Of the parametric and the strategic



A continuation of a discussion between Jenyar and me from another thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40014&page=4&pp=20), with the apologies that it took me so long to reply:



But here's the trickery: the words are the same, so it seems that both speak the same language -- and to each party it appears that the other party is using the words wrongly.

That's part of it, but I think there's more. If it were just a matter of semantics, then their effects (or to use the biblical metaphor: the fruits of their spirit) would look the same, but they don't. It's not a clear cut line either. Faith and hope, insight, wisdom and virtue - these don't behave any differently because of different manifestations or expressions of them in different languages. Love is always welcome. Justice is always desired. Sure, the words are the same, but how are they used?

If all of language and its constituants were essentially the same thing, we wouldn't be able to say anything. On the other hand, if there was no common ground, the language itself wouldn't have existed. So we have to listen to ourselves: what are we saying with what we've got, and what are we saying about what we've got?

Could there be a connection between this meta-language and the parametric environment?


In fact, I think that the meta-language assumes the existence of a parametric environment, or meta-language would not be possible at all. Moreover, language as such functions on the assumption that both communicators are using the words the same way, with the same meanings -- which is nothing but parametric thinking.

So where do misunderstandings come from, why do they happen?

For one thing, there is the simple linguistic explanation of people indeed lacking knowledge of certain words -- but those misunderstandings usually don't cause any bad blood.
Unless, of course, not knowing certain words is due to lacking education, for example, and the more educated communicator may have a low opinion of those less educated than him. This is not a linguistic issue anymore, it is an ethical issue.

Which brings me to the next point: It seems that many misunderstandings are about clashing values and preferences. It is not about the now "scapegoatish" sematics. It is the values and preferences of one communicator that clash with the values and preferences of the other communicator.

How these clashings are dealt with -- this is where ethics shows.


“I can understand this. At this point, let's ask: Why did this mechanichistic, supposedly value-neutral way of thinking emerge? ”

I'd guess for selfish reasons - good selfish reasons and bad selfish reasons. From the realization that each person is unique comes the expression of uniqueness. And from the realization that we are all human comes the expression of humanity, from each individual. From the realization that there are ideals we express the longing for ideals, and likewise from the realization that we lack those ideals comes the expression that...
What? We are nothing more than flawed at best? Or that we must make the best of how we are? Both seem equally correct, but only one finds "reality" in this life. Only one can be verified over and over by experience: to each his own. Selfishness rules. That's the way the world *is*. Anything more imposes - peace, order, laws, justice - things that don't exist, as they define existence, or we would not have to impose them. It's not that we don't see them: we see people with hope, with faith, with peace. It's that we don't believe them. They're illusions compared to reality. They're "outside", even when we witness them first-hand.

Why did this mechanichistic, supposedly value-neutral way of thinking emerge? Because it's the reasonable conclusion. It's what life presents to us, what we can measure and repeat. It's an attempt to make sense of something that doesn't. But isn't that where religion started? I think so, but this time a more realistic god has emerged (or should i say: been proven to exist): the individual as himself. "I'm certain of nothing except my own existence", they say, and that's all they're prepared to express faith in. At least publically.

This is how the smallest parametric environment is made: the individual as microcosmos.
We all strive for the parametric, yet when facing other people, who have their own parametric strivings, we see that our social environment is strategic. The strategic can be very intimidating, and I think that the fear of the strategic is an important factor in the "rescuing" oneself into the smallest parametric environment, and that is the self, the individual. However ...


It's just that I find irrational beliefs like hope, absolute values, universal justice don't disappear because they're denied. They're only reformulated in such a way that they're still evident without having to say they are.

Hope, absolute values, universal justice exist in the sphere that is greater than the individual, they exist only in *relation*, and this implies that they can exist only in a community.
The individual, being a social being, strives for the socially realizable, as this *in return* assures him of his safe existence -- hope, absolute values, universal justice. Yet if he closes himself in his own parametric environment, he thereby cuts himself off from the social, and thus prevents that the socially realizable would happen. Thereby threatening his own existence -- this threat (whihc is real) he compensated for by saying that hope, absolute values and universal justice are relative and unattainable for the individual anyway; he devaluated hope, absolute values and universal justice in order to justify the existence of the smallest parametric environment.


People are afraid to decide, because life doesn't force them to, or even ask them to.

It seems that this fear exists mainly only if we settle for the smallest parametric environment to be the only one of importance. The rest seems overwhelming from the perspective of such an individual.


In an exclusively strategic environment, decisions aren't required. You can just play the ball you were served - it used to be religion, now it's science. It never was the parametric world itself, which is what people ended up rejecting, unfortuately.

Deciding in a strategic environment is different from the one in the parametric. In a parametric, one would go for the best option possible, while in a strategic one usually goes for the second-best possible option.

