Fwd: Analyzing Differences of Perceptions/Constructions

35 views
Skip to first unread message

Stuart Umpleby

unread,
Sep 30, 2018, 11:52:49 PM9/30/18
to cybcom
Narratives have become very important in the social sciences in recent years.  The narrative a person, group or nation tells about itself describes its sense of identity, its history, its goals, and its relations with allies and enemies.  For lasting peace it is necessary for two or more countries to create narratives that are compatible.  Hence, peace making is now regarded a largely a matter of recreating narratives.  A willingness to abide by the rule of law is one such narrative.  
Stuart

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Paul Pangaro <paulp...@me.com>
Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 7:23 AM
Subject: Re: Analyzing Differences of Perceptions/Constructions
To: Louis H Kauffman <kauf...@uic.edu>
Cc: Richards, Laurence D <laud...@iue.edu>, Jason the Goodman <jasonth...@gmail.com>, Robert Martin <rma...@truman.edu>, Stuart Umpleby <ump...@gmail.com>, jama...@gmail.com <jama...@gmail.com>, Michael Lissack <michael...@gmail.com>, Allenna Leonard <leonard...@gmail.com>, lch...@uic.edu <lch...@uic.edu>, Wenjun Du <wenj...@gmail.com>, jlom...@jlombardi.net <jlom...@jlombardi.net>, jcha...@ulm.edu <jcha...@ulm.edu>


Lou, got a paragraph of how that would go? If the audience is external to the Cybernetic community, how would the vocabulary and concepts be introduced?

### 

On Sep 29, 2018, at 02:50, Louis H Kauffman <kauf...@uic.edu> wrote:

Larry:
Cybernetics could prove useful for framing a discussion of individuality of nations. This is a discussion of entities that have a self-identity that are not individual humans. Fictional though it may be, the self-identity of a nation-state is the basis of its “patriotism” and is the basis of its interaction with the rest of the world. One cannot just call for patriotism of states without also calling for understanding and attention 
to the way those states interact with one another in the global community. At the very least, cybernetics has language and experience in exactly this domain.
Best,
Lou



On Sep 29, 2018, at 8:03 AM, Richards, Laurence D <laud...@iue.edu> wrote:

Jason: I don’t know what this has to do with cybernetics, but check out this response to the speech:https://a.msn.com/r/2/BBNEpuZ?m=en-us&ocid=News. There has to be an alternative to the spectrum between extreme nationalism and the current version of “globalism”. Maybe that’s where cybernetics could prove useful? Larry
 
 
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
 
From: Louis H Kauffman
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 7:46 AM
To: Jason the Goodman
Cc: Richards, Laurence D; Robert Martin; Paul Pangaro; Stuart Umpleby; jama...@gmail.com; Michael Lissack; Allenna Leonard; lch...@uic.edu; Wenjun Du; jlom...@jlombardi.net; jcha...@ulm.edu
Subject: Re: Analyzing Differences of Perceptions/Constructions
 
