Hmm... I thought that it was obvious. Well, here goes. Before I start, I reference the terms "Renaissance Man" and "The Age of Invention."
Throughout the world there has been a shift away from admiration of thinkers and inventors. The trend started somewhere between World War Two's start and the Korean War. The first symptom was idolization of Albert Einstein for E=mc2 rather than Oppenheimer for his work on the first atomic bomb. With his wild hair and sour expression, Einstein became the face of the "great thinker" to the public. The public (while pretending to admire his mind) told stories about mismatched socks and getting lost in public. By contrast Oppenheimer was well groomed and sharp in his public persona and mostly ignored. Before long we had "The Nutty Professor", "It Happens Every Spring", and other such movies saying that anyone with a thought between their ears was in some way a bit crazy. Other symptoms were "It's Been Done", "Not Invented Here", and "Not My Problem". Along came terms for thinkers as culturally clueless and socially unacceptable such as "Geek", "Nerd", "Wimp", and "Dork". As people turned away from showing interest in thinking, the classic "Got A Quarter? ... Call somebody who gives a damn." joke came along. The emphasis in schools changed from fostering the learning of how to think into the travesty we have today of whether or not you have memorized the answer to the questions that the teacher led you to expect on the test. We have a society of unthinking button pushers who couldn't solve a problem to save their own lives. People do not respect thinking, just results. So very few people actually think as a habit, and they have learned to conceal the fact that they think when not in the company of other thinkers. One more parting shot before I post. Have you watched the "Back To the Future" movie series? I rest my case. Lonnie Courtney Clay On Monday, August 22, 2011 10:57:20 AM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote: > > Okay... Lonnie.... Here's a "straight" question..... Can I get some > "substance" from you?... and less "style" .. or shall I say... > "process"? > > How and What are you trying to say concerning.... what ever concerns > you? > > On Aug 17, 3:22 pm, Lonnie Clay <clayl...@comcast.net> wrote: > > Thanks einseele! > > > > Yes indeed, CONTEXT rules! Contextual influence can be summarized as > > "information alters consciousness". The person with information thinks > about > > the information in the context of a chosen receiver(s) ability to > > understand, which includes language, culture, shared experiences, > knowledge > > base, and receptiveness among many factors. If you are like me, then you > > make assumptions regarding intellectual capacity of the readers on > newsgroup > > "epistemology" which would not be justified for readers of other > newsgroups. > > You SHAPE the presentation of information to FIT the audience. > Furthermore, > > you might have a presentation with multiple LAYERS of insight possible. > You > > accomplish this by presenting information in order such that reading > passes > > through the presentation after the first pass cause further information > to > > be apparent, due to heightened awareness and understandings based upon > prior > > passes. So it is a good idea in general to re-read presentations from > those > > who are known to package information in nested layers of understanding... > > > > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > > > On Wednesday, August 17, 2011 10:15:21 AM UTC-7, einseele wrote: > > > > > I dont quite believe in a model of communication where two parts are > > > in play, > > > Usually explained like a transmitter-receiver pair > > > > > Like binary ideas use to do, that model simply does not see a third > > > party, > > > > > In any communication set there are 3 parts intervening > > > > > Whatever you consider like transmitter, whatever you consider as the > > > receiving part, and a reference code > > > > > We talk to each other "through" a reference, like for instance English > > > in this case. > > > A third person is needed in all cases. There is no language without > > > third persons, and that is valid for any comunication structure. > > > > > If I can talk to a machine, that is because there is an interface, > > > which is the same as saying a third person "listening" the > > > conversation > > > > > We can have of course more than 3 instances, but we never have less > > > than that > > > > > I believe this is important because the message is because of this > > > always different. It is never like the starting party intended, it is > > > never like the receiving instance understood, and of course does not > > > exist by its own. > > > > > While passing from point A to C, it needs to go through a sort of "B" > > > which is nowhere > > > > > On Aug 13, 10:24 pm, Lonnie Clay <clay...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > A) I see a problem. > > > > B) Ask me if I care. > > > > A) You might, if you knew more. > > > > B) Try me. > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > B) I've heard enough, I can't make heads nor tails of it, go away. > > > > A) If you reasoned better, then you would understand. > > > > B) You say I'm stupid!? > > > > A) Well, I could teach you how to understand what I am saying. It > will > > > take > > > > a while. > > > > B) Got unlimited long distance? > > > > A) Yes, why? > > > > B) Make random calls until you find someone who cares. BYE! > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > A) Hello? I see a problem. > > > > > > The question which I pose to the group regards the ethics of > > > communication. > > > > At what point does the obligation to tell the truth shift from the > source > > > to > > > > the receiver. In other words, is the source obligated to relentlessly > > > > pursue > > > > receivers until finally the truth is understood? > > > > > > Lonnie Courtney Clay -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/80TDqmR8wOMJ. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