Simplified example:
Parametric environment: it is just me and 5 different pens, and I have to choose one. I'll choose the one I like best.
Strategic environment: it is me, 4 friends and 5 different pens, and each friend has to get one. The choice is a complicated calculation of feasibility: Say that two other friends fancy the same pen as me. If I insist on the pen I like best, a fight might break out, and the stability of the group would be endangered. So by some negotiating and bargaining, hopefully without emotional blackmail, I will get the pen I like (maybe not best), *and* keep the group together.
I choose the option that is best *both* for me *and* the group.

Once we consider strategic environments from this perspective, values like justice are extremely important, and have to be practiced by all participants, or the stability of the group will suffer. If that suffers, individuals will suffer too.


As long as the parametric ceiling can be brought down to an individual level, nobody has to worry about the sky falling on their heads.

Curling up into one's own little parametric environment, and vieweing the rest of the world as parametric too, eventually results is self-harm. The sky does fall on their heads, they just don't see it.


Value-neutral is safe. It serves every need and fulfills every desire. But when it is expressed as a value, it automagically assumes whatever function it has to fulfil in the present context, whether imposed by the state. A neutral country can decide what it accepts and rejects, which is in a sense what everybody does anyway - express their outonomy. But by what standards and what authority?

One cannot define oneself out of onself. Definition is possible only from relation. If this relation is the one between the self and an idealized self, such a definition and the individual who made it are likely to be rejected by the environment.


For a value-neutral, the context must always be provided (ideally). Otherwise it has to be uncharacteristically enforced, and condemned only in retrosepect as the wrong decision ("oh, people were more primitive then", "things were different", "it wasn't really us"). Life is more complicated and dangerous for someone affirming values, because they have to face being wrong. And bold enough to be wrong because literally, they are wrong. They're living in a fantasy world where values are real enough to warrant more than a guilty conscience.

This is when an individual imposes his choice with a certain disregard for the group. This may be either harmful or beneficient for the whole group. However, it all depends on what the said choice is.


The only context they are allowed to be neutral in is a parametric one. Some find this paralyzing, others liberating. But in many cases, neutrality is the responsible position between two extremes - the facilitating, compassionate, arbitrating, objective position. Just believing that those qualities are worth defending is already a confession that you consider them authoritive beyond your own authority. And reveals "value-neutral" as plain hypocrisy.

"Ah, it's the semantics ..."

In fact, I think that the meta-language assumes the existence of a parametric environment, or meta-language would not be possible at all. Moreover, language as such functions on the assumption that both communicators are using the words the same way, with the same meanings -- which is nothing but parametric thinking.

So where do misunderstandings come from, why do they happen?

For one thing, there is the simple linguistic explanation of people indeed lacking knowledge of certain words -- but those misunderstandings usually don't cause any bad blood.
Unless, of course, not knowing certain words is due to lacking education, for example, and the more educated communicator may have a low opinion of those less educated than him. This is not a linguistic issue anymore, it is an ethical issue.

Which brings me to the next point: It seems that many misunderstandings are about clashing values and preferences. It is not about the now "scapegoatish" sematics. It is the values and preferences of one communicator that clash with the values and preferences of the other communicator.

How these clashings are dealt with -- this is where ethics shows.
I think this is where another key element of communication comes in: negotiation. That's what dialogue essentially is: negotiation for common meaning. Not absolute meaning, sometimes not even satisfactory meaning, but common understanding - on which something better can be built. (I think there's a specific word for this, but "parametric" will do.)

Misunderstandings are when negotiations fail, or when assumptions/defintions (ideals?) get the upper hand. When they override the necessity for understanding. You're right, it is an ethical issue.

This is how the smallest parametric environment is made: the individual as microcosmos.
We all strive for the parametric, yet when facing other people, who have their own parametric strivings, we see that our social environment is strategic. The strategic can be very intimidating, and I think that the fear of the strategic is an important factor in the "rescuing" oneself into the smallest parametric environment, and that is the self, the individual. However ...
...maintaining identity...
Hope, absolute values, universal justice exist in the sphere that is greater than the individual, they exist only in *relation*, and this implies that they can exist only in a community.
The individual, being a social being, strives for the socially realizable, as this *in return* assures him of his safe existence -- hope, absolute values, universal justice. Yet if he closes himself in his own parametric environment, he thereby cuts himself off from the social, and thus prevents that the socially realizable would happen. Thereby threatening his own existence -- this threat (whihc is real) he compensated for by saying that hope, absolute values and universal justice are relative and unattainable for the individual anyway; he devaluated hope, absolute values and universal justice in order to justify the existence of the smallest parametric environment.
Can we call this "identity vs. egotism"?

I guess it's easy to see a discrepancy, when we look for the ideals of the community within ourselves (in our relationship with ourselves). The very ideals that society strives for engender resentment within us if these things are in conflict: we realize that society requires 1)justice 2)consistency 3)tolerance 4)forgiveness, etc. but those requirements are too lofty for a mere individual! They're easy to imagine as parametric abstracts, but much harder to deal with in a day to day strategic basis. So we feel responsibility, and therefore failure. We are intimidated by the very things we strive for. When the individual slips up, society slips with him.

