http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFzVpZLpvuU
Francis On 26 Jun., 22:05, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > Orn, Neil spoke of practical levels of transparency, meaning 'who is > governing what' in down to earth English. You are guessing your way to > the domain of the divine and the new tools of deception. Calling this > a parallel conversation would be an euphemism for lifting up the > thinking lazy on the one hand of the scales. > > On 26 Jun., 18:33, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > "...I fear this is on the decline." - ARCHY > > > ..not so sure myself. I do know that the art of deception has a lot of > > new technology (tools) these days. My guess is that the nature of this > > aspect of how one presents them self to others hasn't changed much if > > at all for centuries, perhaps longer. > > > This sort of ego image seems to be an innate aspect of our > > psyche...wishing to present a good or at least 'practical' "self" to > > perceived others. The practical aspect of course has to do with how > > one adapts to their environment, humans included. > > > For us all to be able to say the emperor is wearing no clothes means > > we all must see this clearly and not project other things upon it. > > > On Jun 26, 8:27 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > A lot of people are certainly very disturbed by transparency - one can > > > read Freud as saying we push most of what's pretty obvious out of > > > consciousness or Norbert Elias as saying we sweep it all under the > > > carpet of manners. Makes me queasy to be honest Orn, partly because I > > > think there are some basics where we shouldn't let deception rule. > > > The bugbear is the thought of bad government - power rarely allows > > > transparency. I tend to like countervailing structures and to know > > > who is governing what. I fear this is on the decline. > > > > On 26 June, 15:33, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > "...more practical levels of transparency." - archy > > > > > Not so sure how much I would have to do with such a state...seems more > > > > to be the domain of the divine. > > > > > On Jun 25, 3:59 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Some quite old sociology probably would help if we could recognise it > > > > > in our thinking and action more often. Goffman talked about 'total > > > > > organisations' - from which we might recognise that many have very > > > > > little choice and all of us should be wary of total thinking. Just as > > > > > we yearn for integrity, someone is using the ploy of sincerity on us - > > > > > just as we may realise this we may be using the shell of scepticism in > > > > > order to certainly not be able to trust. In the end thinking doesn't > > > > > have to be this piss-poor and we could have more practical levels of > > > > > transparency. > > > > > > On 25 June, 23:24, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > It's a tough job, but someone has to do it! ;-) > > > > > > > On Jun 25, 2:00 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Orny, what would I do - what would the world do - without you > > > > > > > correcting me and my eye-sight! > > > > > > > > On 25 Jun., 19:00, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > gabbers, as nice as it would be to give grasshopper the credit > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > playing the oldest, here is a photo, and yes, the sound > > > > > > > > too...of the > > > > > > > > oldest. 'Bill', in your article is playing wood (bamboo), this > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > vulture wing bone. > > > > > > > > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8117915.stm > > > > > > > > > On Jun 25, 9:05 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Relax, dj, that rope has long been > > > > > > > > > cut.http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/mus... > > > > > > > > > > On 25 Jun., 17:39, frantheman <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > And how would House Johnson deal with the Fremen? Are you > > > > > > > > > > prepared for > > > > > > > > > > everything planned by Molly's Missionaria Protectiva (aided > > > > > > > > > > by the > > > > > > > > > > Mentat, Archytas)? Not to mention Tinker's Face Dancers, > > > > > > > > > > along with > > > > > > > > > > Chris Muad'Dib Jenkins and his sister, Gabby "the Knife". > > > > > > > > > > Me, I'm > > > > > > > > > > dreaming Spice Dreams with Slip, who's an expert! > > > > > > > > > > > On 25 Jun., 15:41, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > And we could call this life Melange. The spice of > > > > > > > > > > > knowledge. House > > > > > > > > > > > Johnson to control production and distribution. A race > > > > > > > > > > > of former > > > > > > > > > > > humanoids twisted by massive dosages of the Spice learn > > > > > > > > > > > to bend space > > > > > > > > > > > and travel is reinvented. Yeah. > > > > > > > > > > > > dj > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 4:31 AM, > > > > > > > > > > > archytas<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's been a recent wall built on the question of how > > > > > > > > > > > > we might > > > > > > > > > > > > better believe what we know. One of my guesses follows > > > > > > > > > > > > Popper in that > > > > > > > > > > > > we can't know now what we will know in the future. Say > > > > > > > > > > > > this small > > > > > > > > > > > > moon of Saturn in the news does have an ocean and life. > > > > > > > > > > > > Say we can > > > > > > > > > > > > expand our brains by eating this life and there is an > > > > > > > > > > > > expansion > > > > > > > > > > > > similar to that alleged in our progression from common > > > > > > > > > > > > ancestors that > > > > > > > > > > > > didn't affect the other apes in the same way. We might > > > > > > > > > > > > actually be > > > > > > > > > > > > able to see through the madness, understand travel in > > > > > > > > > > > > different ways > > > > > > > > > > > > and so on (bit like a video game). On the other hand, > > > > > > > > > > > > if we could > > > > > > > > > > > > stop fighting each other, maybe life would change > > > > > > > > > > > > anyway ...we don't > > > > > > > > > > > > bother with this latter much, seemingly oblivious to > > > > > > > > > > > > just how much the > > > > > > > > > > > > future could influence thinking and our lives. