the king and his debtors
According to this article on the Prisoner's Dilemma, "A New Way To Think About Rules To Live By," by Carl Sagan:
` ` The most admired standard of behavior in the West is the Golden Rule. Its formulation in the first-century Gospel of St. Matthew is: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Almost no one follows it consistently. When the Chinese philosopher K'ung-Tzu (known as Confucius in the West) was asked in the sixth century B.C. his opinion of the Golden Rule - of repaying evil with kindness - he replied, "Then with what will you repay kindness?" ' '
On a related note, when admonished to "turn the other cheek," i will in turn ask:
how many cheeks have i?
From The Book of Matthew, Chapter Eighteen:
21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
23 Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.
24 And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents.
25 But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.
26 The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
27 Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.
28 But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.
29 And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.
31 So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.
32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:
33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?
34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.
--
one of the difficulties in analyzing the morals contained in the gospels in that they often seem to contradict one another. Aleister Crowley gives a ruthlessly satirical account of this issue in the gospel according to saint bernard shaw (which i mentioned recently in a somewhat different context). in fact, crowley gives an excellent summary of the moral contained in this parable:
"Unless you show generosity to men, God will show you none."
--
for further attempts towards interpretation of similar xtian morals in their original context, this article may assist: "Can Love Save the World?," by Dr. Walter Wink.
--
i'm starting to worry that i might eventually develop the schizoid-paranoid level of john nash's fascination with game theory... but luckily, right now, i don't think i know nearly enough math to hurt myself, or anyone else? (i hope some of y'all will bear with me; otherwise, i will be forced to edit this mess and post it again)
so, if you ever have the time to peruse any of the excessive hyperlinks that i share -- here's one of the most enjoyable i have found in some time:
"Reframing Evil in Evolutionary and Game Theoretic Terms," by Theodore P. Seto, from which this excellent summary has been excerpted:
` ` Tit for Tat can be viewed as consisting of three parts: (1) begin by cooperating (“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”), (2) if the other player defects, punish immediately (“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”), and (3) if the other player returns to cooperation, immediately return to cooperation yourself (in moral terms, forgive the other player). In other words, three of the world’s most fundamental moral principles - the Golden Rule, punishment, and forgiveness - appear to be part of the most successful solutions to this purely mathematical game.
My moral theory is based on the assumption that this is not a coincidence. Individuals who appropriately cooperate, punish, and forgive tend to survive and reproduce more successfully than those who do not. As a result, the world has come to be dominated by individuals who, to some degree or another, have internalized these three principles. Morality, in short, responds to an underlying mathematics.
Life, of course, is far more complex than any mathematical game. Even the most sophisticated games under study today are but crude approximations of reality. We are not yet able adequately to specify either the relevant game or its optimal solution. Nevertheless, my theory assumes that such a game exists. I label its optimal solution the “principle of reciprocity”, and I assume that Tit for Tat, the various formulations of the Golden Rule, Kant’s categorical imperative, John Rawls’ choice from behind the veil, and the classic parental question “How would you feel if Mary did that to you?” are all approximations of this principle. Goodness is simply adherence to the principle of reciprocity - no more, no less.
Each culture implements this principle in a set of rules which members are obliged to observe vis-à-vis others of the same culture. I call such rules the culture’s “ethos of reciprocity.” The set of individuals thus bound and protected constitutes the “We” of that ethos. Those not so bound and protected are “They” or the “Others.” History is in part the story of the expansion of our most general “We” - from the tribe to the city-state to the nation to humanity as a whole. This expansion is predicted by game theory; to the extent that moral actors are excluded from our “We,” our relations with those actors are likely to be non-optimal because they will not be based on the principle of reciprocity... ' '
--
however, an unconditional TIT FOR TAT strategy is initially taken advantage of by adversarial pre-emptive strategies. and in response to this potential threat of defectors, i can only re-emphasize the essential nature of acquiring superior intel... (while maintaining the necessity of granting entitlement to innocence until proven guilty "beyond the shadow of a doubt," or at least "according to the judgment of a rational man?").
further ramblings from yours truly about game theory can be found in a previous post, entitled: "Math is Hard" ...of particular interest, is the part of the thread inspired by this article analyzing TIT FOR TAT like strategies found in nature... in which we briefly brainstormed about the elements of Evolutionary Stable Strategies, according to Axelrod and Hamilton's questions...