It seems that this fear exists mainly only if we settle for the smallest parametric environment to be the only one of importance. The rest seems overwhelming from the perspective of such an individual.
If we retreat from voluntary self-enforcement simply because involuntary societary enforcement seems oppressive. Abdicating in search of authorty, importance, false pride.

Deciding in a strategic environment is different from the one in the parametric. In a parametric, one would go for the best option possible, while in a strategic one usually goes for the second-best possible option.

Simplified example:
Parametric environment: it is just me and 5 different pens, and I have to choose one. I'll choose the one I like best.
Strategic environment: it is me, 4 friends and 5 different pens, and each friend has to get one. The choice is a complicated calculation of feasibility: Say that two other friends fancy the same pen as me. If I insist on the pen I like best, a fight might break out, and the stability of the group would be endangered. So by some negotiating and bargaining, hopefully without emotional blackmail, I will get the pen I like (maybe not best), *and* keep the group together.
I choose the option that is best *both* for me *and* the group.
I facilitate peace and co-operation between the parametric and strategic. Wanting the best pen will isolate me, maybe as a temporary "authority", but isolation helps nobody and loves nobody. I'm pulling the rug from underneath all our feet, not just theirs.

But I think at this point we must decide whether we're advocating communism!

Once we consider strategic environments from this perspective, values like justice are extremely important, and have to be practiced by all participants, or the stability of the group will suffer. If that suffers, individuals will suffer too.
In other words, we give up idealism to make peace with each other - an action seemingly at at odds with chasing an ideal, against our nature - but without dissociating from the parametric ideal completely, alienating ourselves from what drove us to make that strategic decision in the first place! We must let go of the search for strategic authority, but still recognize parametric authority as something we have to "report to".

It's the principle of making peace with your brother before you have to face him in court, because in court you will be derived of your ability to negotiate, and the decision will be made for you.

Curling up into one's own little parametric environment, and vieweing the rest of the world as parametric too, eventually results is self-harm. The sky does fall on their heads, they just don't see it.
But they feel it! The atmosphere becomes oppressive and brooding. The world seems deterministic, and all decisions seem equally futile. In the end, even something as light and non-threatening as the sky will be too much to bear because they thought they were holding it up.

One cannot define oneself out of onself. Definition is possible only from relation. If this relation is the one between the self and an idealized self, such a definition and the individual who made it are likely to be rejected by the environment.
Thus: a relationship with the parametric is crucial if we are to know ourselves. In order to know destruction we must live in view of it - or we will destroy ourselves out of ignorant complacency. Happily drifting off a waterfall we never believed existed, even though the stream pulled us exonerably towards "nothing".

This is when an individual imposes his choice with a certain disregard for the group. This may be either harmful or beneficient for the whole group. However, it all depends on what the said choice is.
I would almost say that the actual choice is less important. "Luck" doesn't happen outside relationships, and we can't evaluate relationships ex ante. They're always in process, never complete. We can't approve of abortions or ban stem-cell research and hope we're lucky, that it turns out to be a good decision "for the group". Whatever we do should be more than calculated decision, but less than blasé.

What do we do if there is no precedent, if all options are equally feasible, and there is therefore no feasibility? What guides us to make *new* and responsible decisions?

"Ah, it's the semantics ..."
Pray we move fast enough not to become stuck in it!

I think this is where another key element of communication comes in: negotiation. That's what dialogue essentially is: negotiation for common meaning. Not absolute meaning, sometimes not even satisfactory meaning, but common understanding - on which something better can be built. (I think there's a specific word for this, but "parametric" will do.)

But then there must be an agreement about this "something better"!
If we stick to relativism, there is no such thing as "something better", at least not a common "something better".


...maintaining identity...

“ Hope, absolute values, universal justice exist in the sphere that is greater than the individual, they exist only in *relation*, and this implies that they can exist only in a community.
The individual, being a social being, strives for the socially realizable, as this *in return* assures him of his safe existence -- hope, absolute values, universal justice. Yet if he closes himself in his own parametric environment, he thereby cuts himself off from the social, and thus prevents that the socially realizable would happen. Thereby threatening his own existence -- this threat (whihc is real) he compensated for by saying that hope, absolute values and universal justice are relative and unattainable for the individual anyway; he devaluated hope, absolute values and universal justice in order to justify the existence of the smallest parametric environment. ”

Can we call this "identity vs. egotism"?

I guess it's easy to see a discrepancy, when we look for the ideals of the community within ourselves (in our relationship with ourselves). The very ideals that society strives for engender resentment within us if these things are in conflict: we realize that society requires 1)justice 2)consistency 3)tolerance 4)forgiveness, etc. but those requirements are too lofty for a mere individual! They're easy to imagine as parametric abstracts, but much harder to deal with in a day to day strategic basis. So we feel responsibility, and therefore failure. We are intimidated by the very things we strive for. When the individual slips up, society slips with him.

This once more brings us to the Big Romantic Conflict where individual identity is defined as the opposition to society.
In regards to Game theory, such a definition is very harming for all included.

I'm not sure what you mean with the "identity vs. egotism" dichotomy -- would "identity" be about healthy cooperation, while "egotism" about deliberate non-cooperation?


