Hah yeah words and how we use them huh.
On Aug 31, 11:51 am, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>
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 <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> 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 <nwte...@gmail.com> 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 <gabbyd...@gmail.com> 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 <leerevdoug...@gmail.com>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 <gabbyd...@gmail.com> 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 <leerevdoug...@gmail.com
> > > > > >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 <nwte...@gmail.com> 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 <eadohe...@hotmail.com> 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 <mollyb...@gmail.com> 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 <nwte...@gmail.com> 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 -
0 comments:
Post a Comment