4 ms·

Preface: as per usual, I am continuing on with my combative/antagonistic/evasive/abstract/mumbo-jumbo-seeming speaking style - apolgies in advance, but I truly

Preface: as per usual, I am continuing on with my combative/antagonistic/evasive/abstract/mumbo-jumbo-seeming speaking style - apolgies in advance, but I truly believe that someone should be trying something different, consider the state of affairs that we find ourselves in (~all the problems in the world). Also: excuse spelling/grammar errors, I will try to do a cleanup pass a bit later. > What, specifically do you find illegitimate about American democracy? That it (at least implicitly) claims to be "Of the people, by the people, and for the people", that the projected and perceived as accurate narrative is that it exercises "the will of the people". When in fact, the will of the people is not known, because very little attempt has been made to determine what the will of the people is (and other things: "the people" are, generally speaking, "not too bright", and the causality behind this unfortunate circumstances is not known or well investigated, but if you were to dig into it, what you will typically find at the end of the strong is: the government). I could go on and on and on, and based on extensive experience discussing such topics with a very wide range of people, I confidently predict that if we were to get into the fine-grained details, before long you would balk, you would accuse me of "overthinking", being "pedantic", start making various "ya well" style excuses, and so on and so forth. Or another way of putting it might be something like: select distinct behavior_type from human_activity where topic like '%government%' and reality_level='perception' I propose to you here today that human beings have a way about them, and that by virtue of you being a human being (and being raised and shaped by the cultures you exist within), you (to some degree) exhibit these behavior, I suspect with not 100% conscious awareness that this is the way it is. At this point, a typical cards that are typically played (by my counterpoint in the conversation, or dang if he was to encounter this thread) is something along the lines of "we can't know anything, nihilism", "you're talking metaphysical jibber jabber" "your words have no meaning", "HN is not the place for this sort of X", etc. This sort of thing, I propose to you, is your nature. You want detail? I am at your disposal, and I suspect my willingness to discuss what is true (or may be, or not) can easily outlast your ability to remain curious about what is true. > Getting some specific thoughts about this would be nice. Much better than what you did say, which I interpreted (perhaps incorrectly -- but the lack of detail is pretty telling) as a metaphorical rolled-up newspaper along with "American democracy bad! Bad American democracy!" "the lack of detail is pretty telling" is an interesting (but not uncommon) phrase. When you say this, what are you referring to? I will take a guess: might it be ~reality? > I have specific issues with the American political system myself, including but not limited to, the pervasive impact of money in our political system, especially as to how it strongly reinforces the current two-party hegemony. To my style of thinking, this is one item (with an unknown epistemic status, and an unknown comprehensive-causality-weighted importance), in a set of utterly unknown (but perhaps imagined as known) size. > However, I don't see it as illegitimate as you appear to do. So I'll ask again. What specifically makes American democracy "illegitimate?" I propose that a highly optimal way to think about such things is as a tautological statement + question: "What makes American democracy illegitimate, is that which makes American democracy illegitimate. So then: what is it that makes American democracy illegitimate, accurately and comprehensively?" Do you possess the answer to this question? Does it seem like you possess the answer to this question? Do you care what the answer to this questions is? And when considering such questions, be mindful if your mind is conceptualizing them as binaries (True/False) or a spectrum (the degree to which each "is" (or may be) True/False). Do you like this sort of thinking? In my experience, most people not only do not like it, but they reject it outright, often with strong emotions and supreme confidence. I believe that this is our nature, at least for now. (Here it may be useful to consider the history of the aggregate conceptualization of (aka: ~reality) African Americans by the population of the USA, and elsewhere.) Sometimes humanity can modify the fabric of reality, but usually they seem unable (and unwilling). (continued...)

