Site logo

Prometheus 6

All respect and no restraint

The Trouble With Diversity: Response to an Ex-White Man

I'm not done reading ol' boy's stuff. But I got this done, so...


I stumbled into Walter Benn Michaels’ writings via blog referrals. This is both a good and bad sign. Bad, because he was holding forth in the political equivalent of the pews of an evangelical church where I would be unlikely to see his argument evolve; good, because I did eventually encounter him, as well as a collection of his work that let me compress his evolution into a couple of evenings.

My reaction is visceral on two levels. First, he applies a literary criticism approach to analyzing social and cultural activity. This entirely too cerebral approach allows one to raise arguments representing possibilities that physical reality would constrain. Second, He speculates on human nature based on the actions of the species, homo fictus…fictional man.

Homo fictus tends toward unnecessary drama. Who do you really know that acts like a character in a book (discounting attendees of Star Trek conventions)? Even an autobiographer, if honest, admits to the vagaries of memory.

An example of the problem is his treatment of race and identity in Autobiography of an Ex-White Man. Comparing a fictional human created by James Weldon Johnson in Autobiography of an Ex-Colored Man to Noel Ignatiev of Race Traitor , he concludes

The ex-colored man rejects his racial identity by concealing it; the ex-white man wishes not to conceal his racial identity, but, by rejecting it, to destroy it. The ex-colored man no longer wishes to be “identified” as a “Negro”; the race traitor—perhaps by identifying himself as black—wants to cease to be white.

As a matter of experience, Black people know “passing” was simply not considered in those terms. Those who passed for reason other than economic opportunity did want their racial identity destroyed. Brother would pass brother on the street giving no sign of recognition…family members vanished, never to be heard from again. In My American Life, Price M. Cobb, writing of his childhood in Los Angeles, said

In Los Angeles, I met several of my mother’s friends from Birmingham, several who looked almost white. My mother told me that there had been many light-skinned people in her circle at home, and some of those who came to California quickly discovered they could now pass as something other than Negro. They could disappear in a crowd. For some, their lives as colored people ended and they were reborn as Greeks, Italians, or some other swarthy skin citizen of the Mediterranean. My guess is that my mother knew of only a few such people, although she often spoke as though there were dozens.

So there were those who abandoned their identity as well as those who concealed it. And the concealment was for practical, financial reasons not something so idealistic as identity.

Combining this and other erroneous extrapolations from fiction into reality, Michaels argues

We cannot think of race as a social fact, like slavery or—to take that is even more fundamental to race treason—like class. If, as Ignatiev puts it, “race, like class, is ‘something which, in fact, happens’,” then—and this is the project of race treason—it can be “made to unhappen.” I will argue that race is not like class, that it neither happens nor can it be made to unhappen. And despite those who wish to “respect and preserve” rather than abolish race, I will argue it makes no more sense to respect racial difference than it does to try to abolish it. Indeed, the very impulse to preserve race reveals the degree to which those who imagine their accounts of race are “antiessentialist” or “performative” remain, in fact, committed to racial essentialism.

And says, based on how people actually behave (a refreshing concept that I’m not sure he takes seriously)

Either race is an essence or there’s no such thing as race.

The balance of the article is a reductio ad absurdum argument that says since he cannot find definitive boundaries to racial groups those groups are undefined. He throws enough material in from multiple direction that occasionally a valid concept arises. But it’s like building an alarm clock by putting the parts in a bag and shaking it real hard…there are more efficient ways to investigate the issue.

Looking at how people behave, what race is, is an in group. I don’t know if in groups are essences but they are definitely social constructs.

So much for the main argument.

Now, let’s look at the in group that is most familiar to you: your family. Can you write up a description of your family that a stranger could use to identify them all, on any random day they chose to search them out? Of course not.

Race is a collective phenomenon and this is the reason Michaels could not find definitive boundaries to racial groups; there are none. Like every other collective phenomenon (air pressure, wave functions) the best you can get from race is probabilities, the worst…G.I.G.O.

The entire discussion is so entirely divorced from substantive reality that the only way to dispute it is to dismiss it.

Excellent

Thanks, Prometheus 6, for this excellent analysis.

You hit upon a central point which is self-evident upon consideration but which I hadn't really explicitly acknowledged previously: like all discussions of weather patterns, all discussions of race are probability-based with inherent micro-pattern permutations and exceptions. This makes it a bit harder to talk about; but everyone stills talks about the weather!

