The Seven of Nine by logical definition can only flee to dreamscape to achieve the 360 degree spherical vision, that's correct.
2013/1/29 archytas <[email protected]> > The tempting thing is always just to go with the fashion Gabby. Most > of us just do the day job and hope for the best - perhaps hoping we > miss the Russian curse and never have to live in interesting lives. I > considered taking steroids myself. A friend did. He made it, I > didn't really. He's dead. Even in amateur teams half were on > 'Smarties' of some kind. I'm not sure I had the courage not to or > lacked such to consume - I played at the edge of the rules on the > pitch if I had to. Looking back I'd rather I'd never been bored > enough to play. > > The 0.2 versus 99.8 debate has a lot right in it - but a lot missing - > including how we might stop a few 'black bag fantasists with guns' > taking over the Utopian paradise following the dictatorship of the > proles that evaded a constitution written by its first leader. I > always baulk at the point in science fiction where great leaders like > Janeway (I'm after her with an inter-galactic genocide writ) say 'this > isn't a democracy' whilst pondering a decision to fire that would have > already have been made by machine to evade destruction by the enemy. > In current dreams, Seven-of-Nine has injected nano-stuff into me to > give me 360 degree spherical vision (in space it's handy to see what's > coming from up, down, forwards and backwards). Simplistic Utopian > argument needs modernising to include more dimensions. I doubt > leadership as we've known it has much place in a really different > society, but out literature lacks ability not to put it there, let > alone institutions that could effectively replace it. Management > fashions don't change much. > > > > On Jan 29, 10:19 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > Rigs' 'some Neanderthal figured that out watching animal behaviour' > > strikes me as potentially key. 'Watching' undergraduate classes (any > > really) over many years a teacher can see their herd behaviour. They > > don't read much is one conclusion. Our wider society reads even > > less. People remain very parochial in the main. Most can learn to do > > stuff like driving cars, breeding and so on. We don't do our day-to- > > day stuff in any deep knowledge. The Italians are a paradigm case of > > restricted breeding, in spite of infallible Popes and presumably > > because economics and birth control technology have exercised > > considerable power in the day-to-day. I don't meet people who don't > > have children (or more children) because of deep argument on carbon > > footprints and not burning the planet. I doubt the Italians have > > achieved their sensible population control through abstinence or > > environmental concern. > > > > Questions on how to achieve an informed majority are very difficult. > > Education is known to reduce the number of children women have. It > > thus offends those who would keep women as breeding machines in black > > bags - and even from this tiny fact we can tell education is > > political. It also shows that there is no neutral argument on such > > matters as rights. Does anyone have the right to form a Nazi Party? > > Liberal argument must somewhere confront those who will not share its > > assumptions and who act as 'hot heads'. > > > > We still carry the Neanderthals with us, having assimilated them as > > surely as the Borg. The bacteria we carry (other than as subsumed > > mitochondria) remain part of a hologenome in our genetic development > > with influence on our genetic code - something itself developing in co- > > evolution in our environment. We have, if we put the effort in, > > factual history to guide us. Bees know how to genetically convert > > from nurses to foragers. Our technologies have made much work the > > province of machines and we should be considering what our need for > > workers is in our new environment. My view is that we are actually > > flapping about with a religious politics and economics that cannot > > deal rationally with this situation. We also know every horrible > > regime in history had its own ideology of virtue, often claimed > > rational, in which leaders claimed to lead the majority to the > > promised land and that such claims were really those of the road of > > serfdom or the cry of a cavalry charge into the heart of the volcano. > > > > I suspect we can do better now if we can get honest dialogue going. I > > think we have to stop being so easily conned that any form of > > argument, including scientific practice, left in the hands of a few > > and private from the rest of us, can achieve this. We need to admit > > we are in an era needing dreams and imagination that we can reasonably > > predict the outcome of. The negative side of this is the ease with > > which lying politicians operate with dreamy promises repeatedly made > > and never fulfilled. The question concerns how we make not repeating > > history positive and find political-economic technology the majority > > can drive like a car, respecting rules of the road and making most > > decisions themselves. > > > > On Jan 29, 9:10 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thinking a bit further on Lee's splendid jibe of what happens when the > > > majority comes round to my point of view I note this often occurs with > > > a majority forgetting it was my point of view in the first place! > > > People like to fell ideas are their own even where copyright isn't a > > > factor. In Socractic irony the knowledge is presumed there and just > > > needs the right dialogue to bring it out. > > > > > I don't notice much Republican rhetoric from rigs, only a marginal GOP > > > tendency easily subsumed under mutual respect. The real danger is the > > > 'there is no alternative' doctrine and a serious problem with that is > > > one starts to despise those uttering it and enter the pitfall of > > > enunciating the alternatives in the same conviction, matching > > > zealotism with just another form of zealotism. I have never seen > > > politics as important enough to get in the way of friendship. > > > > > The economists I tend to agree with at the moment (Steve