COMMENTS IN CAPS. 
THE IDEALS EXPRESSED IN THIS SPEECH ARE VERY GOOD.
SO ONE HAS TO ASK WHAT IS THE PROBLEM, IF THERE IS A PROBLEM.
AND THE ANSWER IS THAT IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT SEEM TO US WHO WATCH MR T THAT HE ACTUALLY IS OPERATING 
ON THE BASIS OF THESE IDEALS.
LK.
Madam President, Mr. Secretary-General, world leaders, ambassadors, and distinguished delegates:
One year ago, I stood before you for the first time in this grand hall. I addressed the threats facing our world, and I presented a vision to achieve a brighter future for all of humanity. 
Today, I stand before the United Nations General Assembly to share the extraordinary progress we’ve made.
In less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country.
BRAGGING. I WON’T GO FACT CHECKING, JUST COMMENT ON “MATTERS OF PRINCIPLE”.
<734CB412E2F54C80AB5DC4BB601BB3E0.png>
Read Trump’s 2018 UN speech: full text - Vox 9/26/18, 5:25 PM
America’s — so true. (Laughter.) Didn’t expect that reaction, but that’s okay. (Laughter and applause.)
America’s economy is booming like never before. Since my election, we’ve added $10 trillion in wealth. The stock market is at an all-time high in history, and jobless claims are at a 50-year low. African American, Hispanic American, and Asian American unemployment have all achieved their lowest levels ever recorded. We’ve added more than 4 million new jobs, including half a million manufacturing jobs.
We have passed the biggest tax cuts and reforms in American history. We’ve started the construction of a major border wall, and we have greatly strengthened border security.
We have secured record funding for our military — $700 billion this year, and $716 billion next year. Our military will soon be more powerful than it has ever been before.
In other words, the United States is stronger, safer, and a richer country than it was when I assumed office less than two years ago.
We are standing up for America and for the American people. And we are also standing up for the world.
WHAT DOES IT MEAN, “WE ARE ALSO STANDING UP FOR THE WORLD”?
This is great news for our citizens and for peace-loving people everywhere. We believe that when nations respect the rights of their neighbors, and defend the interests of their people, they can better work together to secure the blessings of safety, prosperity, and peace.
GOOD FENCES MAKE GOOD NEIGHBORS. I NEVER THOUGHT OF HIM IN RELATION TO ROBERT FROST BEFORE.
Each of us here today is the emissary of a distinct culture, a rich history, and a people bound together by ties of memory, tradition, and the values that make our homelands like nowhere else on Earth. 
That is why America will always choose independence and cooperation over global governance, control, and domination.
SOUNDS GOOD. INDEPENDENCE AND COOPERATION. AND JUXTAPOSED AGAINST TYRANNY.
I honor the right of every nation in this room to pursue its own customs, beliefs, and
Read Trump’s 2018 UN speech: full text - Vox 9/26/18, 5:25 PM
traditions. The United States will not tell you how to live or work or worship. We only ask that you honor our sovereignty in return.
From Warsaw to Brussels, to Tokyo to Singapore, it has been my highest honor to represent the United States abroad. I have forged close relationships and friendships and strong partnerships with the leaders of many nations in this room, and our approach has already yielded incredible change.
With support from many countries here today, we have engaged with North Korea to replace the specter of conflict with a bold and new push for peace.
HERE IS HAS NOT YET HAPPENED, BUT STATING THAT IT IS SO IS PART OF MAKING IT HAPPEN.
In June, I traveled to Singapore to meet face to face with North Korea’s leader, Chairman Kim Jong Un.
We had highly productive conversations and meetings, and we agreed that it was in both countries’ interest to pursue the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Since that meeting, we have already seen a number of encouraging measures that few could have imagined only a short time ago.
The missiles and rockets are no longer flying in every direction. Nuclear testing has stopped. Some military facilities are already being dismantled. Our hostages have been released. And as promised, the remains of our fallen heroes are being returned home to lay at rest in American soil.
I would like to thank Chairman Kim for his courage and for the steps he has taken, though much work remains to be done. The sanctions will stay in place until denuclearization occurs. 
I also want to thank the many member states who helped us reach this moment — a moment that is actually far greater than people would understand; far greater — but for also their support and the critical support that we will all need going forward. 
A special thanks to President Moon of South Korea, Prime Minister Abe of Japan, and President Xi of China.
Read Trump’s 2018 UN speech: full text - Vox 9/26/18, 5:25 PM
In the Middle East, our new approach is also yielding great strides and very historic change.
Following my trip to Saudi Arabia last year, the Gulf countries opened a new center to target terrorist financing. They are enforcing new sanctions, working with us to identify and track terrorist networks, and taking more responsibility for fighting terrorism and extremism in their own region.
The UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar have pledged billions of dollars to aid the people of Syria and Yemen. And they are pursuing multiple avenues to ending Yemen’s horrible, horrific civil war. 
Ultimately, it is up to the nations of the region to decide what kind of future they want for themselves and their children.
For that reason, the United States is working with the Gulf Cooperation Council, Jordan, and Egypt to establish a regional strategic alliance so that Middle Eastern nations can advance prosperity, stability, and security across their home region. 
Thanks to the United States military and our partnership with many of your nations, I am pleased to report that the bloodthirsty killers known as ISIS have been driven out from the territory they once held in Iraq and Syria. 
WOULD THAT IT WERE SO.
We will continue to work with friends and allies to deny radical Islamic terrorists any funding, territory or support, or any means of infiltrating our borders.
The ongoing tragedy in Syria is heartbreaking. Our shared goals must be the de- escalation of military conflict, along with a political solution that honors the will of the Syrian people. In this vein, we urge the United Nations-led peace process be reinvigorated. But, rest assured, the United States will respond if chemical weapons are deployed by the Assad regime.
I commend the people of Jordan and other neighboring countries for hosting refugees from this very brutal civil war.
As we see in Jordan, the most compassionate policy is to place refugees as close to
Read Trump’s 2018 UN speech: full text - Vox 9/26/18, 5:25 PM
their homes as possible to ease their eventual return to be part of the rebuilding process. This approach also stretches finite resources to help far more people, increasing the impact of every dollar spent. 
Every solution to the humanitarian crisis in Syria must also include a strategy to address the brutal regime that has fueled and financed it: the corrupt dictatorship in Iran. 
Iran’s leaders sow chaos, death, and destruction. They do not respect their neighbors or borders, or the sovereign rights of nations. Instead, Iran’s leaders plunder the nation’s resources to enrich themselves and to spread mayhem across the Middle East and far beyond.
The Iranian people are rightly outraged that their leaders have embezzled billions of dollars from Iran’s treasury, seized valuable portions of the economy, and looted the people’s religious endowments, all to line their own pockets and send their proxies to wage war. Not good.
Iran’s neighbors have paid a heavy toll for the region’s [regime’s] agenda of aggression and expansion. That is why so many countries in the Middle East strongly supported my decision to withdraw the United States from the horrible 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal and re-impose nuclear sanctions.
The Iran deal was a windfall for Iran’s leaders. In the years since the deal was reached, Iran’s military budget grew nearly 40 percent. The dictatorship used the funds to build nuclear-capable missiles, increase internal repression, finance terrorism, and fund havoc and slaughter in Syria and Yemen.
The United States has launched a campaign of economic pressure to deny the regime the funds it needs to advance its bloody agenda. Last month, we began re- imposing hard-hitting nuclear sanctions that had been lifted under the Iran deal. Additional sanctions will resume November 5th, and more will follow. And we’re working with countries that import Iranian crude oil to cut their purchases substantially.
Read Trump’s 2018 UN speech: full text - Vox 9/26/18, 5:25 PM
We cannot allow the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism to possess the planet’s most dangerous weapons. We cannot allow a regime that chants “Death to America,” and that threatens Israel with annihilation, to possess the means to deliver a nuclear warhead to any city on Earth. Just can’t do it.
We ask all nations to isolate Iran’s regime as long as its aggression continues. And we ask all nations to support Iran’s people as they struggle to reclaim their religious and righteous destiny. 
This year, we also took another significant step forward in the Middle East. In recognition of every sovereign state to determine its own capital, I moved the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. 
HUH? WHAT IS THE LOGIC HERE. HOW IS TRUMP’S MOVING U.S. EMBASSY TO JERUSALEM RELATED TO ISRAEL DETERMINING ITS OWN CAPITAL. OR IS THIS MAKING JERUSALEM THE CAPITAL OF THE USA?
The United States is committed to a future of peace and stability in the region, including peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. That aim is advanced, not harmed, by acknowledging the obvious facts. 
America’s policy of principled realism means we will not be held hostage to old dogmas, discredited ideologies, and so-called experts who have been proven wrong over the years, time and time again. This is true not only in matters of peace, but in matters of prosperity.
We believe that trade must be fair and reciprocal. The United States will not be taken advantage of any longer.
For decades, the United States opened its economy — the largest, by far, on Earth — with few conditions. We allowed foreign goods from all over the world to flow freely across our borders. 
Yet, other countries did not grant us fair and reciprocal access to their markets in return. Even worse, some countries abused their openness to dump their products, subsidize their goods, target our industries, and manipulate their currencies to gain unfair advantage over our country. As a result, our trade deficit ballooned to nearly $800 billion a year.
Read Trump’s 2018 UN speech: full text - Vox 9/26/18, 5:25 PM
For this reason, we are systematically renegotiating broken and bad trade deals.
Last month, we announced a groundbreaking U.S.-Mexico trade agreement. And just yesterday, I stood with President Moon to announce the successful completion of the brand new U.S.-Korea trade deal. And this is just the beginning. 
Many nations in this hall will agree that the world trading system is in dire need of change. For example, countries were admitted to the World Trade Organization that violate every single principle on which the organization is based. While the United States and many other nations play by the rules, these countries use government-run industrial planning and state-owned enterprises to rig the system in their favor. They engage in relentless product dumping, forced technology transfer, and the theft of intellectual property.