Peace.

all discussions of race are


all discussions of race are probability-based

I hope word gets around. There was an effort to undefine Black folks a few years back...this looks like the next iteration. 

I really like using weather patterns as the metaphor for identifying racial groups; much better than my two examples. There's all manner of things in the atmosphere that you can't nail down yet can't deny the existence and impact of. 

Undefining Black Folks

I had that same thought as I was watching ESPN over the weekend. They did a segment on Baltimore Ravens LB Ray Lewis' trip to Ethiopia last summer. Lewis spent some time there at a hospital for children wounded during the wars there. He plans on going back and feels as though the trip has given him a new perspective on life. What struck me as I ironic (not really) is that Ray Lewis clearly identifies with Ethiopians because of its "place" and place in Africa (historical and geographical), yet those who have attempted to "undefine black folk" have sought to remove Ethiopia from Africa. Those "scholars" who postulate that Ethiopians are "dark-skinned whites" actually have some funky stuff going on that is probably closer to dementia than discipline. Weather is an interesting comparison on so many levels. Will you be digging deeper into that at any point?

Not really; basically

Not really; basically because I don't want Black folks compared to tornadoes and such. The real value of the comparison is in establishing the nature of collective identity as patterns of activity rather than a thing with definitive edges. It actually eliminates essentialism.

Study paints bleak picture

Study paints bleak picture of ethnic diversity

A bleak picture of the corrosive effects of ethnic diversity has been revealed in research by Harvard University’s Robert Putnam, one of the world’s most influential political scientists.

His research shows that the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone – from their next-door neighbour to the mayor.

His work over the long-term makes this forecast all the more dire...,

What's YOUR point?

What's YOUR point?

Never learned to swim...., can't catch the rhythm of the stroke


What's YOUR point?

Fishing around for precision.

Looking at how people behave, what race is, is an in group. I don’t know if in groups are essences but they are definitely social constructs.

Race is subconsciously implemented and that subconscious implementation rules both collective social and individual psychological conduct. All decisions are made subconsciously at the analog level. It's "decide", then about 1/2 second later, "rationalize" (invent a socially-acceptable excuse).

Once installed, is that "deicide-er" a pattern of activity or a thing which determines patterns of activity? 

 

Once installed, is that


Once installed, is that "deicide-er" a pattern of activity or a thing which determines patterns of activity?

You tell me...it's YOUR story. And I've learned my lesson about filling in other people's blanks. Case in point: nothing in your link implies anything in your followup.

 

Decider, thing or pattern of activity?


Case in point: nothing in your link implies anything in your followup.

Putnam's work is all about collective behaviour with some drilldown to individual psychology. If one were to go further back and take up Grodzin it's more of the same. The behavioural phenomena described are attributed to an underlying, ill-defined cause.

Now, you made an active assertion about identity;

The real value of the comparison is in establishing the nature of collective identity as patterns of activity rather than a thing with definitive edges. It actually eliminates essentialism.

I've completely missed where your analysis has established anything about the "nature" of identity. I missed where you've managed to assert anything dispositive about the "thinginess" of identity.

Matter of fact, two things you initially wrote;

Those who passed for reason other than economic opportunity did want their racial identity destroyed.

So there were those who abandoned their identity as well as those who concealed it. And the concealment was for practical, financial reasons not something so idealistic as identity.

pretty much underscore the "thinginess" of identity.

Without even going to the question of essences or essentialism, which is some handwavy shit from the getgo, I'd like you to clarify how the collective expression of the phenomenon of identity or race supports your claim that it's not an underlying thing?

If by essentialism, you mean genetics, that's a whole nother story that can be addressed separately and decisively via other methods - dismissing a genetic basis for race/identity doesn't get you anywhere as far as eliminating the possibility that race/identity may in fact be a "thing" albeit not a genetic "thing".

 

had mine installed a long time ago., and it's "thingy" as gills

so you know, I believe I've assimilated this approach, so I'm asking for subsequent precision/clarification in support of your present dispositive assertion(s).

See why I'm not filling in any more blanks?

There is no way to get this

I'd like you to clarify how the collective expression of the phenomenon of identity or race supports your claim that it's not an underlying thing?

from this

Study paints bleak picture of ethnic diversity

A bleak picture of the corrosive effects of ethnic diversity has been revealed in research by Harvard University’s Robert Putnam, one of the world’s most influential political scientists.

His research shows that the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone – from their next-door neighbour to the mayor.