Axelrod has certainly been criticized for his lack of knowledge concerning actual game theory (a criticism which i can certainly relate to, being currently quite math-challenged, myself); and although the TIT FOR TAT strategy per se is not actually the most successful strategy out there, it's still pretty solid. as of 1995, PAVLOV & GTFT have been the current champion strategies:
*GTFT: if mistakes are made, Generous-tit-for-tat does better than TFT (GTFT cooperates after opponent cooperates but also after opponent defects with some probability)
*PAVLOV: win-stay, lose-shift does better than TFT because it corrects occasional mistakes and exploits unconditional cooperators.
according to this PNAS article: "Human cooperation in the simultaneous and the alternating Prisoner's Dilemma: Pavlov versus Generous Tit-for-Tat," by Claus Wedekind and Manfred Milinski:
` ` the last champion strategy of "win-stay, lose-shift" ("PAVLOV") is the winner only if the players act simultaneously. In the more natural situation of players alternating the roles of donor and recipient a strategy of "Generous Tit-for-Tat" ("GTFT") wins computer simulations of short-term memory strategies. We show here by experiments with humans that cooperation dominated in both the simultaneous and the alternating Prisoner's Dilemma. Subjects were consistent in their strategies: 30% adopted a Generous Tit-for-Tat-like strategy, whereas 70% used a Pavlovian strategy in both the alternating and the simultaneous game. As predicted for unconditional strategies, Pavlovian players appeared to be more successful in the simultaneous game whereas Generous Tit-for-Tat-like players achieved higher payoffs in the alternating game. However, the Pavlovian players were smarter than predicted: they suffered less from defectors and exploited cooperators more readily. Humans appear to cooperate either with a Generous Tit-for-Tat-like strategy or with a strategy that appreciates Pavlov's advantages but minimizes its handicaps. ' '
This article by Ozmioz games, "Is Moral Behavior Your Best Strategy?" provides a concise history of prisoner's dilemma, and also mentions PAVLOV & GTFT.
and for a Satanic Perspective on game theory, check out The Modified Golden Rule Revisited, by Hr. Vad, who accurately likens LaVey's Modified Golden Rule to PAVLOV.
--
In any case, it seems to me that the xtian parable of the "the king and his debtors," given above, is more similar to PAVLOV than The Golden Rule... and therein we find the hidden wisdom of the ancients!
--
the question of how to dialogue with an adversarial mentality came up during discussion at a meeting of the Soka Gakkai International , which buddhalotus & i attended with our friend, john p. funk...
` `how can we create a dialogue to build trust between such disparate groups of people as, "Liberal vs. Conservative" for instance, or "Us vs. Them" in a more general sense? ' '
the reference of "spaceship earth" had already been brought up by a couple of other members present at the local SGI meeting, so i felt compelled to share my perspective, inspired by the philosophy of Bucky Fuller:
` `... The basic you-or-me-not-enough-for-both -> ergo, someone-must-die tenets of the class warfaring are extinct ... science now finds there can be ample for all, but only if the sovereign fences are completely removed ... ' '
- Operating Manual For Spaceship Earth (quoted with my emphasis & reorganization)
so, how can we help relationships of lasting trust build across these ancient boundaries?
i am reminded of another amusing idea about how to deal with The Conspiracy:
"On Slack Suckers and Slack Wasters and Whose Fault Is That?" a sermon by Doktor Dynasoar Iridium. Praise "Bob"
--
while researching for this post, i also came across this article, "Space Settlements and New Forms of Governance," by Jim Dator, exploring ideas about alternate dispute resolution and making bureaucracy more beneficial for the people... relating back to creation of something perhaps not unlike the Temporary Autonomous Zone here and now...
which begins with liberation and forgiving ourselves for ever having placed self-defeating restrictions upon our mutual freedoms!
i like to think that i am assisting in the search for ways & means to help this situation progress, with questions like, "can't we all just... get along?"
