On Monday, March 17, 2014 11:37:36 PM UTC, Liz R wrote: > > On 18 March 2014 05:01, <spudb...@aol.com <javascript:>> wrote: > >> Well, to get on track, we would need to assert trade offs, fixes, and >> solutions, rather than promote mere complaint. This goes for myself, but >> few seem to feel this way. If we want a clean green Earth, then problem >> solving is essential. In that attempt to problem solve, we may come up with >> a decent idea, or promote one we have heard of. >> > > That is exactly how I feel about it. However I suspect that your rants > about how [insert special interest group here] are a bunch of [insert > despised political group here] planning to create a [insert feared > political system here] may not have helped people appreciate that this is > your position. > What's interesting about the way you write this as a fill-the-blanks template, is the question of how close your template comes to ubiquity in terms of total-humans/humans-filtering-the-world-through-lizzies-templatee At least partially filtering through the template anyway. Keeping meaningfulness by requiring instances of whole template usage, not partial. Staying with that measure, a further question would be how much more closely does your template define the contemporary era than others in history? Then, defining each era in terms of how much your template captures it, what does history look like on those terms? Does it tell a coherent story? Like, are there lizzie template spikes at the major milestones, like the French Revolution, or the Bolshevik Takeover of Russia, or during the Cold War. Would that template alone be enough to define every historical period sufficiently that each one, say, had its own distinctive template usage character. For example the Cold War might feature massive usage, but with everything breaking down into two templates in most common use. One for soviet and the other for American sympathy. Bolshevik could also be largely broken into two, one involving, say, the bourgeoisie or something. French Revolution might pair around 'aristocracy'. Thinking about it, could not the emergent pattern from history be that there is generally a reactionary and revolutionary template? A template for the incumbent and for would-be nemesis. Or in time, of the power that ruled in time going backwards and power that rules in time going forwards...around some point. The cold war template would kind of break into four..two each for East and West, such that both represent both positions. But does the contemporary situation fit the historical pattern? It seems vastly more complex to me. In all the other instances, there was major backing for the template...two elites, or one elite and one would-be elite, would be ultimate backers of one of the two mirroring templates. Everyone pretty much knew who the elites were. At least that could be said. Do we know now? What would the template usage say, keeping with the idea of that being the only information allowed to define history. Would the template usage that said knowledge of elites was fairly strong, show a division about two ways? That'd fit with historical situation. What about now? Fair enough history must have had some outlying daft theories like now, so let's elimate those. Also control for the information revolution and the extents, then, of templates becoming more complex due to people being influenced online. One way to do this would be to select a sample of the most mainstream template. Surely most of us have some experience of the mainstream. Either we're moving in the direction of it, or moving the other way. But generally we know something about it. Does the mainsteam template know who our elites are right now? Do you? Do people even here in this thread agree on this question? How many different views on this are here alone? It's a world of infinite infinities, bocktime multiverses, endless potentials and exponentially growing optimism...where to say otherwise is literally bad philosophy by definition. There is even the suggestion that elites cannot exist at all...not cohersive ones anyway..,that to say otherwise is bad philosophy too (i.e. Deutsch). Maybe that's a reason why no one knows. Because no such thing exists. Maybe the reason fewer and fewer people talk about such a thing as an incumbent elite. Fewer news references, fewer political references, fewer scientific references...maybe as the spread of good philosophy all such talk fades out of all mainstream template usage. Maybe this era defines a big template usage divide, a pairing, after all. Mention of Elites. One side convergent to 'never' the other divergent to cacophonic chaotic confusion. So in a way both sides amounting to "never". One side literal, the other side useful information.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
