None. Nature protects itself from having all the people flattened to the size of a page.
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Lee Douglas <[email protected]>wrote: > I think it takes calamity to get humanity to all be reading the same > page. The question remians how much calamity does it require? > > On Aug 30, 11:51 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > It doesn't matter how many people agree or disagree on which paper or > idea. > > That's why I don't share the hope for a change of world view. One > exchanges > > world views, that's how it works. > > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Lee Douglas <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hahah Neil a grand plan but one that stands not a chance I think. > > > > > How does one fight agianst ignorance except throught teaching? > > > > > But of course some wont be taught, some cannot be taught, some will > > > reble against teachings not similar to their own belifes of > > > knowledege. > > > > > In short the capacity for reason in us humans are not the same from > > > individual to individual. All ideas are bound to attract followers > > > and disenters, that is just the way it is and I do not see any > > > evidance that it will quickly change. > > > > > What will happen when these protocols are found, and only three people > > > agree to them? > > > > > On Aug 27, 9:46 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I was thinking more about how we could identify ignorance in reaction > > > > to see if we could find ways of putting it right in ways argument > > > > doesn't unless you are open to a change of world view. We somehow > > > > need the world-view protocols attached to what is said to know what > is > > > > being argued or decided. One can spot consensus protocols in > > > > cockroaches so why not in humans? They may act to kill dialogue. > > > > > > On Aug 25, 6:57 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Perhaps with a long enough view and a wide enough perspective, > Molly, > > > > > its perhaps not so much the emergence of a new order but a changing > of > > > > > the guard. > > > > > > > On Aug 20, 1:51 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Creating order from chaos requires entering into the chaos. We > are > > > > > > often too content to rest in outdated but comfortable social > orders. > > > > > > The balance of individual and consensus reality becomes infinite > in > > > > > > mutual creativity. Finding and maintaining that point in > experience > > > > > > is a real challenge. Once found, old orders fall away, new > orders > > > are > > > > > > created, the circles of familiarity become smaller and at the > same > > > > > > time eternal as folks capable of sharing the unseen unite in > action. > > > > > > Rome burns, and a new order emerges. Yet all we can see or feel > is > > > > > > Rome burning. Why? > > > > > > > > On Aug 20, 2:57 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2011/08/civil-disorder-and-loo. > .. > > > > > > > > > We had riots in England a couple of weeks ago. Our media was > full > > > of > > > > > > > people, including reporters, stating this was a new issue and > > > > > > > unprecedented. I did not believe this as I watched - though I > did > > > see > > > > > > > a great deal I recognised from GTA games. The above link to > the > > > > > > > Economist makes use of a book by Pearson I read years ago - it > > > casts a > > > > > > > very different view that our riots were really only history > > > repeating > > > > > > > itself. > > > > > > > > > I don't believe human thought can 'rid itself' of emotional > > > response > > > > > > > (or should). I do believe we can do better than 'knee-jerk > > > reactions' > > > > > > > - but I also believe this is quite difficult and beyond many > people > > > > > > > left to their own devices. I believe our democracies are weak > at > > > the > > > > > > > moment and that this is because we can't argue very well - > hence > > > > > > > politicians appeal to much that is populist and wrong using > highly > > > > > > > dubious techniques. > > > > > > > > > I'm sure I could identify the protocols that appeal to > 'ignorant > > > > > > > Idols' that lead to situations of 'nopolitics' in our societies > and > > > > > > > thus the rule of the very rich through "economics" in a way far > > > more > > > > > > > centralised than any politburo. > > > > > > > > > I've pretty much given up on democracy. Teaching is very > > > frustrating > > > > > > > because you want to encourage self-learning and resourceful > human > > > > > > > beings and also know this is too much for most - democracy is > > > > > > > similar. The struggle is knowing this and not wanting to be > > > elitist > > > > > > > and sneer at others. I succeed a bit in 'adventures with > ideas' > > > but > > > > > > > the same mistakes in reaction crop up time and time and time > again > > > in > > > > > > > wider social action. > > > > > > > > > I wonder if outing the protocols of the dreary positions people > > > take > > > > > > > in reaction could help us actually find dialogue?- Hide quoted > text > > > - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -
