massive power
>  > structures within society which seem to be doing just that.
>
>  Hm. You're right. I'd rather refine my observation to point out that
>  they are running on their own inertia of (even human) self-replication,
>  to apply your terms. Otherwise there is no legitimate reason
>  to 'convert' to Rightism or Leftism as far as I can tell.

It seems you're saying that the major political power structures
identified generally as "Right" and "Left" are proceeding mainly on
their momentum from past efforts.  I would disagree with this on the
basis that (1) I see **a lot** of human initiative, energy and
creativity being applied to these causes, and to a lesser extent, (2)
these particular organizational alignments are very much tools of the
individual humans, with little or no agency at the level of the
organization itself.

It seems also that you're conflating the previous point with the
observation that despite all the apparent activity, it's pretty much
"business as usual", with the existing power structures working more
to strengthen their capacity for self-preservation (in terms of their
existing values) than strengthening their capacity for increasingly
effective adaptation (on behalf of their evolving values.)  If this is
your intended point, then I would agree it's an important one,
applicable to all levels of intentional organization.  The US military
is already tipping in this direction, as are a few corporations, but
systems which are predominately bottom-up driven, e.g. "ideal
democracy", remain fundamentally limited to the slower rate of "trial
and error" first-order evolutionary growth.


<snip>

>  > [Insert Arrow of Morality here, with talk of increasing coherence
>  > over an increasing context of values, promoted by increasingly
>  > effective (scientific) means...]
>
>  I'd like you to comment on the personal coherency arrow versus the
>  social coherency arrow, I mentioned this either in this thread or
>  another earlier today and think it would help here. (Ah, it looks like
>  you did in the next snippit. But I still remember something else I
>  mentioned today?) It is interesting to note that 'personal' can
>  encompass society (just as I can potentially encompass an entire botnet
>  or 18 wheeler to some extent, or perhaps grow and spawn enough people
>  to make a society) but the reverse -- where society makes for myself --
>  does not work. (Chicken/egg?)

I think the key to this is in recognizing that "personal", implying
"self", refers to one's own perceived locus of agency, rather than
referring to any particular form or size of organizational structure.
It seems that you've got that much, when you suggest that one could
self-identify "as an 18-wheeler."

I don't understand what you mean by "..the reverse -- where society
makes for myself..."


<snip>

>  > Diversity is essential to evolutionary growth, accelerating with
>  > selection via an increasingly evolved environment.
>
>  How is it that isolation engenders diversity?

The point was in response to your question about the role of
individual development within the large social environment leading to
ongoing growth.  To start, consider ecological niches.  Consider
"hybrid vigor." In the bigger picture, consider the necessary role of
gradients in any (dynamic) process, and how in evolutionary processes
a supply of diversity is necessary but not sufficient for ongoing
adaptation.

- Jef