The United States lost over 3 million manufacturing jobs, nearly a quarter of all steel jobs, and 60,000 factories after China joined the WTO. And we have racked up $13 trillion in trade deficits over the last two decades. 
But those days are over. We will no longer tolerate such abuse. We will not allow our workers to be victimized, our companies to be cheated, and our wealth to be plundered and transferred. America will never apologize for protecting its citizens. 
The United States has just announced tariffs on another $200 billion in Chinese- made goods for a total, so far, of $250 billion. I have great respect and affection for my friend, President Xi, but I have made clear our trade imbalance is just not acceptable. China’s market distortions and the way they deal cannot be tolerated.
As my administration has demonstrated, America will always act in our national interest.
I spoke before this body last year and warned that the U.N. Human Rights Council had become a grave embarrassment to this institution, shielding egregious human rights abusers while bashing America and its many friends. 
Our Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, laid out a clear agenda for
Read Trump’s 2018 UN speech: full text - Vox 9/26/18, 5:25 PM
reform, but despite reported and repeated warnings, no action at all was taken.
So the United States took the only responsible course: We withdrew from the Human Rights Council, and we will not return until real reform is enacted.
For similar reasons, the United States will provide no support in recognition to the International Criminal Court. As far as America is concerned, the ICC has no jurisdiction, no legitimacy, and no authority. The ICC claims near-universal jurisdiction over the citizens of every country, violating all principles of justice, fairness, and due process. We will never surrender America’s sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracy. 
America is governed by Americans. We reject the ideology of globalism, and we embrace the doctrine of patriotism.
Around the world, responsible nations must defend against threats to sovereignty not just from global governance, but also from other, new forms of coercion and domination.
In America, we believe strongly in energy security for ourselves and for our allies. We have become the largest energy producer anywhere on the face of the Earth.
The United States stands ready to export our abundant, affordable supply of oil, clean coal, and natural gas.
OPEC and OPEC nations, are, as usual, ripping off the rest of the world, and I don’t like it. Nobody should like it. We defend many of these nations for nothing, and then they take advantage of us by giving us high oil prices. Not good. 
We want them to stop raising prices, we want them to start lowering prices, and they must contribute substantially to military protection from now on. We are not going to put up with it — these horrible prices — much longer. 
Reliance on a single foreign supplier can leave a nation vulnerable to extortion and intimidation. That is why we congratulate European states, such as Poland, for
Read Trump’s 2018 UN speech: full text - Vox 9/26/18, 5:25 PM
leading the construction of a Baltic pipeline so that nations are not dependent on Russia to meet their energy needs. Germany will become totally dependent on Russian energy if it does not immediately change course. 
Here in the Western Hemisphere, we are committed to maintaining our independence from the encroachment of expansionist foreign powers.
It has been the formal policy of our country since President Monroe that we reject the interference of foreign nations in this hemisphere and in our own affairs. The United States has recently strengthened our laws to better screen foreign investments in our country for national security threats, and we welcome cooperation with countries in this region and around the world that wish to do the same. You need to do it for your own protection. 
The United States is also working with partners in Latin America to confront threats to sovereignty from uncontrolled migration. Tolerance for human struggling and human smuggling and trafficking is not humane. It’s a horrible thing that’s going on, at levels that nobody has ever seen before. It’s very, very cruel.
Illegal immigration funds criminal networks, ruthless gangs, and the flow of deadly drugs. Illegal immigration exploits vulnerable populations, hurts hardworking citizens, and has produced a vicious cycle of crime, violence, and poverty. Only by upholding national borders, destroying criminal gangs, can we break this cycle and establish a real foundation for prosperity.
We recognize the right of every nation in this room to set its own immigration policy in accordance with its national interests, just as we ask other countries to respect our own right to do the same — which we are doing. That is one reason the United States will not participate in the new Global Compact on Migration. Migration should not be governed by an international body unaccountable to our own citizens.
Ultimately, the only long-term solution to the migration crisis is to help people build more hopeful futures in their home countries. Make their countries great again.
Currently, we are witnessing a human tragedy, as an example, in Venezuela. More
Read Trump’s 2018 UN speech: full text - Vox 9/26/18, 5:25 PM
than 2 million people have fled the anguish inflicted by the socialist Maduro regime and its Cuban sponsors.
Not long ago, Venezuela was one of the richest countries on Earth. Today, socialism has bankrupted the oil-rich nation and driven its people into abject poverty.
Virtually everywhere socialism or communism has been tried, it has produced suffering, corruption, and decay. Socialism’s thirst for power leads to expansion, incursion, and oppression. All nations of the world should resist socialism and the misery that it brings to everyone.
In that spirit, we ask the nations gathered here to join us in calling for the restoration of democracy in Venezuela. Today, we are announcing additional sanctions against the repressive regime, targeting Maduro’s inner circle and close advisors. 
We are grateful for all the work the United Nations does around the world to help people build better lives for themselves and their families.
The United States is the world’s largest giver in the world, by far, of foreign aid. But few give anything to us. That is why we are taking a hard look at U.S. foreign assistance. That will be headed up by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. We will examine what is working, what is not working, and whether the countries who receive our dollars and our protection also have our interests at heart.
Moving forward, we are only going to give foreign aid to those who respect us and, frankly, are our friends. And we expect other countries to pay their fair share for the cost of their defense. 
The United States is committed to making the United Nations more effective and accountable. I have said many times that the United Nations has unlimited potential. As part of our reform effort, I have told our negotiators that the United States will not pay more than 25 percent of the U.N. peacekeeping budget. This will encourage other countries to step up, get involved, and also share in this very large burden.
And we are working to shift more of our funding from assessed contributions to
Read Trump’s 2018 UN speech: full text - Vox 9/26/18, 5:25 PM
voluntary so that we can target American resources to the programs with the best record of success.
Only when each of us does our part and contributes our share can we realize the U.N.’s highest aspirations. We must pursue peace without fear, hope without despair, and security without apology. 
Looking around this hall where so much history has transpired, we think of the many before us who have come here to address the challenges of their nations and of their times. And our thoughts turn to the same question that ran through all their speeches and resolutions, through every word and every hope. It is the question of what kind of world will we leave for our children and what kind of nations they will inherit.
The dreams that fill this hall today are as diverse as the people who have stood at this podium, and as varied as the countries represented right here in this body are. It really is something. It really is great, great history. 
There is India, a free society over a billion people, successfully lifting countless millions out of poverty and into the middle class.
There is Saudi Arabia, where King Salman and the Crown Prince are pursuing bold new reforms.
There is Israel, proudly celebrating its 70th anniversary as a thriving democracy in the Holy Land.
In Poland, a great people are standing up for their independence, their security, and their sovereignty.
Many countries are pursuing their own unique visions, building their own hopeful futures, and chasing their own wonderful dreams of destiny, of legacy, and of a home.
The whole world is richer, humanity is better, because of this beautiful constellation of nations, each very special, each very unique, and each shining brightly in its part of 
Read Trump’s 2018 UN speech: full text - Vox 9/26/18, 5:25 PM
the world.
In each one, we see awesome promise of a people bound together by a shared past and working toward a common future.
As for Americans, we know what kind of future we want for ourselves. We know what kind of a nation America must always be.
In America, we believe in the majesty of freedom and the dignity of the individual. We believe in self-government and the rule of law. And we prize the culture that sustains our liberty -– a culture built on strong families, deep faith, and fierce independence. We celebrate our heroes, we treasure our traditions, and above all, we love our country.
Inside everyone in this great chamber today, and everyone listening all around the globe, there is the heart of a patriot that feels the same powerful love for your nation, the same intense loyalty to your homeland. 
The passion that burns in the hearts of patriots and the souls of nations has inspired reform and revolution, sacrifice and selflessness, scientific breakthroughs, and magnificent works of art. 
Our task is not to erase it, but to embrace it. To build with it. To draw on its ancient wisdom. And to find within it the will to make our nations greater, our regions safer, and the world better. 
To unleash this incredible potential in our people, we must defend the foundations that make it all possible. Sovereign and independent nations are the only vehicle where freedom has ever survived, democracy has ever endured, or peace has ever prospered. And so we must protect our sovereignty and our cherished independence above all.
When we do, we will find new avenues for cooperation unfolding before us. We will find new passion for peacemaking rising within us. We will find new purpose, new resolve, and new spirit flourishing all around us, and making this a more beautiful 
Read Trump’s 2018 UN speech: full text - Vox 9/26/18, 5:25 PM
world in which to live.
So together, let us choose a future of patriotism, prosperity, and pride. Let us choose peace and freedom over domination and defeat. And let us come here to this place to stand for our people and their nations, forever strong, forever sovereign, forever just, and forever thankful for the grace and the goodness and the glory of God.
Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the nations of the world. Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.) 
On Sep 26, 2018, at 12:55 PM, Jason the Goodman <jasonth...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
 