If we retreat from voluntary self-enforcement simply because involuntary societary enforcement seems oppressive. Abdicating in search of authorty, importance, false pride.

Which can look like this sort of resentment -- like something from another thread:

"All you want is someone to tame the shrew that you are."

Because all a woman ever wants is a maaaan to surrender to after a long and stormy courtship.
And if she is "shrewish", if she goes against prevailing cultural norms, if she says things that are different or "rebellious", it's only because she wants to be tamed.

Because you see - our culture is really really great and authority is really really great and all anyone could ever want is to submit to it.



I facilitate peace and co-operation between the parametric and strategic. Wanting the best pen will isolate me, maybe as a temporary "authority", but isolation helps nobody and loves nobody. I'm pulling the rug from underneath all our feet, not just theirs.

Yes, I've never thought of this this way: by acting like a good strategist, you can most effectively enforce the parametric.


But I think at this point we must decide whether we're advocating communism!

Hehe. Did you know that Jesus is considered to be the first communist?


In other words, we give up idealism to make peace with each other - an action seemingly at at odds with chasing an ideal, against our nature - but without dissociating from the parametric ideal completely, alienating ourselves from what drove us to make that strategic decision in the first place! We must let go of the search for strategic authority, but still recognize parametric authority as something we have to "report to".

It's the principle of making peace with your brother before you have to face him in court, because in court you will be derived of your ability to negotiate, and the decision will be made for you.

And this is exactly what people seem to like best -- being sue-happy : The burden of deciding is handed over to the courts -- which only disempowers the ones involved in the conflict, and makes it even harder for them to face new conflicts.


But they feel it! The atmosphere becomes oppressive and brooding. The world seems deterministic, and all decisions seem equally futile. In the end, even something as light and non-threatening as the sky will be too much to bear because they thought they were holding it up.

And the solution (" ") out of this brooding and oppression is in devaluating the reasons that make the atmosphere seem oppressive and brooding. Love is considered a bloodclot, authority sucks and God is dead. Being miserable becomes something normal.


Thus: a relationship with the parametric is crucial if we are to know ourselves. In order to know destruction we must live in view of it - or we will destroy ourselves out of ignorant complacency. Happily drifting off a waterfall we never believed existed, even though the stream pulled us exonerably towards "nothing".

... Meaning that we need absolutes.


I would almost say that the actual choice is less important. "Luck" doesn't happen outside relationships, and we can't evaluate relationships ex ante. They're always in process, never complete. We can't approve of abortions or ban stem-cell research and hope we're lucky, that it turns out to be a good decision "for the group". Whatever we do should be more than calculated decision, but less than blasé.

What do we do if there is no precedent, if all options are equally feasible, and there is therefore no feasibility? What guides us to make *new* and responsible decisions?

A quick and not very thoughtful answer would be experience (I mean "experience" in the broadst sense, including knowledge) -- but experience without analysis is nothing. And coming to this analysis, things seem to get awfully stuck. Absolutes would be necessary, but if we go for the "everything is subjective, everything is relative", then we cannot postulate any absolutes!

One way to solve this is what I have experienced with the Mormons: they declared their friendship, very soon, and that was it. No process, no evolving of the relationship, nothing. Always the same distance, yet by them considered "friendship". This way, the relationship was indeed defined ex ante -- and it was, for my understanding, extremely sad, boring and unfulfilling, a form, a pose.

It seems that a way to face new situations is to view them with the greatest minimalism possible. To depersonalize them, institutionalize them, make forms of them -- like you said: make them blasé. And then accompany this with "You must do it because you can do it, and you must enjoy it!"

(Like the Mormons wondered, "We are friends, so why aren't you enjoying it' There must be something wrong with you!" ...)


But as soon as we take something personally the whole issue of identity comes into play again.

But then there must be an agreement about this "something better"!
If we stick to relativism, there is no such thing as "something better", at least not a common "something better".
And how will we know "better" without ideals? As such, it could almost go through as experiential knowledge: something we do not only chase, but build on as well. But experiential knowledge might not be all it's made up to be:
"Another synonym for experiential knowledge is local knowledge. However, Stuiver et al. (2002:11-12), as inspired by Knorr-Cetina (1981) and Latour (1987), note that it is more and more realized that scientific knowledge, despite its claim of universality, is created mainly in laboratories and therefore its nature is not exclusively universal but also has strong elements of locality." - Ervaringskennis (http://www.ervaringskennis.nl/index.cfm?paginanr=1&change_language=uk)
Experiential knowledge is supposed to be one of the strong points of relativism, which relies heavily on universalism. It say "everybody knows", and provides evidence of what "everybody should know". But this is empirical tunnel-vision. It won't open the windows of the lab to let in the sunlight - it will try to recreate the sun in a controlled and therefore universally applicable environment.