His work over the long-term makes this forecast all the more dire...,

As to your question, observation shows race and identity are not collectively expressed phenomena, they ARE collective phenomena. Like a tornado. There's no such thing as a race consisting of a single individual...that's a mutant. Just as a single molecule spinning around is not a tornado. And you can't nail down exactly who in the edge cases is "in" or "out" by applying a formula, any more than you can say which molecule on the edge of the funnel cloud will be "in" or "out" of the tornado in the next few minutes.

"Collectively expressed" would make that which is being expressed a thing, of which there actually are none anywhere.

I see where you're coming from...,

it is completely internally consistent, and given the stress you've placed on moral/prefrontal cortical functions - warrants acknowledgement as a distinct school. I will call it a school of the possible/hopeful.

Moral development is very heavily built around a part of the brain I used to ignore because you don't find much of it in a lab rat: the frontal cortex. The frontal cortex is an incredibly interesting part of the brain, since it's the nearest thing we've got to a super-ego. It's the part of the brain that keeps us from belching loudly during the wedding ceremony, or telling somebody exactly what we think of the meal they made, or being a serial murderer. It's the part of the brain that controls impulsivity, that accepts the postponement of gratification, that does constraint and anticipation, and that makes you work hard because you will get into an amazing nursing home one day if you just keep pushing hard enough. It's all about this very human realm of holding off for later.

The most amazing thing is that there is a dogma of neural development. The dogma is that by the time you're a couple of years old, you have your maximal number of neurons, and all of them are wired up and functioning. But it turns out that we make new neurons throughout life, and parts of the brain don't come fully on line until later. And, amazingly, the last area to do so is the frontal cortex, not until around age 30 or so. It's the last part of the brain to develop, and thus it's the part whose development is most subject to experience, environment, reinforcement, and the social world around you. That is incredibly interesting.

My own take on the nature of things is far more old-school, for a very simple reason. We are by no means the first generations to fully and deeply appreciate the terror of the situation. i.e., the fact that human mentality teeters all-the-time between angelic and demonic poles. the fact that there are stable population distributions scattered all across the range of psycho-social possibility.

The abrahamic religions are psychological schools centered on moving human groups in one or another psycho-social direction vis-a-vis the underlying realities of killer-ape psychology. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity each have an exoteric, mesoteric, and esoteric component catering to stable neurotypal population distributions.

While you've incorporated some Taoist, some Buddhist, some Griotic, and possibly other ecclectic decorations into the Promethean Talmudic mix, the methods and range of your Work strike me as clearly rabbinacal in scope and nature.

The terror of the situation...,

or the illustrious psychological backdrop over which we are obliged to both theorize and operate...,

The mind is a squadron of simpletons. It is not unified, it is not
rational, it is not well designed—or designed at all. It just
happened, an accumulation of innovations of the organisms that lived
before us. The mind evolved, through countless animals and through
countless worlds.

Like the rest of biological evolution, the human mind is a collage of
adaptations (the propensity to do the right thing) to different
situations. Our thought is a pack of fixed routines—simpletons. We
need them. It is vital to find the right food at the right time, to
mate well, to generate children, to avoid marauders, to respond to
emergency quickly. Mental routines to do so have evolved over millions
of years and developed in different periods in our evolution, as Rumi
noted.

We don't think of ourselves as of such humble origins. The triumphs
that have occurred in the short time since the Industrial Revolution
have completely distorted our view of ourselves. Hence, the celebrated
triumph of humanity is its rationality: the ability to reason through
events and act logically. to organize business. To plan for the
future, to create science and technology. One influential philosopher,
Daniel Dennet, wrote recently: "When a person falls short of perfect
rationality ... there is no coherent ... description of the person's
mental states."

Yet to characterize the mind as primarily rational is an injustice; it
sells us short, it makes us misunderstand ourselves, it has perverted
our understanding of our intelligence, our schooling, our physical and
mental health. Holding up rationality, and its remorseless
deliberation, as the model of the mind has, more important, set us
along the wrong road to our future. Instead of the pinnacle,
rationality is just one small ability in a compound of possibilities.

The mind evolved great breadth, but it is shallow, for it performs
quick and dirty sketches of the world. This rough-and-ready perception
of reality enabled our ancestors to survive better. The mind did not
evolve to know the world or to know ourselves. Simply speaking, there
has never been, nor will there ever be, enough time to be truly rational.