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 11:53 PM Jason the Goodman <jasonth...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, 

At the Chicago Conference I was aware of a number of our members dislike Trump if not to the degree of hating him. This is another very interesting research topic for me at least. Here I invite you to go through Trump's UN speech a few days ago, and please share with me, which point/what sentence is/are "no-no" for you? I'm very curious to identify these differences in perceptions/mental models that are clue for the "value-system-on-duty", much like our "scientific-hypothesis-on-duty." I anticipate that this will be interesting discussion as well. Any takers? Best regards - Jason (still in Jerusalem) 




--
Stuart A. Umpleby, Professor Emeritus of Management, Systems and Cybernetics, George Washington University, 212 Funger Hall, 2201 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20052, M: 571-305-0085, http://blogs.gwu.edu/umpleby. A recent article:  “Reflections on Systemic Problems and Solutions.”  (Paper)

Louis Kauffman

unread,
Oct 1, 2018, 3:52:26 AM10/1/18
to cyb...@googlegroups.com
Dear Stu,
Yes. The crux of the matter is in creating or recreating narratives that are mutually agreed upon by all the parties concerned.
At that point the narrative can become a stable eigenform for the situation. It may be useful to compare and contrast present narratives.
For example compare the present israeli and Palestinian narratives. To the extent that they include strong elements of destroying each other, they are NOT compatible!
How do you recreate these narratives? At least in asking we face the question directly.

In political arenas there are often levels of narrative that contradict one another. This is is schizophrenia inducing in exactly the Bateson sense of it.
“Making the safe for democracy.” With the subtext of “Support dictators and tyrants for the sake of profits and trade.”

Best,
Lou

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CYBCOM" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cybcom+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cyb...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/CACdsKMaE466xmNjbzqw%3DP7sDQcWUO_ZiVSGV_fvBhoP8mLnuTA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Leo Semashko

unread,
Oct 1, 2018, 7:23:03 AM10/1/18
to Stuart Umpleby, Louis Kauffman, cyb...@googlegroups.com
Dear Stuart and Louis,

Certainly "Use cybcom for group discussions" is necessary and useful both for us and socially, to move from propaganda to science, first of all to a sociocybernetic approach in the spheral version. Two theses in your discourse are absolute: "Narratives have become very important in the social sciences in recent years." And "How do you recreate these (hostile - L.S.) narratives? At least in asking we face the question directly."