Keen, Bill > > > Black, Yves Smith and Michael Hudson are examples easily found on the > > > Net - naked capitalism is a good source) could all be considered left > > > wing. But I also agree with most rigs says and much on such > > > libertarian digests as Zero Hedge. A big claim now current is that > > > neo-classical (pejorative theo-classical) economics is more like a > > > religion than a science and, of course, the alternatives scientific. > > > The arguments made on this point are weak and leave out a vast > > > literature on the sociology and methods of science and what purely > > > rational argument could be. > > > > > My own view is that politics and economics as we have them remain a > > > control fraud and we need a way past this. It would be great if we > > > could do this through scientific practice we could all understand and > > > be involved in. The immediate problem with this is that science is > > > esoteric and difficult to learn. I suspect it works by excluding the > > > majority and the majority still think in Idols (Francis Bacon). We > > > are stuck with an elite deciding what science is. One answer seems to > > > be to train everyone to be capable in scientific argument and > > > practice, something I also believe impossible. If we could do this > > > then people would be capable of informed voting - but in the real > > > world people claim to vote 'on the economy' and then can't answer even > > > simple questions on what the economy is. > > > > > Most of us, I guess, would like to vote for some smart people we can > > > trust. Even this might be to vote for national governments pitted > > > against each other in global competition. Our 'smart people' end up > > > pitting nation against nation - not smart in my view. > > > > > On Jan 29, 7:06 am, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > yes sports is dangerous stuff ,,steroids are not uncommon also > > > > carried on though pro sports oops I forgot they buy off the drug > czar > > > > > > I do not see why you really don't look into what is going on instead > > > > of just spout republican rhetoric.. > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:59 AM, rigs <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I should have added independence from family, sex and drinking > though > > > > > the latter two are primed in highschool. Also, students can read > and > > > > > write but many need (forgot the term) classes to improve their > skills. > > > > > Not sure if handwriting/grammar is even a factor anymore. // Then > > > > > there's sports- though Obama thinks it is dangerous stuff along > with > > > > > gun ownership so soon American men/women will be civilian wimps. > But > > > > > the military is an alternative to college/poor employment > > > > > opportunities so there is always an answer unless one considers > > > > > military service a risk and who would do that? > > > > > > > On Jan 28, 8:57 am, rigs <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> Considering that many movers and shakers were lucky to get a > > > > >> highschool education back in the '20's and '30's and that some > recent > > > > >> innovators dropped out of college one does start to question the > > > > >> process. Add up the loan debt, as well. College may be a form of > the > > > > >> caste system, networking or opportunity/income leveler. I repeat > my > > > > >> stated opinion that college is a respectable place to park ones > > > > >> children for some parents. It used to be a place to meet a mate > but > > > > >> now a career is the object since two can no longer live as > cheaply as > > > > >> one. Often college entrants still cannot read or write plus now > they > > > > >> have expectations of a certain level of hype and bedazzlement.// > > > > >> Teachers burn out in some subjects because it's 24/7- just in > > > > >> correcting essay exams and term papers plus checking for > plagiarizims, > > > > >> etc. and because they are expected to be sort of a pseudo-parent/ > > > > >> nursemaid/sex-object/inspiration all while getting published to > prove > > > > >> their value/worth to the institution.//Once one learns to read and > > > > >> comprehend they can teach themselves most anything. A library card > > > > >> will do... > > > > > > >> On Jan 28, 6:39 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >> > Strangely enough Lee I do experience that! Brian Clough should > have > > > > >> > been England manager! One finds a lot of arrogant ignorance in > > > > >> > classrooms and a lot of stereotyping by teachers and students. > > > > >> > Teaching is often a weird experience and difficult to drop from > the > > > > >> > system - something pretty important to let learning take place. > I > > > > >> > don't use textbooks unless I've given up on a class that won't > fend > > > > >> > for itself (some demand spoonfeeding and find discovery learning > > > > >> > terrifying). It's easy enough to get classes round to looking > at work > > > > >> > motivation in terms of the content and process theories of > 'chapter > > > > >> > three' and regurgitate what's there. To a man jack they'd all > give up > > > > >> > work if they won the lottery, suggesting a rather different > theory. > > > > >> > I'm sure the books are mostly wrong and that more than that the > need > > > > >> > for basic texts is a combination of bad teachers and commercial > > > > >> > pressures to get bums through seats. I try to met people do > what > > > > >> > interests them, what they want to find and express - but as in > all > > > > >> > human activity there is a problem with people promising 'your > own way' > > > > >> > who don't mean it. And it's much more difficult today to defend > > > > >> > students who don't toe to the party line. Is it possible to > 'respect > > > > >> > ignorance' but at the same time fail it? What is a person who > wants > > > > >> > to stay ignorant doing in a learning environment? Further down > the > > > > >> > line one often finds research leads one to the conclusion that > what's > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป > > -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > ""Minds Eye"" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