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 25 June, 07:01, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> It's a Humpty Dumpty ism, but all truth knows that one > > > > > > > > > > > >> replaces > > > > > > > > > > > >> another and another in succession to maintain the > > > > > > > > > > > >> position on the > > > > > > > > > > > >> wall. Scrabblers pile the bricks and mix the mortar > > > > > > > > > > > >> and then wonder > > > > > > > > > > > >> why the wall is so high and out of reach. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Jun 25, 12:31 am, archytas <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > A very apt version of the conundrum Gabby. I think > > > > > > > > > > > >> > we are dealing > > > > > > > > > > > >> > with madness and consequently a rationality of the > > > > > > > > > > > >> > mad. Habermas was > > > > > > > > > > > >> > slated for providing too much of an answer, thus > > > > > > > > > > > >> > becoming just the > > > > > > > > > > > >> > next 'rule-giver', just another intellectual telling > > > > > > > > > > > >> > us what we should > > > > > > > > > > > >> > do. I just want us not to have to scrabble about > > > > > > > > > > > >> > making livings and > > > > > > > > > > > >> > get rid of the over-powerful. It just seems so > > > > > > > > > > > >> > damned difficult to > > > > > > > > > > > >> > even try. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > On 19 June, 17:32, gabbydott <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > I don't know. To think one can promote lying in a > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > society is as naive > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > as thinking one can promote truing the society. In > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the world you speak > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > of, the child is encouraged to publically shout > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > out that the Emperor > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > is naked while being expected to quietly learn the > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > taylor's job in > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > their chambers. What is it you're really after? > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > On 19 Jun., 15:11, archytas > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Habermas is almost impossible to read, which is > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > a great shame. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Academic critique of his work actually ends up > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > rather like Gabby's few > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > lines, extrapolated to ridiculous length. He was > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > gazetted into the > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hitler Youth at the end of the war, something > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > that only goes to show > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > we can all end up serving perverse human > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > interests. Francis' notion of > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > what might happen through wider communication > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > and the possible > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > differences new technologies might bring to > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > 'argument' is probably key > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > to whether we have a future or not. There has > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > been a debate around > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > legitimation portrayed in academe as between > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Habermas, Lyotard, > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Derrida, Foucault and others. My own view is > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > that the insularity of > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > this debate (most people have barely heard of it > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > and its protagonists) > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > is itself part of the problem. Press in the UK > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > has been ridiculing our > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > unworthy politicians through expense claims > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > leaked to one newspaper. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Today, Parliament has "published" the details > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > under so much black ink > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > that we would know less had we been left to rely > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > on official > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > "transparency" and we will get much the same > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > when the Iraq scandal is > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > hidden from us next year. What we lack is > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > honesty and substantial > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > links between this and its use in day-to-day > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > actions. Many people > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > believe it is childish to look at work like this > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > because the real > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > world is so dirty. I suspect the real > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > childishness lies in fear we all > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > have of standing up to the bullying system, > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > which we see as holding > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > all the cards We know bosses and politicians > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > are bad, but are > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > generally weak-kneed in the face of power and > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > easy enough to buy off > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > with a few trinkets and the threat of poverty if > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > we stray into telling > > ... > > Erfahren Sie mehr » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