Hostile are not only propagandist narratives between themselves, but also narratives between propaganda and science. This is not only Bateson's "schizophrenia". This is a real problem of finding a common denominator for different narratives, including propaganda (lying, fake). Obviously such a common denominator may not be in one or another partial dying ideology / propaganda, but a neutral holistic and fundamental science, Sociocybernetics primarily in its third order of spheres and spherons.

Perhaps, only as a de-ideologized discipline, unlike ideologized traditional social sciences (sociology, economics, political sciences, etc.), it is able to save democracy from decomposition/putrefaction by offering its holistic, spheral level/structure (http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=424)  excluding its militarism, corruption and “Support dictators and tyrants for the sake of profits and trade.” For this, let me bring to your attention a fragment of the GHA discourse below on the acute narrative of propaganda and science.

Best,

Leo

Dr   Leo  Semashko:
-State  Councillor  of  St.  Petersburg,  Russia; RANH Professor;
-Philosopher, Sociologist and Peacemaker from Harmony;
-Global Harmony Association  (GHA)  Founder  (2005)  and  Honorary  President  (2016);
-Director, GHA Website "Peace from Harmony": www.peacefromharmony.org;
-Global    Peace    Science    (GPS)   from   Harmony   (616   pages):
http://peacefromharmony.org/docs/global-peace-science-2016.pdf;
-SPHERONS  as  GPS Center (20  pages): http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=423;
-NO TO USA WAR WITH RUSSIA:
http://diy.rootsaction.org/petitions/no-to-war-hot-or-cold-with-russia;
 “THE WAR KILLED MY FATHER, AND I KILLED WAR”:
-Personal  page: http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=253

Propaganda or science:
The Current World Agenda
http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=834

            The lengthy response of Mr. W. Julian Korab-Karpowicz, the Polish professor of philosophy "The US and the Current World Agenda", published on his personal page (http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=724), boils down to the following: "First, people in the world should understand… to maintain the US world superiority at all costs because it serves the security for Israel and is an instrument for global domination." This is pure water, on 100%, militarist propaganda and ideology justifying wars, aggression and the domination of the US unipolar world order, instead of proving and protecting global peace. My discourse on this subject with the philosopher-propagandist is limited to 12 critical remarks, which are put on his personal page. Here we confine ourselves to only two fundamental remarks of a methodological nature in the form of the almost Kantian antinomies of the 21st century.

1. Epistemological antinomy: propaganda or science. My disgust and denial of Moore's propagandist video FAHRENHEIT 11/9, in which American President Trump is qualified by “Hitler”, relies on science, on hundreds if not thousands of scientific works comparing the US to "fascism and totalitarianism," of which I named by personally only 19. After all, in history, not Hitler created fascism, and fascism created the "Hitlers" in Italy, Germany, Spain and other countries, like Ukraine, in the center of Europe, today again. Julian, wishful thinking, is powerless to oppose to my list of 19 scientific papers confirming this historical truth, anything scientific works, except for his two propagandist opuses. Therefore, as a sociologist and sociocybernetic scientist, although I have a philosophical education and created together with 173 GHA scientists from 34 countries the "Global Peace Science" (http://peacefromharmony.org/docs/global-peace-science-2016.pdf), I consider below my scientific dignity to fall on the propagandistic, antiscientific level of Julian, who can only ignore this and any science along with its facts in its propagandist narrative. I, unlike Julian – is not a propagandist, was not and do not want to be one. Therefore, our discourse is useless, as a dispute between the deaf. If you are a scientist, then you can not ignore the facts of reality and hundreds, if not thousands of works revealing them, and if you ignore them, then you are not a scientist, but a propagandist. Unlike the propagandist, a scientist morally can not afford to ignore the facts and literature that reveals them. Before him there is no moral choice what to do with it. Julian, by his choice of ignoring it exposed his propagandist ethic. This is not our choice, this is not a choice of a peacemaker, but a militarist, who is masked by peacemaking rhetoric.

2. Ontological antinomy: peace in rhetoric or militarism/war in reality. This antinomy was noticed and determined by Orwell, when he wrote about the transformation of war into peace and lie into truth in their ideological propagandist justification. Here is how this lawyer's diabolical technology looks today at Julian: "Third and the most important, to obtain lasting peace we need to change our human condion." Developing his rhetoric in the imperative mode of obligation ("should"), Julian considers "the most important" way to achieve "lasting peace - changing the human image", i.e. human nature in its future millennial evolution. He silently admits that it will be militarist, that wars have always been in history and will remain long. What a powerful propagandist argument in favor of wars and militarism! He translates "arrows" from scientific their cognition and the eradication of their socio-economic causes to the vague evolution of the human shape/nature. This is a master ideological advocacy of wars/militarism in postmodern propaganda! As always, he ignores the scientific alternative formulated by Emmanuel Kant in his brilliant Treatise on “Perpetual Peace”, on the peaceful, harmonious nature of human and revealed in our "Global Peace Science" (pp. 110-115). This science defines global peace as a reality of the eternal structural harmony of spherons (spheral classes) of social production as its genetic code, which is spontaneously distorted by the genetic militaristic pathologies of empires and reichs, which appoint themselves as "Aryan," "elected," "exceptional," "hegemon" and which are destroying themselves with their own militarism, in order to restore the peaceful genetics of their peoples. This is an inevitable consequence of the cancer pathology of militarism, which awaits any empire, including the American one. This is the conclusion of science, inaccessible to any ideology and propaganda.

A unipolar militaristic world order of the 20th and early 21st centuries could only exist on the basis of propaganda/lie. A new multipolar peace-loving order, the transition to which is inevitable, can exist only on the basis of the "Global Peace Science" from harmony, which constitutes its key agenda.
This is enough for a scientific response to propagandist rhetoric of Julian: "Dictum sapienti satest".

Jon Awbrey

unread,
Oct 1, 2018, 9:25:18 AM10/1/18
to cyb...@googlegroups.com, Leo Semashko, Stuart Umpleby, Louis Kauffman
Friends, Roamers, Cyberneticians ...

