under threat of a sawed off shoot gun Allan bows low and retreats to his monastery on Skellig Michael.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 7:06 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not talking about transhumanism - which might be critiqued as: > > Some secular humanists conceive transhumanism as an offspring of the > humanist freethought movement and argue that transhumanists differ > from the humanist mainstream by having a specific focus on > technological approaches to resolving human concerns (i.e. > technocentrism) and on the issue of mortality.[40] However, other > progressives have argued that posthumanism, whether it be its > philosophical or activist forms, amount to a shift away from concerns > about social justice, from the reform of human institutions and from > other Enlightenment preoccupations, toward narcissistic longings for a > transcendence of the human body in quest of more exquisite ways of > being.[41] In this view, transhumanism is abandoning the goals of > humanism, the Enlightenment, and progressive politics (Wiki) > > but about identifying why we have made some progress but not very much > towards secure living in freedom. I suspect we are much less distinct > from animals than in Gabby's religious view, much less involved in > 'logical' argument than we know (and generally have less training in > it than soccer) and may be disabled from democracy by a technology we > could fix (imperfectly would do) if we could really debate what it is. > > > On 17 Jan, 17:48, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'd add the situation is so complex even a metaphor like driving a car >> is replete with problems - car driving is part of planet burning, I >> once built a kit car but this doesn't make me a 'better' driver than >> Stirling Moss, cars kill etc. >> >> Much decision-making is already automated by technology in the sense >> of the term I mean. High frequency trading is an example and is very >> much subject to cheating and unfair advantage by those in control of >> the technology (the general scam is front-running). >> >> Profit and loss decision-making across the world leaves out many items >> most of us would consider vital such as the atrocities perpetrated on >> the lives of people around mines - etc. ad nauseum - these >> 'externalities' could be subject to the accounting processes. >> >> I'm only suggesting we can get beyond moral wittering - initially in >> thought experiment - and maybe find new ground that would be >> actionable rather than chattering-class stuff. In the current >> technology those in control take huge rents and promise trickle down. >> Nearly all of us despise centralised control as in the Sino-Soviet >> experiments (probably based on the Domesday Book) - yet 'money' >> centralises. I often think leaving democracy to argument is like >> being told we can put up ourselves against Manchester United and let >> football decide out fate! {We might turn up with 13 decent amateurs >> and beat them by changing the goal-posts to rugby league football - or >> Allan might keep his shotgun on them while rigs walked in our winning >> goals}. >> >> Shotgun (Whilst I liked rigs' metaphor) and god-contest threats seem a >> lot more violent than the logicians to me at this point. >> >> On 17 Jan, 16:47, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I rode shotgun in our last civil war Gabby. I see little in 'god >> > arguments' other than chronic factionalism and can no longer laugh at >> > Lutherian rants emanating from Belfast. There is something else in >> > religion and I don't agree with those like Dawkins who make fortunes >> > replacing it with science that may as well be 'Latin mass' in general >> > understanding. I'd be happy enough to ride in this context with Allan >> > against the road agents - though I for one would need comfortable >> > suspension and I don't travel well. >> >> > God clearly doesn't work once in factional human hands - like Gabby I >> > prefer direct appeal to him/her/it - but even Protestantism is led, >> > collective and so on. Quite how the Protestant tossers who started >> > shooting into Catholic gatherings (and so on) in Northern Ireland >> > could justify themselves with a loving god I don't know- though I'm >> > sure rationalisation was part of it. I much prefer agnosticism on >> > what we don't know to the zealot - and admissions we don't know over >> > 'there is no alternative zeal'. As to what science is, I prefer >> > admission it is replete with values, religion, manic belief and so on, >> > done by social animals, already present in a world before humans and >> > in subjective human reflection on the past. The whole notion of >> > science as 'value free' is a nonsense and has origin in battles in >> > which others held and used the instruments of torture to promote their >> > control fraud. I have no intention of being sent out, as a previous >> > and dubiously historical figure with a sling-shot against god-made- >> > Goliath. >> >> > To some extent, if we could break the 'argument code' and produce a >> > technology that made decision obvious, we would break the political >> > power complex. The fear is of some Frankenstein nightmare worse than >> > what we have now. Habermas sought to extirpate (root out) ideology >> > and form an ideal-type speech situation in which only Reason would >> > decide (Reason in my take is a 'technology'). He was scoffed at as >> > 'the Professor' by postmodernists as his 'system' would inevitably be >> > totalising - and hadn't we had enough totalising with the Nazis? I >> > think all sides of this argument are little more than academic guff. >> >> > I wonder whether there is a better starting point in recognising most >> > people are hopeless in argument and whether we might be better placed >> > as individuals if technology could do more of the argument for us as, >> > say, a car can be driven. >> >> > On 17 Jan, 12:10, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > Sorry for being late here. Let me go back to your question, Allan, >> > > whether >> > > our counting system is bigoted. And