If you don't know his definition of liberal, or have settled on anyone's definition of liberal, it's a pretty tough speech to follow because of the convolution of messages. (By design?)

It's an amazing mashup of "de-contextualized algorithms and is a wonderful example (timely) to show how algorithms (content) generated in a different set of contexts, conditions, code, culture and core are stripped apart and reformatted into other algorithms, which is most parts are not "near" as complex as the original.

He mixes and matches pulling algorithms (memes and means = m&m's --> not the chocolate kind) to construct his own means to his end(s); pun intended.

I could not tell when this speech was given but it was more recent in terms of his historical context, but I found his mashup to be a bit of a drama (fantasy), the marquee of any story teller or speech writer using, in this case, a straw argument meshing activism and what normally might be seen correlated to passivism...not unlike "Islam" which mixes hot and cold memes...such as "peace be unto him" made in reference to Mohammed who was an "activist!" exemplar. (It is interesting that the degree if confusion--in both cases--seems to get a response (irrational) from the "followers" and listeners <-- something which may be important to tuck away in your scaffold design kit!

It maybe that people acting irrationally need many rational ideas as presented in each metasystem (liberalism as described(?) by Hedges and Islam to counterbalance the juxtaposition of logic woven into their "doctrines?"

I apologize for deleting Mark's first paragraphs of his response as they make my case in point that Hedges "models the problem" he attempts to solve!!

Problems can't be solved at the same level as that which they emerge from--all developmental theories are constructed on that notion.

Which is why you never get anywhere (unless you swap the underlying opsys and then you only go to another cul due sac), except to evermore complex problems that recycle conditions back down the "needs hierarchy"...like in the metaphor of climbing up the hill only to reach the too and either slide back down or discover their are taller hills.

So much of what bounded reality construction (vBRC;) does is pretend their is an end state as depicted by their (values) algorithms, both in construction and completion--it's probably necessary for most, as people--in general can't hold the idea of infinity among their working algorithms.

I forgot where I heard recently or read that people have the same difficulty with exponentiality (a martensen tenet...even my iPhone is questioning my spelling;)

Helpful Hint 1: Quickly (IMHO) he "models the problem" by suggesting that liberals become "active" to offset the "activism" inherent in the oppressors of liberalism (justice?) Isn't the new cage, just bigger than the old one? But it's still "cage work" right = same opsys. The idea in understanding "modeling the problem" is to not merely suggest or solve for a new cage but to remove the problem by jettisoning the opsys that is making it nothing more than cages!!

I found his speech on my first listen (I listened to all of it because the cable in Manila goes out sometimes;)...to be rooted in the BLUE DQ vMEME, which students of classical liberalism would find to be authentic and what he seemed to be contrasting was "relativism" which populates green manifesting out of blue (faux-green I call it) and faux-orange, again manifesting out of red--both present because of the "mashup" done "sans" sufficient capability (referring to the criteria I listed for Capability @F-L-O-W).

In other words the problem and his solution come from the SAME values basin = Blue! with hot to cold adjectives = faux orange and faux green which is painted as problem and solution! Hence the idea of "modeling the problem!"

[There are times I wish I were a tenured professor so I could spend a semester with grad students unwinding the entire algorithmic memeplex scaffolding this kind of thing (speech).

I feel pulled to examine it closer because it's so well constructed that I believe it holds some ideas about how to construct arguments that may move people, even though few if any will fully grok or even logically make sense out of what he is saying because within 56 minutes he draws on 1000s of memes, first deconstructing and reconstructing them from and to sensemaking, so a person is going to need to be not only liberally educated in the finest sense of the words but also classically educated as well to pick up the historical, economic, and philosophical algorithms he deconstructed--which is beyond me, but worthy of a semester long study which I would happily lead if anyone was interested in paying for the program.

It would be a great opportunity to explore many ideas @F-L-O-W, as well as many ideas that are in the scaffold of postmodern conditions. The number of inquires posed are many per minute of the speech and while I do believe he models the problem fully @BS, we could deconstruct his piece and reconstruct it @F... with a reasonably strong argument that would get us down the road farther (IMHO) because of swapping the base assumptions--operating system--from BS to @F...that's my intuitive, first pass conclusion.]

Extraversion aside;)

Helpful Hint 2: In other words, the problem is a conventional/modern problem (IMHO) as he framed it and as I saw and heard him construct through my bias, he framed his argument in a conventional/modern way, yet...the problem can't be solved at the same level it was created using the same assumptions that "led" to the problem in the first place...meaning that in order to make this "go-away" my favorite way to solve, you have to switch out the opsys....

[Context in conventional/modern is the "faux" designation I use to explain conventional opsys with modern applications running on it, without a shift in opsys from conventional to modern, you get faux...which helps him actually create a seemingly stronger straw argument but for my money--less sense!! But you get fooled by the modernized memes--even though they are faux!! Case in point = his use of capitalism as the "demon" and straw object, or "corporatization" as a straw enemy (protecting the humans who ARE the corporation--seemingly constructing a "faux" identity for his own demonization! Capitalism is an "application" not an opsys!! Don't get mad at the application when it's used improperly by particular values systems!! Hehe the speech is running an Opsys @BS, literally AND figuratively!]

More specifically, if you review the "Talking Points @F-L-O-W" you will see what you have to switch out "code" to address the problem used as the "straw" position by the speaker...weaves together a truly rich and amazing tapestry of memes, but in the end?...is modeling the problem nonetheless.