Susan an I just returned from our annual dramatic immersion
in Stratford Ontario and the last play we saw was a playfully
dramatic rendition of Milton's “Paradise Lost”. That and the
spectacular im-morality play presently embroiling Washington DC
has moved me to meditate on the differences that narratives bear
in relation to their objects (objectives, intentions, goals, aims),
especially the difference between narratives aimed at the truth that
sets us free and narratives propagating the lies that enslave humanity.

Yes, we saw Julius Caesar, too ...

More as I get unpacked ...

Jon

inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
> <http://www.peacefromharmony.org>;
> -Global Peace Science (GPS) from Harmony (616 pages):
> http://peacefromharmony.org/docs/global-peace-science-2016.pdf;
> -SPHERONS as GPS Center (20 pages):
> http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=423;
> -NO TO USA WAR WITH RUSSIA:
> http://diy.rootsaction.org/petitions/no-to-war-hot-or-cold-with-russia;
> “THE WAR KILLED MY FATHER, AND I KILLED WAR”:
> -Personal page: http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=253
>
> Propaganda or science:
> The Current World Agenda
> http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=834
>
> The lengthy response of Mr. W. Julian Korab-Karpowicz, the Polish
> professor of philosophy "The US and the Current World Agenda", published on his
> personal page (http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=724), boils down to the
> following: "/First, people in the world should understand… to maintain the US
> world superiority at all costs because it serves the security for Israel and is
> an instrument for global domination/." This is pure water, on 100%, militarist
> propaganda and ideology justifying wars, aggression and the domination of the US
> unipolar world order, instead of proving and protecting global peace. My
> discourse on this subject with the philosopher-propagandist is limited to 12
> critical remarks, which are put on his personal page. Here we confine ourselves
> to only two fundamental remarks of a methodological nature in the form of the
> almost Kantian antinomies of the 21st century.
>
> 1. *Epistemological antinomy: propaganda or science.* My disgust and denial of
> Moore's propagandist video FAHRENHEIT 11/9, in which American President Trump is
> qualified by “Hitler”, relies on science, on hundreds if not thousands of
> scientific works comparing the US to "fascism and totalitarianism," of which I
> named by personally only 19. After all, in history, not Hitler created fascism,
> and fascism created the "Hitlers" in Italy, Germany, Spain and other countries,
> like Ukraine, in the center of Europe, today again. Julian, wishful thinking, is
> powerless to oppose to my list of 19 scientific papers confirming this
> historical truth, anything scientific works, except for his two propagandist
> opuses. Therefore, as a sociologist and sociocybernetic scientist, although I
> have a philosophical education and created together with 173 GHA scientists from
> 34 countries the "Global Peace Science"
> (http://peacefromharmony.org/docs/global-peace-science-2016.pdf), I consider
> below my scientific dignity to fall on the propagandistic, antiscientific level
> of Julian, who can only ignore this and any science along with its facts in its
> propagandist narrative. I, unlike Julian – is not a propagandist, was not and do
> not want to be one. Therefore, our discourse is useless, as a dispute between
> the deaf. If you are a scientist, then you can not ignore the facts of reality
> and hundreds, if not thousands of works revealing them, and if you ignore them,
> then you are not a scientist, but a propagandist. Unlike the propagandist, a
> scientist morally can not afford to ignore the facts and literature that reveals
> them. Before him there is no moral choice what to do with it. Julian, by his
> choice of ignoring it exposed his propagandist ethic. This is not our choice,
> this is not a choice of a peacemaker, but a militarist, who is masked by
> peacemaking rhetoric.
>
> 2. *Ontological antinomy: peace in rhetoric or militarism/war in reality*. This
> antinomy was noticed and determined by Orwell, when he wrote about the
> transformation of war into peace and lie into truth in their ideological
> propagandist justification. Here is how this lawyer's diabolical technology
> looks today at Julian: "/Third and the most important, to obtain lasting peace
> we need to change our human condion/." Developing his rhetoric in the imperative
> <mailto:ump...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Narratives have become very important in the social sciences in recent years.
> The narrative a person, group or nation tells about itself describes its sense
> of identity, its history, its goals, and its relations with allies and enemies.
> For lasting peace it is necessary for two or more countries to create
> narratives that are compatible. Hence, peace making is now regarded a largely a
> matter of recreating narratives. A willingness to abide by the rule of law is
> one such narrative.
> Stuart
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: *Paul Pangaro* <paulp...@me.com <mailto:paulp...@me.com>>
> Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 7:23 AM
> Subject: Re: Analyzing Differences of Perceptions/Constructions
> To: Louis H Kauffman <kauf...@uic.edu <mailto:kauf...@uic.edu>>
> Cc: Richards, Laurence D <laud...@iue.edu <mailto:laud...@iue.edu>>, Jason the
> Goodman <jasonth...@gmail.com <mailto:jasonth...@gmail.com>>, Robert
> Martin <rma...@truman.edu <mailto:rma...@truman.edu>>, Stuart Umpleby
> <ump...@gmail.com <mailto:ump...@gmail.com>>, jama...@gmail.com
> <mailto:jama...@gmail.com> <jama...@gmail.com <mailto:jama...@gmail.com>>,
> Michael Lissack <michael...@gmail.com <mailto:michael...@gmail.com>>,
> Allenna Leonard <leonard...@gmail.com <mailto:leonard...@gmail.com>>,
> lch...@uic.edu <mailto:lch...@uic.edu> <lch...@uic.edu <mailto:lch...@uic.edu>>,
> Wenjun Du <wenj...@gmail.com <mailto:wenj...@gmail.com>>,
> jlom...@jlombardi.net
> <mailto:jlom...@jlombardi.net> <jlom...@jlombardi.net
> <mailto:jlom...@jlombardi.net>>, jcha...@ulm.edu
> <mailto:jcha...@ulm.edu> <jcha...@ulm.edu <mailto:jcha...@ulm.edu>>
>
>
> Lou, got a paragraph of how that would go? If the audience is external to the
> Cybernetic community, how would the vocabulary and concepts be introduced?
>
> ###
>
> On Sep 29, 2018, at 02:50, Louis H Kauffman <kauf...@uic.edu
> <mailto:kauf...@uic.edu>> wrote:
>
> Larry:
> Cybernetics could prove useful for framing a discussion of individuality of
> nations. This is a discussion of entities that have a self-identity that are not
> individual humans. Fictional though it may be, the self-identity of a
> nation-state is the basis of its “patriotism” and is the basis of its
> interaction with the rest of the world. One cannot just call for patriotism of
> states without also calling for understanding and attention
> to the way those states interact with one another in the global community. At
> the very least, cybernetics has language and experience in exactly this domain.
> Best,
> Lou
>
>
>
> On Sep 29, 2018, at 8:03 AM, Richards, Laurence D <laud...@iue.edu
> <mailto:laud...@iue.edu>> wrote:
>
> Jason: I don’t know what this has to do with cybernetics, but check out this
> response to the speech:https://a.msn.com/r/2/BBNEpuZ?m=en-us&ocid=News. There
> has to be an alternative to the spectrum between extreme nationalism and the
> current version of “globalism”. Maybe that’s where cybernetics could prove
> useful? Larry
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10
>
> *From: *Louis H Kauffman <mailto:kauf...@uic.edu>
> *Sent: *Wednesday, September 26, 2018 7:46 AM
> *To: *Jason the Goodman <mailto:jasonth...@gmail.com>
> *Cc: *Richards, Laurence D <mailto:laud...@iue.edu>; Robert Martin
> <mailto:rma...@truman.edu>; Paul Pangaro <mailto:paulp...@me.com>; Stuart
> Umpleby <mailto:ump...@gmail.com>; jama...@gmail.com
> <mailto:jama...@gmail.com>; Michael Lissack <mailto:michael...@gmail.com>;
> Allenna Leonard <mailto:leonard...@gmail.com>; lch...@uic.edu
> <mailto:lch...@uic.edu>; Wenjun Du <mailto:wenj...@gmail.com>;
> jlom...@jlombardi.net <mailto:jlom...@jlombardi.net>; jcha...@ulm.edu
> <mailto:jcha...@ulm.edu>
> *Subject: *Re: Analyzing Differences of Perceptions/Constructions
> <mailto:jasonth...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Sorry forgot the link:
> https://www.vox.com/2018/9/25/17901082/trump-un-2018-speech-full-text
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 11:53 PM Jason the Goodman <jasonth...@gmail.com
> <mailto:jasonth...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Dear All,
> At the Chicago Conference I was aware of a number of our members dislike Trump
> if not to the degree of hating him. This is another very interesting research
> topic for me at least. Here I invite you to go through Trump's UN speech a few
> days ago, and please share with me, which point/what sentence is/are "no-no" for
> you? I'm very curious to identify these differences in perceptions/mental models
> that are clue for the "value-system-on-duty", much like our
> "scientific-hypothesis-on-duty." I anticipate that this will be interesting
> discussion as well. Any takers? Best regards - Jason (still in Jerusalem)
>
>
> --
> Stuart A. Umpleby, Professor Emeritus of Management, Systems and Cybernetics,
> George Washington University, 212 Funger Hall, 2201 G Street NW, Washington, DC
> 20052, M: 571-305-0085, http://blogs.gwu.edu/umpleby. A recent article:
> “Reflections on Systemic Problems and Solutions.” (Paper
> <http://em.rdcu.be/wf/click?upn=KP7O1RED-2BlD0F9LDqGVeSKTpOTkmbXBL-2BxXtFAjCfLk-3D_GjTkf3qnPiW2TrpkWrI9C6oTIE8dx6JFxjyi1Nkw4fpRh-2BakrApAIf4eAMiccMW5XMJUEWRsqPpOiJHh45QMIY22BanILeSmpLtU-2BQgsn-2BAXbfzN7WtZ4DXEHmMJHp-2BO0rfRx5b4fRAch9-2FCw4KG5B49eZSrF3HXlVIO9955lPPLJ3JD7Yu3QFJM5XN-2FhO7eRDNVA7gLMmf7xiW7KZHWBA-3D-3D>)
>