If we stick to relativism, we can neither chase nor build - we must let nature takes its course and fall in with it, explaining as we go. The problem is that the odd spontaneous bursts of idealism is unavoidable, since everyone is faced with decisions that won't tolerate being deferred, and entropy is lethal in a closed system - nobody can continue to breathe without letting in fresh air once in a while. In such cases, the relativist is steering his raft without looking. He only opens his eyes when the danger is past, and then is satisfied that "nature has taken its course" and the fittest has survived. He has no way of knowing whether he will turn out to be the fittest beforehand, except by comparing the strength of the current with the size of the obstacle.

He has no way of knowing to what extent he is his own worst obstacle.
This once more brings us to the Big Romantic Conflict where individual identity is defined as the opposition to society.
In regards to Game theory, such a definition is very harming for all included.

I'm not sure what you mean with the "identity vs. egotism" dichotomy -- would "identity" be about healthy cooperation, while "egotism" about deliberate non-cooperation?
I think I mean it as how much one invests in one's identity, without knowing where it's taking you, or where it comes from. Egotism is speculation; it's betting on yourself. With identity, I mean exposed identity, not defined by the internal, stagnant, romantic conflicts (I exist; I don't - I know; I can't know...). So yes: healthy cooperation.

Romantic conflicts only arise with hidden agendas, secrets, deception and distrust. These are absent in a healthy relationship, where even the most embarrassing secrets can be exposed. In a healthy relationship love always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. It's an overriding ideal, not a subjective reality. If experience overrides the ideal, the relationship must fail at the first failure, because "experience is truth". After all, that is the existential reality.

The only solution is to make peace with the conflict by subjecting it to the ideal of peace. It doesn't deny that conflict exists, or avoids trying to resolve it strategically, and it never denies the parametric (even though it is essentially the reason for the conflict). It just doesn't let that conflict define the relationship.

By subjecting to its authority, we're letting go of the reigns of idealism. We're effectively putting the reigns in God's hands and trust Him with it. This way, we're free to seek the ideal by living it, instead of trying to take charge of it.

We associate ourselves with the ideal without having to abdicate identity or responsibility.

"All you want is someone to tame the shrew that you are."
Because all a woman ever wants is a maaaan to surrender to after a long and stormy courtship.
And if she is "shrewish", if she goes against prevailing cultural norms, if she says things that are different or "rebellious", it's only because she wants to be tamed.
I think *balance* was also mentioned in that thread, wasn't it? But "by acting like a good strategist, you can most effectively enforce the parametric." That implies more than balance. Is this an example of two ideals in conflict? The shrew vs. the demure virgin?

The game of courtship can be played (and should be, as it establishes the initial personalities of both players). In the end, both want to dominate and surrender. This might seem impossible - a potential source of conflict - but why isn't it? It's a paradox, but both can submit to each other, and still live out the ideal. But the moment one begins to enforce submission, and assume authority, it becomes egotistic - identities become overasserted and eventually alienated, and the relationship comes under pressure. "Maintaining the balance" in such a relationship merely postpones its inevitable demise, because it invariably takes the form of a stand-off.

It's no coincidence that the sense of humour is the first to go from such a relationship. The exciting, stormy rebelliousness, the playfulness at the edge of the cliff, has escaped their reigns and have become too dangerous and foreign. Their objects of affection have become dangerous and foreign. And the realities of failure turn ideals into sour grapes, and bitter rivals.

Hehe. Did you know that Jesus is considered to be the first communist?
Communism is an ideal, isn't it? :) But it only works when authority lies with the parametric and remains out of reach of greedy hands. It can never work, but shall we live it?

And this is exactly what people seem to like best -- being sue-happy : The burden of deciding is handed over to the courts -- which only disempowers the ones involved in the conflict, and makes it even harder for them to face new conflicts.
"Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny." (Matt. 5:25-26)

And the solution (" ") out of this brooding and oppression is in devaluating the reasons that make the atmosphere seem oppressive and brooding. Love is considered a bloodclot, authority sucks and God is dead. Being miserable becomes something normal.
If you settle for less, you'll end up with less than you settled for.

A quick and not very thoughtful answer would be [I]experience (I mean "experience" in the broadst sense, including knowledge) -- but experience without analysis is nothing. And coming to this analysis, things seem to get awfully stuck. Absolutes would be necessary, but if we go for the "everything is subjective, everything is relative", then we cannot postulate any absolutes!
Submitting to the ideals of the parametric, in order to have the experience, in order to act on it and eventually learn something strategic from it.

One way to solve this is what I have experienced with the Mormons: they declared their friendship, very soon, and that was it. No process, no evolving of the relationship, nothing. Always the same distance, yet by them considered "friendship". This way, the relationship was indeed defined ex ante -- and it was, for my understanding, extremely sad, boring and unfulfilling, a form, a pose.
Yes! Just stating the ideal amounts to hypocrisy, if you haven't fulfilled the ideal. And you're stuck, because you can't fulfil the ideal - you don't meet the requirements of the relationship you propose. It's one thing to declare a friendship, but without the knowledge of how to have one - without first having the perseverance and guts that define such a relationship - they are building castles in the air with stars in their eyes, knowing they're not prepared to get their hands dirty.