mistermann 5y ago
> It's an interesting idea. And one that certainly deserves (and has/is getting) attention and investigation. This reminds me somewhat of this homeless senior I know that hangs out at the 7/11 by my house - he too "is" "getting attention", in that I bought him a coffee last week. > As you note, many issues with implementation of such a system including universal access, the role of money/moneyed interests and the time/capacity individuals have to investigate, comprehend and form opinions about the dozens (perhaps more?) of local, state and federal laws debated every single day. Indeed. There's a surprising amount of complexity in reality (although it tends to not seem that way). > That said, I support the idea of tweaking democratic processes to improve governance. Ranked Choice Voting[0] comes to mind. Why only tweak? Do you support the general notion of society having a serious(!), mainstream conversation (substantial MSM coverage) about the merits of a complete rewrite? >>> Yes, we do. And yes, no one can really know the mind of anyone other than themself (and sometimes we don't even know our own minds). >>110% agree - hence, I prefer to think in terms of ~"plausible range of epistemically sound possibilities", since what is true is typically impossible to achieve, and is not necessary anyways. > I'm not really clear on what you mean here. I didn't say anything about "truth,"... Is "one can really know the mind of anyone" not necessarily intertwined with truth: that which is(!) the state of a person's mind? (Assuming we care about it of course.) > which is irrelevant (as you note) to a person's state of mind/internal thought processes. I said Truth cannot be achieved, not that it is irrelevant. Although for the vast majority of instances of mind, I would agree that what is true does not matter (at the perceptual level) - but there are exceptions here and there (me, for instance). > As for what's "epistemically plausible," that's so broad as to be practically useless. By what means have you come to possess comprehensive knowledge about what "is" "useless"? Useless for what? To what end? > For example, it's "epistemically plausible" for someone to support the "decent, hard working people of this great nation." But such a statement is so vague that it's meaningless. Vagueness erases meaning? Perhaps in your mind, but this is definitely not how my mind works. >>> I assume you're referring to this[1] sort of analysis. >> Not really. I prefer something more along the lines of thinking in very strict (but dynamic / extremist) epistemology, ontological complexity, yadda yadda yadda. Perhaps some new styles of thinking will have to be developed along the way. > In that case, you shouldn't have used the term "counterfactual casuation[sic]" which has a well defined meaning. Can you explain why the "well defined" "meaning" of counterfactual causation is somehow incompatible with what I've said? > I'm sorry, but that sentence is a word salad... The theory of relativity and many other things are also word salad to those who lack the necessary background knowledge to understand it. (And if you have the urge to point out that because this is true, it does not prove that what I've said is also true, then don't bother, I well realize this.) > ...that doesn't describe, at least not in terms someone not living inside your head, what you "prefer." You make a statement about "strict epistemology" and "ontological complexity," but those must be employed in any reasonable discussion of just about anything beyond what I want to eat for dinner. What, specifically, is this "yadda, yadda, yadda" you mention, as it seems that's where some semblance of a reasonable argument might lie? Herein lies complexity that would take essay length writing to even begin to address it with any precision. I think there's more than enough here already to measure the quantity of curiosity you can muster and sustain, taking into consideration the ~"utterly shit" communication medium (platform, language, etc) we are using. >> This sounds like an investigation into that which exists - it's certainly useful, but I am also interested in that which does not yet exist. > That's great! I'm glad you're interested. But you have made a whole raft of assertions which you haven't supported with any sort of data or even logical analysis, despite having the opportunity (and taking that opportunity -- twice) to elucidate your point of view. I propose that reality (and communication about) is highly contextual, and that humanity's current norm is ~"good enough". When writing this, did you consider the distinction (that exists somewhere) between haven't supported in my model and haven't supported in this conversation? I do realize you explicitly specified which one (in this conversation), but my question is whether you had the other one in working memory when composing the above. > What's more, understanding how current (and historical) systems (don't) work is critical to any attempt to tweak or rewrite the rules of any complex system. Indeed - we best have on our thinking caps! (continued...)