--
"would you like to play a game?"
` ` The most admired standard of behavior in the West is the Golden Rule. Its formulation in the first-century Gospel of St. Matthew is: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Almost no one follows it consistently. When the Chinese philosopher K'ung-Tzu (known as Confucius in the West) was asked in the sixth century B.C. his opinion of the Golden Rule - of repaying evil with kindness - he replied, "Then with what will you repay kindness?" ' '
On a related note, when admonished to "turn the other cheek," i will in turn ask:
how many cheeks have i?
From The Book of Matthew, Chapter Eighteen:
21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
23 Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.
24 And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents.
25 But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.
26 The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
27 Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.
28 But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.
29 And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.
31 So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.
32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:
33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?
34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.
--
one of the difficulties in analyzing the morals contained in the gospels in that they often seem to contradict one another. Aleister Crowley gives a ruthlessly satirical account of this issue in the gospel according to saint bernard shaw (which i mentioned recently in a somewhat different context). in fact, crowley gives an excellent summary of the moral contained in this parable:
"Unless you show generosity to men, God will show you none."
--
for further attempts towards interpretation of similar xtian morals in their original context, this article may assist: "Can Love Save the World?," by Dr. Walter Wink.
--
i'm starting to worry that i might eventually develop the schizoid-paranoid level of john nash's fascination with game theory... but luckily, right now, i don't think i know nearly enough math to hurt myself, or anyone else? (i hope some of y'all will bear with me; otherwise, i will be forced to edit this mess and post it again)
so, if you ever have the time to peruse any of the excessive hyperlinks that i share -- here's one of the most enjoyable i have found in some time:
"Reframing Evil in Evolutionary and Game Theoretic Terms," by Theodore P. Seto, from which this excellent summary has been excerpted:
` ` Tit for Tat can be viewed as consisting of three parts: (1) begin by cooperating (“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”), (2) if the other player defects, punish immediately (“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”), and (3) if the other player returns to cooperation, immediately return to cooperation yourself (in moral terms, forgive the other player). In other words, three of the world’s most fundamental moral principles - the Golden Rule, punishment, and forgiveness - appear to be part of the most successful solutions to this purely mathematical game.
My moral theory is based on the assumption that this is not a coincidence. Individuals who appropriately cooperate, punish, and forgive tend to survive and reproduce more successfully than those who do not. As a result, the world has come to be dominated by individuals who, to some degree or another, have internalized these three principles. Morality, in short, responds to an underlying mathematics.
Life, of course, is far more complex than any mathematical game. Even the most sophisticated games under study today are but crude approximations of reality. We are not yet able adequately to specify either the relevant game or its optimal solution. Nevertheless, my theory assumes that such a game exists. I label its optimal solution the “principle of reciprocity”, and I assume that Tit for Tat, the various formulations of the Golden Rule, Kant’s categorical imperative, John Rawls’ choice from behind the veil, and the classic parental question “How would you feel if Mary did that to you?” are all approximations of this principle. Goodness is simply adherence to the principle of reciprocity - no more, no less.
Each culture implements this principle in a set of rules which members are obliged to observe vis-à-vis others of the same culture. I call such rules the culture’s “ethos of reciprocity.” The set of individuals thus bound and protected constitutes the “We” of that ethos. Those not so bound and protected are “They” or the “Others.” History is in part the story of the expansion of our most general “We” - from the tribe to the city-state to the nation to humanity as a whole. This expansion is predicted by game theory; to the extent that moral actors are excluded from our “We,” our relations with those actors are likely to be non-optimal because they will not be based on the principle of reciprocity... ' '
--
however, an unconditional TIT FOR TAT strategy is initially taken advantage of by adversarial pre-emptive strategies. and in response to this potential threat of defectors, i can only re-emphasize the essential nature of acquiring superior intel... (while maintaining the necessity of granting entitlement to innocence until proven guilty "beyond the shadow of a doubt," or at least "according to the judgment of a rational man?").
further ramblings from yours truly about game theory can be found in a previous post, entitled: "Math is Hard" ...of particular interest, is the part of the thread inspired by this article analyzing TIT FOR TAT like strategies found in nature... in which we briefly brainstormed about the elements of Evolutionary Stable Strategies, according to Axelrod and Hamilton's questions...