--

Jon Awbrey

unread,
Oct 5, 2018, 8:56:47 AM10/5/18
to Cybernetic Communications
Cybernauts,

One thing that interests me here is the relation between narratives and navigation.
Navigation has to do with how we move through actual state spaces while narratives
are the tales we tell about past adventures and what we may have learned from them
by way of guiding future ventures.

Navigation has its local (individual, immediate) and global (general, ultimate) aspects
but it tends to lose its point if it does not keep at least one eye to present business.
Purloining a paradigm from physics it keeps watch over the bearings of local and global
purposes on each other with instruments analogous to differential and integral calculus.

Narratives, in contrast, inhabiting as they do the semiotic plane of signs and symbols,
have a tendency to detach themselves from the matter at hand, to become autonomous and
and create worlds of fantasy all their own, and even to spin altogether out of control.

So I think we have to watch out for that ...

Regards,

Jon
<SNIP>
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 11:53 PM Jason the Goodman <
> jasonth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> At the Chicago Conference I was aware of a number of our members dislike
> Trump if not to the degree of hating him. This is another very interesting
> research topic for me at least. Here I invite you to go through Trump's UN
> speech a few days ago, and please share with me, which point/what sentence
> is/are "no-no" for you? I'm very curious to identify these differences in
> perceptions/mental models that are clue for the "value-system-on-duty",
> much like our "scientific-hypothesis-on-duty." I anticipate that this will
> be interesting discussion as well. Any takers? Best regards - Jason (still
> in Jerusalem)
>

--

Francis Heylighen

unread,
Oct 5, 2018, 1:36:26 PM10/5/18
to cyb...@googlegroups.com
Jon:
>One thing that interests me here is the relation between narratives and navigation.
>Navigation has to do with how we move through actual state spaces while narratives
>are the tales we tell about past adventures and what we may have learned from them
>by way of guiding future ventures.

