The trick will be to avoid the dangers of mob psychology where everyone starts to act as if they were anonymous or hidden and they loose their "ethical" footing.
Some may say we need to make the internet completely non-anonymous. I hate that idea. I think we need to make it completely anonymous except for anyone who acts at the head of any form of pyramidical organization. Then, if they accept that authority, the ability to decide the fate of GE or Toyota, or the ability to decide the fate of the USA or Germany, or the ability to decide the fate of the catholic church, or the ability to decide the fate of the teachers union, when they get there they must loose all of their rights to privacy - or at least most of them and everyone should be able to monitor their conversations. Especially conversations between any two of them. Secrecy should be eliminated from all hierarchy and maintained as an exclusive right for individuals. The penalties for violating this should be criminal and severe. Enforcement agencies should be via a strictly term limited and democratically elected police force that is independent from the government and has its own tax base. Also there should be a second police force, again term limited and elected, that should have the sole task to monitor the first. The forces should be 1-1. For every regular police officer there should be a police enforcement officer whose sole authority would be to arrest the first police officer if he violated the law. This second police force should run with some kind of journalistic-police credentials meaning they have the responsibility to publish what is going on and also arrest authority - with their own jails etc. But I have trouble with mob behavior, you know? The lynch mob. Don't know where to go with that. Got any ideas? There is also a big transition problem. I do not think the government, nor the credit card agencies, will give up their invasion of our right to privacy. The NSA should be illegal. Luxembourg has it right. It should be illegal for government to collect anything but the most cursory of statistics on its citizens. How is Africa reformed? Their leaders there are terrible mostly (except for Tutu and the ANC God bless them!). How do you stop organized crime? How do we get there? The real problem is not the system! It is the ethical awareness that underpins it. Look at a place like Russia. You can see that no matter what the system is they will have problems and eventually resort to tyranny. What is needed is a kind of discrediting or de-legititemization or "shunning" process where everyone would be very ashamed should they kill someone and if not then no problem because if they are ever found out they even their mother won't speak to them until she sees genuine contrition (OK make an exception for mothers ;) ). So what we need is a building of ethical consciousness which means building awareness of the meaning of life. Something like Sakarov called for. We need new modern refuseniks, Like those that put the statue up in Tieneman square. The program right now should also be education. As much as possible. For everyone. And not just shallow technical education. Probably the biggest problem is that objectivity and the hard sciences have had this false imprimatur placed upon them and the rigors of metaphysics and ontology have been completely lost. The first step will be when the students start flooding back from hard science into studying history and arts and philosophy and the other humanities and science is seen as "merely technical" which is what it is. Right now a government leader can kill thousands of innocent people and still have a coquetish entourage following them around opening the doors and fawning in admiration. In my opinion we basically need to wake up to their malevolence. Even Obama. He should be held accountable for innocent life lost by US strikes in Afganistan. Is he? I think Focault's work on prisons is key for the future of political science. On Sep 8, 5:31 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > In a sense Slip, collective consciousness could alter needs for > leadership. Cockroaches are apparently rather good at it in > collective decision making. Apparently, the collapse of bee > populations is linked to failures in their information hygiene systems > - the rooting out of misinformants - spammers beware! > > On 9 Sep, 01:17, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Slip - excellent. Thanks for the post. You are quite right - a > > collective consciousness is surely happening outside of ME. That's an > > encouraging thing to ponder. Jim > > > On Sep 8, 9:23 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > There seems to be no attempt to > > > integrate these private viewpoints into a public viewpoint. And I > > > sense no inclination to work toward such an integration. Does anyone > > > else? RJ > > > > Not an intentional attempt but views of posts run into the thousands, > > > weekly, on a global scale and indirectly influence public view > > > somewhere, in a ramifying process where discussions outside the forum > > > take place. Like Dennett's video going out to millions, ME threads > > > might reach and effect millions of minds. Much of what transpires > > > here, in the past took place in smokey rooms full of opinionated power > > > plays secluded from the general populous. Often elite social clubs > > > held segregated mind melting parlays which now are open to public view > > > and scrutiny. The collective consciousness is now more than likely > > > reaching greater proportions then ever before in history, mostly the > > > awareness that there is a collective consciousness. This is the > > > opportunists dream that allows for pants wearing condemnation to > > > become part of the collective consciousness. Everyone is watching and > > > waiting as those in the shadow come to the realization that they are > > > part of the whole, no longer hidden in the dark consciousness. > > > > On Sep 8, 10:56 am, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Archy - You say - > > > > I'd say public consciousness is now being falsely > > > > > > represented because of an unwillingness to take on new technology and > > > > > research methods in real time dialogue - the very 'viewpoint' that can > > > > > be shown to work over and over in reprersenting public consciousness - > > > > > presumably allowing it to be worked on through fair argumentation. > > > > > Is not Minds Eye taking on new technology to engage a real time dialog > > > > and achieve a public consciousness through fair argumentation? No.At > > > > least I don't think so. Minds Eye may be using a new technology. But > > > > what we seem to achieve here, to me, is a bunch of different, but > > > > still individual, viewpoints. There seems to be no attempt to > > > > integrate these private viewpoints into a public viewpoint. And I > > > > sense no inclination to work toward such an integration. Does anyone > > > > else? So public consciousness is not shown, not even here and not even > > > > once, to result from a