Axelrod has certainly been criticized for his lack of knowledge concerning actual game theory (a criticism which i can certainly relate to, being currently quite math-challenged, myself); and although the TIT FOR TAT strategy per se is not actually the most successful strategy out there, it's still pretty solid. as of 1995, PAVLOV & GTFT have been the current champion strategies:
*GTFT: if mistakes are made, Generous-tit-for-tat does better than TFT (GTFT cooperates after opponent cooperates but also after opponent defects with some probability)
*PAVLOV: win-stay, lose-shift does better than TFT because it corrects occasional mistakes and exploits unconditional cooperators.
according to this PNAS article: "Human cooperation in the simultaneous and the alternating Prisoner's Dilemma: Pavlov versus Generous Tit-for-Tat," by Claus Wedekind and Manfred Milinski:
` ` the last champion strategy of "win-stay, lose-shift" ("PAVLOV") is the winner only if the players act simultaneously. In the more natural situation of players alternating the roles of donor and recipient a strategy of "Generous Tit-for-Tat" ("GTFT") wins computer simulations of short-term memory strategies. We show here by experiments with humans that cooperation dominated in both the simultaneous and the alternating Prisoner's Dilemma. Subjects were consistent in their strategies: 30% adopted a Generous Tit-for-Tat-like strategy, whereas 70% used a Pavlovian strategy in both the alternating and the simultaneous game. As predicted for unconditional strategies, Pavlovian players appeared to be more successful in the simultaneous game whereas Generous Tit-for-Tat-like players achieved higher payoffs in the alternating game. However, the Pavlovian players were smarter than predicted: they suffered less from defectors and exploited cooperators more readily. Humans appear to cooperate either with a Generous Tit-for-Tat-like strategy or with a strategy that appreciates Pavlov's advantages but minimizes its handicaps. ' '
This article by Ozmioz games, "Is Moral Behavior Your Best Strategy?" provides a concise history of prisoner's dilemma, and also mentions PAVLOV & GTFT.
and for a Satanic Perspective on game theory, check out The Modified Golden Rule Revisited, by Hr. Vad, who accurately likens LaVey's Modified Golden Rule to PAVLOV.
--
In any case, it seems to me that the xtian parable of the "the king and his debtors," given above, is more similar to PAVLOV than The Golden Rule... and therein we find the hidden wisdom of the ancients!
--
the question of how to dialogue with an adversarial mentality came up during discussion at a meeting of the Soka Gakkai International , which buddhalotus & i attended with our friend, john p. funk...
` `how can we create a dialogue to build trust between such disparate groups of people as, "Liberal vs. Conservative" for instance, or "Us vs. Them" in a more general sense? ' '
the reference of "spaceship earth" had already been brought up by a couple of other members present at the local SGI meeting, so i felt compelled to share my perspective, inspired by the philosophy of Bucky Fuller:
` `... The basic you-or-me-not-enough-for-both -> ergo, someone-must-die tenets of the class warfaring are extinct ... science now finds there can be ample for all, but only if the sovereign fences are completely removed ... ' '
- Operating Manual For Spaceship Earth (quoted with my emphasis & reorganization)
so, how can we help relationships of lasting trust build across these ancient boundaries?
i am reminded of another amusing idea about how to deal with The Conspiracy:
"On Slack Suckers and Slack Wasters and Whose Fault Is That?" a sermon by Doktor Dynasoar Iridium. Praise "Bob"
--
while researching for this post, i also came across this article, "Space Settlements and New Forms of Governance," by Jim Dator, exploring ideas about alternate dispute resolution and making bureaucracy more beneficial for the people... relating back to creation of something perhaps not unlike the Temporary Autonomous Zone here and now...
which begins with liberation and forgiving ourselves for ever having placed self-defeating restrictions upon our mutual freedoms!
i like to think that i am assisting in the search for ways & means to help this situation progress, with questions like, "can't we all just... get along?"
--
"would you like to play a game?"