mistermann 5y ago

> It's an interesting idea. And one that certainly deserves (and has/is getting) attention and investigation. This reminds me somewhat of this homeless senior I know that hangs out at the 7/11 by my house - he too "is" "getting attention", in that I bought him a coffee last week. > As you note, many issues with implementation of such a system including universal access, the role of money/moneyed interests and the time/capacity individuals have to investigate, comprehend and form opinions about the dozens (perhaps more?) of local, state and federal laws debated every single day. Indeed. There's a surprising amount of complexity in reality (although it tends to not seem that way). > That said, I support the idea of tweaking democratic processes to improve governance. Ranked Choice Voting[0] comes to mind. Why only tweak? Do you support the general notion of society having a serious(!), mainstream conversation (substantial MSM coverage) about the merits of a complete rewrite? >>> Yes, we do. And yes, no one can really know the mind of anyone other than themself (and sometimes we don't even know our own minds). >>110% agree - hence, I prefer to think in terms of ~"plausible range of epistemically sound possibilities", since what is true is typically impossible to achieve, and is not necessary anyways. > I'm not really clear on what you mean here. I didn't say anything about "truth,"... Is "one can really know the mind of anyone" not necessarily intertwined with truth: that which is(!) the state of a person's mind? (Assuming we care about it of course.) > which is irrelevant (as you note) to a person's state of mind/internal thought processes. I said Truth cannot be achieved, not that it is irrelevant. Although for the vast majority of instances of mind, I would agree that what is true does not matter (at the perceptual level) - but there are exceptions here and there (me, for instance). > As for what's "epistemically plausible," that's so broad as to be practically useless. By what means have you come to possess comprehensive knowledge about what "is" "useless"? Useless for what? To what end? > For example, it's "epistemically plausible" for someone to support the "decent, hard working people of this great nation." But such a statement is so vague that it's meaningless. Vagueness erases meaning? Perhaps in your mind, but this is definitely not how my mind works. >>> I assume you're referring to this[1] sort of analysis. >> Not really. I prefer something more along the lines of thinking in very strict (but dynamic / extremist) epistemology, ontological complexity, yadda yadda yadda. Perhaps some new styles of thinking will have to be developed along the way. > In that case, you shouldn't have used the term "counterfactual casuation[sic]" which has a well defined meaning. Can you explain why the "well defined" "meaning" of counterfactual causation is somehow incompatible with what I've said? > I'm sorry, but that sentence is a word salad... The theory of relativity and many other things are also word salad to those who lack the necessary background knowledge to understand it. (And if you have the urge to point out that because this is true, it does not prove that what I've said is also true, then don't bother, I well realize this.) > ...that doesn't describe, at least not in terms someone not living inside your head, what you "prefer." You make a statement about "strict epistemology" and "ontological complexity," but those must be employed in any reasonable discussion of just about anything beyond what I want to eat for dinner. What, specifically, is this "yadda, yadda, yadda" you mention, as it seems that's where some semblance of a reasonable argument might lie? Herein lies complexity that would take essay length writing to even begin to address it with any precision. I think there's more than enough here already to measure the quantity of curiosity you can muster and sustain, taking into consideration the ~"utterly shit" communication medium (platform, language, etc) we are using. >> This sounds like an investigation into that which exists - it's certainly useful, but I am also interested in that which does not yet exist. > That's great! I'm glad you're interested. But you have made a whole raft of assertions which you haven't supported with any sort of data or even logical analysis, despite having the opportunity (and taking that opportunity -- twice) to elucidate your point of view. I propose that reality (and communication about) is highly contextual, and that humanity's current norm is ~"good enough". When writing this, did you consider the distinction (that exists somewhere) between haven't supported in my model and haven't supported in this conversation? I do realize you explicitly specified which one (in this conversation), but my question is whether you had the other one in working memory when composing the above. > What's more, understanding how current (and historical) systems (don't) work is critical to any attempt to tweak or rewrite the rules of any complex system. Indeed - we best have on our thinking caps! (continued...)