real time dialog. I wish it were different. But > > > > then, it may well be the reason that so many topics generate at least > > > > two extremes and a dialog about where along the continuum the better > > > > view, or a right answer, lies - that is the way things here are > > > > designed: to foster dialog not answers. Jim > > > > > On Sep 8, 7:29 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > There used to be a laboratory joke that the stuff you were swilling > > > > > down the sink was what you were really looking for. There are a lot > > > > > of moments in science that I'm inclined to think 'bugger, that > > > > > explains a lot' of - viewpoints that are somehow 'better'. Sometimes, > > > > > such moments have left me wondering how I had managed to be so > > > > > inadequate before. When it comes to consciousness, it's pretty clear > > > > > our definitions wander and it must, presumably, be as hard to work out > > > > > a satisfactory notion of 'false consciousness'. Slip's comments are > > > > > entirely pertinent. I wouldn't challenge the others either, though > > > > > I'm sure we could get into further elaboration. > > > > > > My experience of public debate as we witness it in newspapers and > > > > > current affairs is always that it is too limited to obvious interests > > > > > that need challenge that never seems to come. Expert professors are > > > > > wheeled on and tell us we might find happiness in being happy! Others > > > > > that the war in Afghanistan is to keep our streets safe - some bland > > > > > assumption is made that 'we' are somehow happy to exchange blowing the > > > > > crap out of Iraq (etc.) to maintain our security. Bwankers come on > > > > > and tell us we 'will starve to death' without their wheeler-dealing. > > > > > Entertainment TV is full of jingles that make me sick. 'The Wire' is > > > > > more accurate than political punditry. I'm sure many will recognise > > > > > this tale and could add to it. I'd just take one more step - the grim > > > > > spectacle of business teaching by people who have done no more than > > > > > attended university and read some bits of textbook-level dross and > > > > > don't know why it is mostly wrong. > > > > > > I don't believe the above is false consciousness, but rather that it > > > > > is designed to tune us into something I would give the label to, > > > > > something not necessarily an essence. It's a bit like seeing crowds > > > > > persuaded by demagogues - only this is more obsequious - a sort of > > > > > banal totalisation. Without pursuing this, I'd jump back top ideas > > > > > that the Nazis' evil was banal and bureaucratic. I can cry out that > > > > > their 'doings' were false - but how do we find a way for sufficient > > > > > fact and information, reasoned through, to be present in 'public > > > > > consciousness' to feel that what we get is not false and manipulated - > > > > > remembering that there are some who can never be satisfied on this. > > > > > It's the feeling that arguments that can be clearly made are routinely > > > > > excluded in favour of the false balance of air time for a few > > > > > viewpoints (usually hymns we have heard over and over) that can all be > > > > > exploded by critical reasoning that sickens me enough to believe > > > > > something as broad as consciousness is false. Part of this may be the > > > > > creation of 'govern-mentality' in which we accept only privileged > > > > > 'representatives' get the full facts, and thus all we can do is accept > > > > > or challenge their integrity rather than make our own decisions. > > > > > Currently, throwing debate 'open' to emails and so on, merely seems to > > > > > throw up goons. I'd say public consciousness is now being falsely > > > > > represented because of an unwillingness to take on new technology and > > > > > research methods in real time dialogue - the very 'viewpoint' that can > > > > > be shown to work over and over in reprersenting public consciousness - > > > > > presumably allowing it to be worked on through fair argumentation. > > > > > > I have wondered whether this latter stuff could be a viable commercial > > > > > model given many of us reject newspapers and television. > > > > > > On 8 Sep, 12:59, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 8 Sep, 12:28, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I am not sure there is "false" consciousness, but that we deem is > > > > > > > so, > > > > > > > and this may be relative. The Dennett video struck me because I > > > > > > > thought it illustrated nicely the idea of viewpoint. I could feel > > > > > > > myself change, or had a change in feeling once I "saw" what he was > > > > > > > leading me to see. At first, I could not see it, then I could. > > > > > > > And > > > > > > > once I could, my viewpoint changed. This doesn't mean that my > > > > > > > previous viewpoint was false and my new viewpoint true. It only > > > > > > > means > > > > > > > that my viewpoint has changed. Unless it means something to me to > > > > > > > give it this value. And then I do. > > > > > > > > It struck me that we go through life like this, missing the > > > > > > > complete > > > > > > > picture (which to Pat, might be God's Will, or, the big picture of > > > > > > > possibility) and only seeing, feeling, thinking, believing what > > > > > > > our > > > > > > > current viewpoint allows. > > > > > > > Yup, I'll confirm that. Although there ARE techniques for glimpsing > > > > > > ahead. Edward De Bono's 'Water Logic' being one. The concept is to > > > > > > follow the flow of actions. I.e., one action will lead to another, > > > > > > which leads to another and so on. If we take the time to see where > > > > > > our actions will lead us, we catch a wider view of the future. > > > > > > However, this doesn't (and can't) take into consideration unknown, > > > > > > outside influences, which end up dictating A LOT of what happens. > > > > > > > >It is a change in view that allows us to > > > > > > > see more, and not more coming into being, Nothing changes but our > > > > > > > viewpoint, in the Dennett example, it only included a visual > > > > > > > perception, but in life may include conceptual, perceptual, > > > > > > > emotional, > > > > > > > rational and many more changes. But consciousness is > > > > > > > consciousness, > > > > > > > there is only brahman. > > > > > > > > Someone in another group suggested there is pure consciousness > > > > > > > (knowing of everything and everywhen or cosmic consciousness) or > > > > > > > consciousness in context - consciousness that is filtered > > > > > > > through our > > > > > > > experience (which is shaped by your viewpoint) I suppose, the > > > > > > > integration of these might be the non dual perspective. > > > > > > > Sounds reasonable. Thre trick there is tapping into the big > > > > > > picture. For example, right now, there are children in Darfur that > > > > > > are starving or worse. Most people think this has no direct effect > > > > > > on > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