I actually have written a paper that directly connects narratives and navigation through (state) space, of course from a cybernetic perspective:

Heylighen, F. (2012). A Tale of Challenge, Adventure and Mystery: towards an agent-based unification of narrative and scientific models of behavior (ECCO Working Papers No. 2012-06). Brussels, Belgium. Retrieved from http://pcp.vub.ac.be/papers/TaleofAdventure.pdf

Abstract: The scientific worldview is based on laws, which are supposed to be certain, objective, and independent of time and context. The narrative worldview found in literature, myth and religion, is based on stories, which relate the events experienced by a subject in a particular context with an uncertain outcome. This paper argues that the concept of "agent", supported by the theories of evolution, cybernetics and complex adaptive systems, allows us to reconcile scientific and narrative perspectives. An agent follows a course of action through its environment with the aim of maximizing its fitness. Navigation along that course combines the strategies of regulation, exploitation and exploration, but needs to cope with often-unforeseen challenges. These can be positive (affordances, goals), negative (disturbances, anti- goals) or neutral (diversions). The resulting sequence of challenges and actions can be conceptualized as an adventure. Thus, the agent appears to play the role of the hero in a tale of challenge and mystery that is very similar to the "monomyth", the basic storyline that underlies all myths and fairy tales according to Joseph Campbell [1949]. This narrative dynamics is driven forward in particular by the alternation between prospect (the ability to foresee challenges) and mystery (the possibility of achieving an as yet absent prospect), two aspects of the environment that are particularly attractive to agents. This dynamics generalizes the scientific notion of a deterministic trajectory by introducing a variable "horizon of knowability": the agent is never fully certain of its further course, but can navigate depending on its degree of prospect.

--

Francis Heylighen
Evolution, Complexity and Cognition group
Center Leo Apostel
Free University of Brussels (VUB)
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/HEYL.html

Stuart Umpleby

unread,
Oct 7, 2018, 9:07:45 PM10/7/18
to cybcom, Louis Kauffman


---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Leo Semashko <leo.se...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 7:23 AM
Subject: Re: [CYBCOM] Analyzing Differences of Perceptions/Constructions+++Propaganda or science narrative
To: Stuart Umpleby <ump...@gmail.com>, Louis Kauffman <kauf...@uic.edu>
Cc: <cyb...@googlegroups.com>

Lou,  I think there have been cases where historians, for example from Israel and Palestine, have tried to create a common narrative of their history, just the events. When agreement is not possible, they say, "there are 2 (perhaps more) views on this issue."  Your point about contradictions on several levels is certainly a good one.  Rhetoric, of course, can be very political.  Producing a mutually satisfying narrative can be very difficult, but has been found to be helpful and is now recommended, in my understanding.
Best regards, Stuart

Jon Awbrey

unread,
Oct 8, 2018, 2:08:52 PM10/8/18
to Cybernetic Communications
Francis,

Thanks for this very interesting paper!
I'm in the middle of a residential transformation
that is eating up far more time and concentration
than I ever could have anticipated, but I plan to
respond to its ideas more fully as soon as I get
more settled.

Regards,

Jon

--

inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache

Louis H Kauffman

unread,
Oct 8, 2018, 2:47:34 PM10/8/18
to cyb...@googlegroups.com, Stuart Umpleby
Dear Stu,
The way this mail is organized, I think the following message is from you.

"Lou,  I think there have been cases where historians, for example from Israel and Palestine, have tried to create a common narrative of their history, just the events. When agreement is not possible, they say, "there are 2 (perhaps more) views on this issue."  Your point about contradictions on several levels is certainly a good one.  Rhetoric, of course, can be very political.  Producing a mutually satisfying narrative can be very difficult, but has been found to be helpful and is now recommended, in my understanding.
Best regards, Stuart”

We can begin by taking records of many narratives. A good historian can probable rewrite the multiplicity of narratives as many points of view on one historical reality.
This is the usual way. 
That notwithstanding, there are always many points of view and even each one of us has a multiplicity of narrative about his or her own life or about his or her own science.
A mutually satisfying narrative has to have a sense of future for all parties concerned.
It is not just about the past.
Best,
Lou


Stuart Umpleby

unread,
Oct 8, 2018, 9:33:29 PM10/8/18
to Louis Kauffman, cybcom
Lou, yes, that comment was from me.  I think the reason why narratives are increasingly popular is that they give us something to work with, rather like discussing and changing the terms in a contract.  Previously discussions tended to be verbal, often emotional, with nothing physical to work with.  Scientific articles are similar in that they are written and have references.
Stuart

Louis H Kauffman

unread,
Oct 9, 2018, 4:46:34 AM10/9/18
to cyb...@googlegroups.com
Dear Stu,
Narrative is used crucially in the form of biography and informal accounts (popularization if you will) in the understanding of science.
This is particularly the case for attracting young people into science. For example, Chaitin cites that he read the book by Nagel and Newman "Goedel’s Proof" when he was “a kid”.
And then he says that after that there was “Russell and Whitehead and Goedel and Turing and Me!”. (He made his fundamental discovery at the age of 15. He WAS a kid!)
In Cybernetics we have always been addicted to biographical narrative about the founders and the stories emanating from the Macey conferences. 
Jason’s request for documents from each of us could be interpreted as a request for personal narrative in relation to Cybernetics. 

But how can narrative figure in debates about (two) state solution for Israel and Palestine?
How can narrative figure in debates that involve direct attempts to invalidate the narrative of the opponent?
Alas we know how narrative figures in the world of a politician who creates simple stories  that appeal to his purposes and are used to make slogans and raise the temper of his following.
In such circumstances narratives go into competition with one another for the (political) survival of the story tellers.

At the beginning of LOF, GSB says
 “There can be no distinction without motive, and there can be be no motive unless contents are seen to differ in value.”
In the construction of LOF the words “motive” and “value” are in their form nothing more than
aspects of the word “distinction”. That we put charge upon them and act in such a way as to create worlds of conflict is an aspect of what can emanate from such differences. 
In returning to the form, the charge disappears and one wonders indeed what the motive and value is
for even the most fundamental of our differences. Narratives about how common boundaries cancel and apparently valued differences dissolve can be of value
in a political arena, IF they can be made part of the discourse. Perestroika happened; the Berlin Wall did come down. Others will tell narratives about building a wall.
So it goes.

Best,
Lou

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages