arachne-digest wrote:
> Recently, in an attempt to establish some basis of communication with
> someone who teaches Sociology, I got him very upset. How? I poked fun
> at his "the science of sociology" comment he'd made. I said that it was
> true that "the scientific method" was a necessity to sociology, but that
> sociology itself wasn't a science.
Well, sociology should gather information about society - to be
available to those, who want to act to control society, but those are
called politicians, not sociologists. Sociologists maybe considered as
tool to control politicians, which is relatively good. The one who dares
to control other people will be controled by many ways....
> Before you quit reading, I've just given you some key concepts:
> communication
> belief structures
> proof
> If you can define those things flawlessly, you're well on the way
> to becoming dictator of the world.
Well, just by "defining" them ? Or my controling them, enforcing, or
something like that ? My basic English is probably missing something...
> Now I'll throw out a few scary concepts.
>
> Scientists still don't know how the brain works, let alone how thinking
> works. Studies have shown that the brighter, more intelligent, more
> creative individuals of the world are the ones most likely to suffer
> from schizophrenia and major depression -- studies of brain structure
> and brain function *have* produced predictable results which can be
> duplicated with other individuals. Sleep deprivation is hardest on the
> brain, and thus the mind; the body can live just fine without sleep.
Are you talking about those gallons of coffee I used to drunk when I was
writing Arachne those six years ago ? Today, I almost gave up coffee,
and I am sleeping sometimes even 9-10 hours every day... ;) (sometimes
not...)
> Regardless of the circumstances around them, people will hold individual
> pictures of what the "ideal world" would be; read 1984, Farenheit 451,
> and some world histories if you want to be scared. Identical (not
I did so. I think that once again, we are relatively close to 1984, and
I am not quite sure what to do about that. Some ideas to "improve
security" are in fact just ways to make people feel more uncertain and
controled.
> mirrored) twins raised together and exposed to all the same things, at
> all the same stages in life, will have different beliefs and different
> goals and different ways of reacting to things; equally scary, in some
> ways, is that those twins raised apart and not even knowing of each
> other would have so much in common in likes, dislikes, career choices,
> spouses, pets, hobbies, that it would seem impossible under the
> circumstances.
Well, but identical twins are very special case of identical genetical
code. This won't tell you much about rest of population...
> Final terrifying thoughts:
>
> There never was and never will be a society in which everyone feels they
> belong. Rich or poor, fat or famine thin, male or female, religious
> fanatic or atheistic hermit, guy next door or weirdo down the street,
> each will like something about his/her world, and each will be capable
> of hating something/everything about that same world. And every
> society, good or bad, will have potential leaders and potential sheep
> who will follow those leaders anywhere and do anything.
This problem. I consider myself being anarchist, which obliges me to
avoid following leaders, and avoid becoming leader. The problem is, that
paranoid security enhancements would conisder anyone who is "out of
control" to be dangerous for society. You can have organized terrorists
and individual terrorist, and you just can't control everyone. Whatever
you do, you are balancing between Wild West and 1984.
> Where does that leave us? With the same abilities and weaknesses as
> everyone else in some areas ... with the ability to choose a path, the
> ability to find others of like mind, the ability to plan and follow
> through, the ability to fail, and be hurt, and be human. And that's the
> only thing that will keep us going -- each of us, as individuals, doing
> our best to remember what a human being is and can be, and working to
> keep ourselves the type of human being we'd like others to be.
Well, I completely agree with that. It surprising, that during last
year, I was quite often meditating over what I really want to be and
what I would like other people to be, and it is sometimes not that easy.
There are emotions, and there is strong need for differences - I want
other people to be different from me, and myself to be different from
other people! I don't mean "different type of human being" - but it is
hard to find where the limit is.
> There will always be conflict, always be disagreements, a long as two
> people and two human brain cells still exist. It's what the cause of
> the conflict is, and how we learn to resolve it, that will -- hopefully
I don't think the conflict is problem - the problem are forms of
conflict. Even the agression can be ritualized - somehow - even
destruction can be understood, but can we avoid at least the plain
killing and torturing of people, and at the same time, keep some basic
values, like privacy, freedom of speech, etc. ?
The response of USA to WTC attack would more or less define the rules
for upcoming century, so I am really afraid about it.
--
Michael "xChaos" Polak
+420 603 872631 / +420 2 33355668 / ICQ# 40434104
http://www.arachne.cz (Arachne Labs homepage)
http://www.mp3records.cz (100% legal and free music)
http://www.legalizace.cz (Stop drug war & release victims !)
http://www.vojna.cz (Petice za zruseni vojny i civilni sluzby)
