Hey Om,

Hah yeah words and how we use them huh.



On Aug 31, 11:51 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]>
wrote:
> The thing is that Neil's notion of 'technology' goes far beyond the
> common usage of the term. I seldom have a grasp of his understanding
> of the word.
>
> On Aug 31, 3:39 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I have my doubts about that also Neil.
>
> > A long time ago in my youth I was an avid reader of the comic 2000AD.
> > One of the weekly slots was entitled Thargs Future Shocks.
>
> > It dealt with how mankind handled the future and how it also does not
> > cope.  I can see that as the speed of technological progress increases
> > that humanity becomes increasingly unable to keep up.  Think of it
> > similar to the speed of evolution.
>
> > You are right technology has the capacity to do so much for us, but in
> > doing so is the speed of change too much for us to handle?
>
> > I work in IT, and have done so now for almost 20 years, I can say for
> > sure than whenever we effect a change it initialy is not liked at
> > all.  It takes some months for people to get used to new kit, new
> > software, new ways of working with their IT, before they will admit
> > that the change is better.
>
> > As a speices I think we are not yet used to qucik changes.
>
> > On Aug 30, 7:42 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I am not hopeful on the grand plan - more that new technology may help
> > > with what have been chronic inabilities amongst humans.
>
> > > On Aug 30, 12:28 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Reply via email to