It seems that a way to face new situations is to view them with the greatest minimalism possible. To depersonalize them, institutionalize them, make forms of them -- like you said: make them blasé. And then accompany this with "You must do it because you can do it, and you must enjoy it!"

(Like the Mormons wondered, "We are friends, so why aren't you enjoying it' There must be something wrong with you!" ...)
That seems the safest option, but you can't embark on a dangerous journey and try to be safe - you've started out by failing. Why are they suprised that they failed? Because they thought the ideal was enough, and it required nothing more of them. In fact, because they think they own the ideal, are in charge of it, they're forced to fundamentalize and make things abstract at the same time, and they end up with a square circle that means nothing to anyone.

"You must love" is a requirement only the parametric can have, because it is an ideal that can only be submitted to - never enforced - in the strategic environment. The question is, are we prepared to live such a relationship? Because it might require more than we have, and if we're not prepared to give that much, we're stuck with trying to "maintain the balance" , living a life of silent despair, and postponing our inevitable demise.

But as soon as we take something personally the whole issue of identity comes into play again.
Thus: "Love your neighbour as yourself" (Not as someone else ;)). Love him as you love yourself... it always comes back to who you are, and to remaining true to yourself. No hidden agendas, no secrets, no resentment, just pure, unadulterated *you*. It's not an unrealized ideal entering into a relationship with a realized ideal, but you entering into a relationship with an other.

And how will we know "better" without ideals? As such, it could almost go through as experiential knowledge: something we do not only chase, but build on as well. But experiential knowledge might not be all it's made up to be:

"Another synonym for experiential knowledge is local knowledge. However, Stuiver et al. (2002:11-12), as inspired by Knorr-Cetina (1981) and Latour (1987), note that it is more and more realized that scientific knowledge, despite its claim of universality, is created mainly in laboratories and therefore its nature is not exclusively universal but also has strong elements of locality." - Ervaringskennis

Experiential knowledge is supposed to be one of the strong points of relativism, which relies heavily on universalism. It say "everybody knows", and provides evidence of what "everybody should know". But this is empirical tunnel-vision. It won't open the windows of the lab to let in the sunlight - it will try to recreate the sun in a controlled and therefore universally applicable environment.

If we stick to relativism, we can neither chase nor build - we must let nature takes its course and fall in with it, explaining as we go. The problem is that the odd spontaneous bursts of idealism is unavoidable, since everyone is faced with decisions that won't tolerate being deferred, and entropy is lethal in a closed system - nobody can continue to breathe without letting in fresh air once in a while. In such cases, the relativist is steering his raft without looking. He only opens his eyes when the danger is past, and then is satisfied that "nature has taken its course" and the fittest has survived. He has no way of knowing whether he will turn out to be the fittest beforehand, except by comparing the strength of the current with the size of the obstacle.

He has no way of knowing to what extent he is his own worst obstacle.

So good old Quine did stir some dust, huh? Grand.

More and more it seems to me, that relativism, with all its subjectivity and absence of absolutes is making some catastrophic mistakes:

1. It takes the individual for granted.
2. It presumes that the individual's values and preferences are stabile and unchanging.
3. It does as if agents would not act -- as if things would only [somehow] happen to them.
4. It supposes that all individuals are equal, while at the same time it claims that they have different values and preferences.

In short, relativism works only with robots.


Romantic conflicts only arise with hidden agendas, secrets, deception and distrust. These are absent in a healthy relationship, where even the most embarrassing secrets can be exposed. In a healthy relationship love always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. It's an overriding ideal, not a subjective reality. If experience overrides the ideal, the relationship must fail at the first failure, because "experience is truth". After all, that is the existential reality.

Not necessarily -- why do you think there are psychological terms like "cognitive dissonance", "rationalization", "sublimation", hm ...

I find it fascinating that a certain amount of lying and cheating is to be considered as welcome, normal and stimulating. I've even heard that "people must lie, or life would be too boring".


The only solution is to make peace with the conflict by subjecting it to the ideal of peace. It doesn't deny that conflict exists, or avoids trying to resolve it strategically, and it never denies the parametric (even though it is essentially the reason for the conflict). It just doesn't let that conflict define the relationship.

But what happens when all that is of value is that there is a relationship, some relationship, regardless of its quality?


I think *balance* was also mentioned in that thread, wasn't it? But "by acting like a good strategist, you can most effectively enforce the parametric." That implies more than balance. Is this an example of two ideals in conflict? The shrew vs. the demure virgin?

I think "balance" is a dangerous thing to strive for. Whenever you seek balance in a relationship, you are making a business transaction out of that relationship. That relationship is then not based on love, but on balance. Surely, balance works well and there really are no arguments against it -- other than that balance is a matter of a business transaction ...

If you are being a good strategist, you know the value of the parametric, and that the parametric is not subject to bargaining, and should not be attempted to be bargained with. It takes a good strategist to know when to base something on balance, and when on love.


Communism is an ideal, isn't it? :) But it only works when authority lies with the parametric and remains out of reach of greedy hands. It can never work, but shall we live it?