let me ask you if you think that >> > > there >> > > is a substantial difference between "4" and "IV". I would argue that both >> > > representational symbols do not violate the parameters of human >> > > perceptional limitation, which only allow for up to four visible items >> > > being instantaneously operated upon and produce reliable data >> > > representative. Five dots on a piece of paper should be better put in >> > > some >> > > order - in order to be recognized as 5 in a blink of a moment. Or - as >> > > evidence of the Spirit At Work. :) >> >> > > As for being afraid of James - what separates us from the other animals >> > > is >> > > our deeply rooted belief that we are better than them. That should count >> > > as >> > > a valid argument for believing in God, the creator, in whose image we are >> > > being made. >> > > What struck me as "fearful" - to follow your logic - is hearing an >> > > American >> > > (highest degree of individualistic socialization, self-localization: >> > > from-coast-to-coast) arguing towards "mutually beneficial outcomes". >> > > Across >> > > the pond we have our own understanding of "mutually" and "beneficial", >> > > depending on our different historical cultural backgrounds and present >> > > day >> > > socioeconomic situation. >> >> > > The global construction of oneness so far has been achieved by the force >> > > of >> > > necessity aka God's higher justice. How do you want to improve that >> > > opponent of yours, Neil? >> >> > > 2013/1/17 archytas <[email protected]> >> >> > > > Removing spiritual blindfolds sounds suspiciously Masonic. I'm not >> > > > scared by rationality - but remain very perturbed by what people will >> > > > do in the name of truth. What I'm concerned with is the greater play >> > > > of knowledge in democratic action - in marxism this would be praxis. >> > > > The problem has long been what we can legitimate as knowledge.- >> > > > control of the production of knowledge being as central to power as >> > > > general control of the means of production. It strikes me the problem >> > > > is less important in thinking about the democratic formation of >> > > > knowledge than in description and explanation of what we are caught in >> > > > in the present. We would presumably want to build democratic >> > > > precaution and human rights into technology we wanted to improve these >> > > > matters through. >> >> > > > On Jan 17, 7:54 am, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > > what you are proposing is the worst type of dictatorship available.. >> > > > > simple because there is no control.. >> > > > > Judgement is one of the most difficult things to do,, Even under the >> > > > > standard concepts of God judgement is very difficult to the point and >> > > > > is left to God,.. in reality upon your death and resurrection back >> > > > > into the realm of souls.. you are judged solely by yourself only you >> > > > > know the truth and the blindfolds are removed and you are no longer >> > > > > a >> > > > > spiritual zombie and will be able to make that type of judgement,, >> > > > > to sand in judgement of others is even tougher,, >> > > > > Neil not only is it something that is very hard to explain itis >> > > > > something you can not explain.. as all explanations are nothing more >> > > > > than justifying your point of view. >> > > > > Allan >> >> > > > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 7:19 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > > > The technological point Allan would be in terms of the facts even a >> > > > > > few people like us who know each other would accept and "know" via >> > > > > > database - it's very hard to explain. Currently we are generally >> > > > > > in >> > > > > > the state you suggest, though exceptionally skilled in >> > > > > > harmlessness. >> >> > > > > > On Jan 16, 7:05 am, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > > >> Personally Neil I do not think the four of you would be capable of >> > > > > >> making that type of evaluation. >> > > > > >> No offence taken ... every one listed is as bigoted to their own >> > > > > >> view as I am.. (",) >> > > > > >> Allan >> >> > > > > >> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:51 AM, archytas <[email protected]> >> > > > > >> wrote: >> > > > > >> > I'm a very woolly thinker - and part of the technology I want to >> > > see >> > > > > >> > would entail a bunch of us - say me, rigs, Gabs and James - >> > > > > >> > being >> > > able >> > > > > >> > to decide on whether the public or private sector is 'better' (I >> > > > > >> > suspect we'd all say this depends on circumstances) without >> > > > > >> > making >> > > the >> > > > > >> > question into some ideological contest - and then on to the >> > > > > >> > world >> > > more >> > > > > >> > generally. I've no doubt we could all give examples and >> > > > > >> > counter- >> > > > > >> > examples and suspect we'd find some consensus on not really >> > > > > >> > being >> > > very >> > > > > >> > interested. What I really wonder is why such matters are >> > > > > >> > contested >> > > > > >> > ideologically rather than being subject to transparent record. >> >> > > > > >> > On Jan 15, 10:32 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > > >> >> Didn't know you were a Papist rigs! Which changes about >> > > > > >> >> nothing >> > > - I >> > > > > >> >> was dragged up Proddy until I got Dad to write a note to school >> > > > > >> >> excusing me RE. I did my maths and English homework in the >> > > classes - >> > > > > >> >> still took the exams and came top twice - which rather suggests >> > > how >> > > > > >> >> useless classrooms can be. I think a great deal is recoverable >> > > from >> > > > > >> >> religion concerning practical democracy and the loss of decency >> > > and >> > > > > >> >> organic solidarity. >> > > > > >> >> I've been reading a lot of academic material on banking systems >> > > for >> >> ... >> >> read more ยป > > -- > > > -- ( ) |_D Allan Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living. Of course I talk to myself, Sometimes I need expert advice.. --