Rationality is one component of the mind, but it is used rarely, and
in a very limited area. Rationality is impossible anyway. There isn't
time for the mind to go through the luxurious exercises of examining
alternatives. Consider the standard way of examining evidence, the
truth table, a checklist of information about whether propositions are
correct or not. To know whether Aristotle is a hamburger, you would
look up "Aristotle" or "hamburger" in this table. Now think of the
number of issues you immediately know well—what Yugoslavia is, whether
skateboards are used at formal dinners, how chicken sandwiches should
taste, what your spouse wore this morning—and you will see that your
own truth table, if entered randomly, would have millions of entries
just waiting![p.p. 2-3]

A mind built up with countless specific adaptations can never be
rational. We piece together the results of a small set of probes to
judge the world, picking up a few signals and making quick assessments
of what is outside, in the case of marauders, and inside, in the case
of memories and dreams. Such a mind will never be rational; but it
will always try to adapt. And it cannot always be correct either. If
we consider a mind that has evolved to meet most situations
adequately, say 95 percent of them, we may have a better idea of what
being correct is. [p. 221]

Since the mind evolved to select a few signals and then dream up a
semblance, whatever enters our consciousness is overemphasized. It
does not matter how the information enters, whether via a television
program, a newspaper story, a friend's conversation, a strong
emotional reaction, a memory—all is overemphasized. We ignore other,
more compelling evidence, overemphasizing and overgeneralizing from
the information close at hand to produce a rough-and-ready realty. [p.
258]

The [mental] system we recruited had the primary aim of reacting
quickly to immediate danger—those who did lived long enough to produce
us. Those who acted more thoughtfully and with due deliberation of the
proper course, who could avoid panic when confronted by mild
threats—who acted rationally, that is—probably lived shorter, and thus
less generative, lives. The survival argument against rationality in
primeval conditions is that payoff is very lopsided: Fail to respond
to a real danger, even if that danger would kill you only 1/10,000 as
often, and you will be dead. A few years later, you will be deader in
evolutionary terms, for fewer of your genes will be around. However,
an overreaction to danger produces only a little hysteria, a little
stress, and maybe a little embarrassment—probably little or no loss of
reproductive ability. Maybe the excitement would even recruit a little
more reproductive effort!

Running from every snake or tiger or loud noise probably doesn't
disrupt life too much. Not running, while it might kill you only
slightly more often, can eventually produce major changes in the
population. The same numbers hold in this example as for the height
difference cited earlier. If panic in response to a threat in all
cases improved survival by even 1/10,000, those who panicked would be
484 million times more populous than those who did not. And so it was
good to respond emotionally and quickly to the average dangers
threatening most of our ancestors. Rationality is a great idea and
ideal, but we never had the time for it; we don't have time for it
now, and thus we don't have the mind for it. [p. 262]

THE EVOLUTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS, Robert Ornstein; Prentice Hall, 1991, ISBN 0-13-587569-2

There are profound depths underlying what is described above, and these depths have been touched by the esoteric(contemplative) minority within the abrahamic traditions - however, as a general purpose description of the exoteric and mesoteric(governance) realm of psycho-social functioning, the above is a perfectly serviceable synopsis of where it's at.

 

why the hardabout digression...,


As to your question, observation shows race and identity are not collectively expressed phenomena, they ARE collective phenomena. Like a tornado. There's no such thing as a race consisting of a single individual...that's a mutant. Just as a single molecule spinning around is not a tornado. And you can't nail down exactly who in the edge cases is "in" or "out" by applying a formula, any more than you can say which molecule on the edge of the funnel cloud will be "in" or "out" of the tornado in the next few minutes.

"Collectively expressed" would make that which is being expressed a thing, of which there actually are none anywhere.

What is being expressed is indeed a thing. It is a tried and proven simpleton implemented at the individual level. It also has an emergent collective expression - both of these aspects were acquired on the evolutionary threshing floor and are artifacts of our evolutionary psychology. It is a fact that cynical and archaic individuals - who do not share your rabbinical calling or neuromoral propensities - have implemented a centuries old - and here-to-date - fairly successful governance strategy that ruthlessly exploits the race/identity simpleton in order to construct a specific collective expression.

THAT my friend, is precisely the problem at hand.

In terms of population demographics sir, your neuromoral propensity is the relative mutation, an exception to broadly established neuromoral population norms.

This comment doesn't add

This comment doesn't add anything of substance to this thread but I wanted to tell P6 and CN that this is an extremely interesting discussion. I have read read each posting in the thread at least twice and in some cases three or four times to make sure that I at least captured some of the nuances and implications of what was being discussed.