The problem with communism is that it was established and performed (at least at first) in hard times, esp. after WW2. Communism is philosophy for the hard times, when hard work and trust are essential.

To live the communist way in good (" ") times is counter-productive and self-threatening.
But the modern strive for "cooperation" (a hip thing in schools, for example) is essentially the same as communism. But the problem with cooperation is that in good (" ") times, there really is no need for it, and pursuing cooperation in good (" ") times is counterintuitive, artificial.

The only use of communism and cooperation is, as I see it, in personal relationships, in one's group of friends. There, communism and cooperation show as brotherhood, loyalty and commitment. But it's hard: If the general flow in the society (on the level of the state) is against brotherhood, loyalty and commitment, then these are not likely to be desirable in personal relationships either.
If the state is capitalistic, personal relationships between people living in that state are going to be much like it too.


If you settle for less, you'll end up with less than you settled for.

And yet, every day we see people who settle for less, and then accuse God or someone else for letting them get less!


Yes! Just stating the ideal amounts to hypocrisy, if you haven't fulfilled the ideal. And you're stuck, because you [i]can't fulfil the ideal - you don't meet the requirements of the relationship you propose. It's one thing to declare a friendship, but without the knowledge of how to have one - without first having the perseverance and guts that define such a relationship - they are building castles in the air with stars in their eyes, knowing they're not prepared to get their hands dirty.

Uh, if the situation is such that they could get their hands dirty, they won't get into that situation in the first place! Which doesn't stop them to still call it "friendship".


That seems the safest option, but you can't embark on a dangerous journey and try to be safe - you've started out by failing. Why are they suprised that they failed? Because they thought the ideal was enough, and it required nothing more of them. In fact, because they think they own the ideal, are in charge of it, they're forced to fundamentalize and make things abstract at the same time, and they end up with a square circle that means nothing to anyone.

Well, they can always blame someone else for their failure ...


"You must love" is a requirement only the parametric can have, because it is an ideal that can only be submitted to - never enforced - in the strategic environment. The question is, are we prepared to live such a relationship? Because it might require more than we have, and if we're not prepared to give that much, we're stuck with trying to "maintain the balance" , living a life of silent despair, and postponing our inevitable demise.

Have you any idea what a cognitive dissonance such a realization would cause in someone who tries to "maintain balance"?! Whew. They would discard you, the world, God, whoemever, whatever, rather than accepting this realization as true.


Thus: "Love your neighbour as yourself" (Not as someone else ;)). Love him as you love yourself... it always comes back to who you are, and to remaining true to yourself. No hidden agendas, no secrets, no resentment, just pure, unadulterated *you*. It's not an unrealized ideal entering into a relationship with a realized ideal, but you entering into a relationship with an other.

But that can get awfully sticky ...

So good old Quine did stir some dust, huh? Grand.
Well, you did not permit him to pass by us undetected, did you? :)

More and more it seems to me, that relativism, with all its subjectivity and absence of absolutes is making some catastrophic mistakes:

1. It takes the individual for granted.
2. It presumes that the individual's values and preferences are stabile and unchanging.
3. It does as if agents would not act -- as if things would only [somehow] happen to them.
4. It supposes that all individuals are equal, while at the same time it claims that they have different values and preferences.

In short, relativism works only with robots.
Doesn't it seem like the individual becomes a premise? "I think, therefore I..." as if I've only just begun thinking, and all of reality had popped into existence at that very moment. It's a paralyzing premise, from which every discovery has to be made anew. People like the idea of starting from scratch, like Descartes tried to do, but it's only useful for certain exercises - ultimately it leaves us without the benefit of countless generations of thinking, and that can't be healthy. It leaves us without a history. Ignoring history - even if it's just recorded history - is not going to erase it. We can't go back, so we must go forward.

Not necessarily -- why do you think there are psychological terms like "cognitive dissonance", "rationalization", "sublimation", hm ...

I find it fascinating that a certain amount of lying and cheating is to be considered as welcome, normal and stimulating. I've even heard that "people must lie, or life would be too boring".
Of course, those psychological problems are recognized and described. But how are they dealt with in practice? By lying and cheating. In short: Hypocrisy. The one hand says, "experience is truth", and the other makes leaps of faith. Statistical feasibility on the one hand, and intuitive feasibility on the other. A relationship based on such self-deception is bound to fail when the dissonance is exposed, because that's when scientific feasibility is supposed to prevail - it's supposed to set the standard of conduct.

I guess that's why it's "boring". It's a rationalization intended to justify a lifestyle that can only be called "irrational" by its own standards. They recognize that feasibility is ultimately subjective, and an equally irrational and subjective justification is required.

