Path-dependent: Difference between revisions

Path-dependent (view source)

Revision as of 11:33, 24 January 2023

600 bytes added , 24 January 2023

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,903

edits

@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 The [[infinite game]] counsels us to look at where we are, see what we’ve got and make the best of it. It focuses on the decisions of the now and the possibilities of the future. It regards the past as informational and instructive, not constraining. If I once hit my thumb with a hammer, I know to be careful next time I have a hammer. It does not make me forever a victim of hammer abuse.
 ===The past as a formal system===
-Not also the idea that the past is a single formal causal chain, that we know about, is is a classic example of legibility in the sense articulated by James c Scott in seeing like a state. Articulation of history is necessarily a simplification, and model, a boiling down of an infinity of information into a single digestible narrative. It necessarily Mrs please in the same way that informal systems and interactions are are critical to the operation of a state or a business so are informal, unobserved, and noticed interactions.
+Not also the idea that the past is a single formal causal chain, that we know about, is is a classic example of legibility in the sense articulated by [[James C. Scott]] in {{br||Seeing Like a State}}.
-Not only is “the past” —as we articulate it — inert and immutable, it's not even ''true''. We can adjust it and do adjusted by nearly changing our account of it. This is the orwellian concept Colin Wright and rewrite and erase our history whilst insisting on its utter continuity. The true history of the universe is immutable. The stories we tell ourselves about it are not.
+Articulation of history is necessarily a simplification, and model, a boiling down of an infinity of information into a single digestible [[narrative]]. It necessarily misses things: relegates things; deems things extraneous. But what the dominant narrative things is important and what the community thinks is important are not the same. In the same way that informal systems and interactions, unseen by the executive actors, are critical to the good order and smooth operation of the state, or a business, so are informal, unobserved, and deprioritised interactions fundamental to history. Models ''lie''.
+So not only is “the past” — as we articulate it — inert and immutable, it’s not even ''true''. We can, and do, adjust it by changing our account of it. History is written by the winners — but it is a long game and just who is the winner is prone to change. Those who dominate the narrative from time to time decide who the winners are. This is the Orwellian concept: write and re-write and erase our history, whilst insisting on its utter continuity. It may be so that the external history of the universe is immutable — but we have no access to that. We wouldn’t recognise it even if we had it. We can only tell ourselves stories, and they have internal meaning, but no transcendent one.
 {{sa}}
 *[[Evolution]]
 {{C|Systems theory}}