I haven't been a party to discussions like this one and many others that have appeared on this site since moving away from my hometown 13 years ago. Thanks and don't stop. 

Drama!


it is completely internally consistent, and given the stress you've placed on moral/prefrontal cortical functions - warrants acknowledgement as a distinct school. I will call it a school of the possible/hopeful.

It's just an observation.

Here's another one...you don't have to prove me wrong to be right. 

It is, however, a more than

It is, however, a more than decent attempt at reductio ad absurdum.

I got that, but

the question of boundaries is analogous and could be interesting upon further analysis. Black folk and tornadoes - you slay me.

winding down now...,

on an esoteric note...,

Your tornado analogy may be due for an update. I left it for last because I couldn't clearly discern whether you offered it as an illustration or as an underlying analog or model for race/identity. In any event, It's right as far as it goes, and thus conducive to logical consistency in the way in which it's used. The problem is that it describes the exterior symptoms of a tornado, rather than touching upon the root cause. (now you know I've spent nearly my entire life in tornado alley, and have personally witnessed dozens of these "creatures" and one of the perplexing questions I put to myself a long time ago is "why do they have such an appetite for trailer parks?")

Consider this my small contribution to your serendipitous link collection.

a charge sheath vortex is a thing

 

I live for it brah....,


Here's another one...you don't have to prove me wrong to be right.

But I have to challenge you in order to push myself P6. You're like my philosophical personal trainer, and without a doubt, one of the very best there is. Surely you realize how much I appreciate your indulgence.

Thank you.

While you've incorporated


While you've incorporated some Taoist, some Buddhist, some Griotic, and possibly other ecclectic decorations into the Promethean Talmudic mix, the methods and range of your Work strike me as clearly rabbinacal in scope and nature.

I teach rather than command. A lot of my recent stuff was chosen and written to make that clearer.

What is being expressed is indeed a thing. 

What is being expressed is an identifiable process...an instance (Black person) of a class (Black people). The class is the collective phenomenon. I find it more useful to think in terms of dissipative structures rather than things because 'thing' implies an independance that doesn't exist but you can call it a 'thing' just as you can call a tornado a thing.

It is a fact that cynical and archaic individuals - who do not share your rabbinical calling or neuromoral propensities - have implemented a centuries old - and here-to-date - fairly successful governance strategy that ruthlessly exploits the race/identity simpleton in order to construct a specific collective expression.

Where has anything else been suggested?

In terms of population demographics sir, your neuromoral propensity is the relative mutation, an exception to broadly established neuromoral population norms.

Where has anything else been suggested?

 

"...one of the perplexing

"...one of the perplexing questions I put to myself a long time ago is "why do they have such an appetite for trailer parks?"

One explanation being floated by some renegade elements in the meteorological community is that these creatures are actually under the control of the retail division of the manufactured homes industry who have bought completely into Schumpeter's theory of the creative destructive effects of capitalism. When "trailer parks" and the manufactured homes in them are destroyed, their owners, who are often covered by insurance policies sold to them by the same companies that sold them their manufactured homes, are forced to buy new homes often from the same dealers who sold them their original units.

Since the mortgage (or, if you prefer, interest) rates on these loans for manufactured homes generally run anywhere from 18 to 28 percent, which is considerably higher than mortgage rates for conventional stick built homes, the dealers are able to greatly increase their profits by selling new manufactured homes to the former residents. The insurance payouts received by the residents is used to pay off their previous loans. Since few, if any, of the previous residents have accumulated any equity as a result of owning these units they have little choice but to buy another unit from the same dealer.

Some weather scientists, although they are in the minority, believe these dealers have actually developed the ability to target certain "trailer parks" within some geographical areas but there is some debate and disagreement about this claim.

 

calibrating....,


I teach rather than command. A lot of my recent stuff was chosen and written to make that clearer.

IMOHO - the rabbinical approach is an indispensible calling and a laudable quest for the betterment of the selected members of the in-group. Judaica has proven itself a relatively stable and long-lived abrahamic psychology/identity variant precisely because of its emphasis on the rabbinical stratum of its collective existence. As you said the other day, we must place a collective premium on teachers...,

While I agree with this premise to a very great extent, I remain practically grounded in the fact that teaching is a collective luxury. To the extent that it has flourished during the 20th century, the luxury of teaching has always been safeguarded by the exoteric obyvatel Work of ruthless thug warriors in service to passionate racial self-worship.