The alternative is more honest, but equally self-defeating: admitting that you are making a subjective choice, that whims and nature rules your actions. It's exciting because it's unpredictable. But then the other hand must admit predictability: if justice, love, and trust are to be respected. The alternative is anarchy, which many advocate in practice but deny in word.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre,
The falcon cannot hear the falconer.
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the earth.
But what happens when all that is of value is that there is a relationship, some relationship, regardless of its quality?
Doesn't that mean it's hanging on by a thread already? Mediocrity, complacency and powerlessness are as paralyzing and fatal to relationships as any unresolved conflict. A relationship cannot keep itself going, it needs attention. A relationship between any two people are like a third person, a child that needs to be nurtured and loved. It has personality, needs, demands, problems. To say it has value is one thing, but it must be treated as something of value - and that means that other things must be considered valuable as well. To say a child is valuable means his food is also valuable.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
I think "balance" is a dangerous thing to strive for. Whenever you seek balance in a relationship, you are making a business transaction out of that relationship. That relationship is then not based on love, but on balance. Surely, balance works well and there really are no arguments against it -- other than that balance is a matter of a business transaction ...

If you are being a good strategist, you know the value of the parametric, and that the parametric is not subject to bargaining, and should not be attempted to be bargained with. It takes a good strategist to know when to base something on balance, and when on love.
I think this agrees with my analysis above: mere balance is not enough. It only serves a greater goal... In martial arts, balance is practiced for hours, but never as a goal, only as a necessary skill. It's a step with the intent of movement - ideally, within movement. Anything else is stagnant, inactive and ineffectual. You can't even walk just by maintaining balance, you have to be able to shift it dynamically. As our instructor would say, "show some life!"

It takes a good strategist to be able to balance and love!

The problem with communism is that it was established and performed (at least at first) in hard times, esp. after WW2. Communism is philosophy for the hard times, when hard work and trust are essential.

To live the communist way in good (" ") times is counter-productive and self-threatening.
But the modern strive for "cooperation" (a hip thing in schools, for example) is essentially the same as communism. But the problem with cooperation is that in good (" ") times, there really is no need for it, and pursuing cooperation in good (" ") times is counterintuitive, artificial.

The only use of communism and cooperation is, as I see it, in personal relationships, in one's group of friends. There, communism and cooperation show as brotherhood, loyalty and commitment. But it's hard: If the general flow in the society (on the level of the state) is against brotherhood, loyalty and commitment, then these are not likely to be desirable in personal relationships either.
If the state is capitalistic, personal relationships between people living in that state are going to be much like it too.
Which reinforces the need to recognize the parametric. If state and society dictates, we're powerless to move; if we dictate, state and society are powerless to stabilize; if stabilizitation is just a question of balance, neither will go anywhere. We'll go in circles, repeat the same mistakes under different circumstances, as history often proves. Because circumstances change whether we deal with them or not, and in the end, we have to deal with them the only way we "know" how, and if we haven't matured - if we don't think about what we supposedly know - we'll deal with the problem in the same way as when we were immature.

That experience which doesn't lead to wisdom is lost.

Your example shows a similarity between communism vs. state/government and strategic vs. parametric? Was that intentional?

Look at the world: We are supposed to live in a paradigm of peace and cooperation, strategic partnerships and mutual agreements. But globally we live in "hard times": war against immorality, war against terrorism, war against disaster. That's cognitive dissonance on a grand scale! Is it balance we're trying to restore? More often, it's minorities against majorities. Or majorities against greater majorities. We're inexorably on the move, the world is dynamic and changing. And yet, peace is not an illusion. In contrast with two world wars and a cold war, sanctions and boycotts, we are at peace. What enables it?

And yet, every day we see people who settle for less, and then accuse God or someone else for letting them get less!
Shifting blame, abdicating responsibility. The hallmarks of selfishness. I can guess why it's so prevalent: I exist (true), I have value (true), I am alone in that knowledge (false), I must worship myself, and obey only myself. Denying a relationship is eventually detrimental to everyone involved, and lethal to the relationship itself. *Only I* is always *less*.

Uh, if the situation is such that they could get their hands dirty, they won't get into that situation in the first place! Which doesn't stop them to still call it "friendship".
They could call it "plankton" for that matter!

Well, they can always blame someone else for their failure ...
That's the trouble with assuming you're blameless.
Have you any idea what a cognitive dissonance such a realization would cause in someone who tries to "maintain balance"?! Whew. They would discard you, the world, God, whoemever, whatever, rather than accepting this realization as true.
I can guess: a feeling of utter defeat and hopelessness. As if ultimately, nothing matters. If maintaining balance is all that matters to you, and that is taken away from you, nothing remains. Love is always a service, and act of obedience. It can tolerate rebellion and disobedience, but never ultimately.

Someone asked on Sunday: "How much can you lose before you have lost everything?" In other words: What have you sold your soul for?

But that can get awfully sticky ...
Only as sticky as getting to know yourself. But realizing that there's something to know is part of the fun! It's what makes relationships fulfilling - always getting to know. Imagine you had to wake up and find that you know everything there is to know about yourself, that everything worth exploring lies outside you. That must be the most terrible thought imaginable.

That's when you live in constant fear of yourself, and of what you could do. If you have no role model, nobody who can tell you what is hidden to you. If you look inside yourself and find nobody there.

"He who fears suffering, is already suffering from what he fears"