I find it more useful to think in terms of dissipative structures rather than things because 'thing' implies an independance that doesn't exist but you can call it a 'thing' just as you can call a tornado a thing.

I call it a thing because at the core of the epiphenomenal wind - there is a unitary something driving it that is best understood and formulaically modelled as a "thing".

So also, in my opinion, at the esoteric core - there is a specific engagement with reality that is driving the mesoteric and exoteric collectives. Now then, Judaism is one of three abrahamic formations, and from a population demographic perspective, far-and-away the least prolific and successful of the three, though from a genetic fidelity perspective, uniquely laudable. All three variations exist to reckon with Ornstein's collection of archaic simpletons, to band together the various modalities and levels of engagement occurring within a self-identified group.

It is a fact that cynical and archaic individuals - who do not share your rabbinical calling or neuromoral propensities - have implemented a centuries old - and here-to-date - fairly successful governance strategy that ruthlessly exploits the race/identity simpleton in order to construct a specific collective expression.

Where has anything else been suggested?

It is implied in your efforts and expectation that people are rationally predisposed to do better. People will not do better, they will do quite simply as they do. The best you can hope to achieve, IMOHO, is to identify those with shared proclivities and do everything in your power to accelerate their maturation with the express goal of achieving stable critical mass aggregations. In that regard, teaching becomes more a question of identifying, organizing, and accelerating what is already naturally there in potential. Like seeks like, like makes like.

In terms of population demographics sir, your neuromoral propensity is the relative mutation, an exception to broadly established neuromoral population norms.

Where has anything else been suggested?

It is implicit throughout your endorsement of democratic principles. Again, from my perspective, your frame of reference emanates from the realm of "ought to", i.e., hopeful and possible. The thing that has separated me from the realm of "ought to" and put me into a frame of mind that is pragmatic to the point of what has clearly struck you as somewhat ammoral, is the realization that we exist in the 7th decade of the War of the Physicists.

While there is an element of irony in your hypothetical proposition - I think it reveals a sincerely held belief. If the physicists don't share your moral convictions, how do you expect the lumpen to get with the evolutionary program?

 

 

 

big pimpin....,


Some weather scientists, although they are in the minority, believe these dealers have actually developed the ability to target certain "trailer parks" within some geographical areas but there is some debate and disagreement about this claim.

sho's you right!!! hongry charge sheaths have an insatiable appetite for both the metal and the PVC used in mobile homes.  A drive down I-70 starting in the core of Kansas City will show you in no uncertain terms that a tremendous amount of planning and intentionality goes into the placement of trailer parks in concentric rings on the outskirts of the metropolitan sprawl. 

Tornado hits those trailer parks like a fat man hits a buffet...,

CN:Your error in analyzing

CN:

Your error in analyzing my actions is in assuming I'm targeting individuals. Remember the difference between individual and collective effect: individual effect affects your position in the game, collective effect affects the nature of the game. Changing the odds.

For instance, when I deconstruct an attack on Black folks in everyday-speak the worse that happens is Black folks see that attack is invalid; the best is that they see they could have deconstructed it themselves. Both results, and all in between, are good, and shift the odds.

To the extent that it has flourished during the 20th century, the luxury of teaching has always been safeguarded by the exoteric obyvatel Work of ruthless thug warriors in service to passionate racial self-worship.

And we are in such a safeguarded space, whether or not that safety was originally intended for us. Don't ignore that...use it. Because even with your program they must learn it.

 

Again, from my perspective,


Again, from my perspective, your frame of reference emanates from the realm of "ought to", i.e., hopeful and possible.

Given that I tie everything to physical events and reality, that's a pretty interesting conclusion. 

lowered expectations...,

Well, you know, there's physical events and reality, and then there's physical events and reality..., 

After joining IBM Research in 1972, he built on the work of IBM's Rolf Landauer to show that general-purpose computation can be performed by a logically and thermodynamically reversible apparatus; and in 1982 he proposed a re-interpretation of Maxwell's demon, attributing its inability to break the second law to the thermodynamic cost of destroying, rather than acquiring, information.

the bleeding edge of hopeful/possible is rooted in an appreciation of physical events and reality - my point of departure from hopeful/possible is rooted in extremely low expectations from these humans..., {it's principally also why I choose to Work with chirrens}

Relativity of perception.

Because you see your depressed/constrained worldview as correct, you must see mine as hopeful/possible. You have no choice.

This site best viewed with a jaundiced eye