Re: The X Files (deus ex machina excuses) Off topic....
Dear Mark:
Often there are posting I would like to reply to so I don't put them in a
file folder and forget them. This one of yours was one of them and it has
stood the test of time.
-Original Message-
From: Mark Measday [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: August 31, 1998 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: The X Files ("deus ex machina" excuses) Off topic
Er, chief, this is beyond me, are you the zen master? Who is the zen
master? I'm not a zen master, just a bad case of sinusitis and
consequently not expressing myself well. Whose arms are you going to cut
off and why do you want to do it?
Thomas:
I thought Brad's answer was pretty concise, the person asking a stupid
question should have a real life experience. You want to know what the
sound of "one hand clapping is" simple, whack off the arm, and you'll have
the answer you stupid jerk.
Alternatively, and more practically,
organize a real conference or debate simulating the futurework list
where the evas', jays', rays' etc can be made material. If people pay to
come, all the better.
Thomas:
One of the joys of electronic debating is the ability to reflect before you
answer. I'm not sure how we would come out in speech. The idea that we
should make some money off the things we do for fun strikes me as a great
example of turning your hobby into a business and then your business ruins
your hobby, I think I'll stay with my hobby.
Or set up a revolutionary cell teaching
non-exploitative transactional conversational exchange values, so people
can talk again without fear of having their pockets picked. Don't really
see the advantages of amputation or learning to say no in Russian
though. Please explain the depth and complexity of your thought.
It's called having a viewpoint or perhaps a personal philosophy - one we
have actually arrived by ourselves, then being vulnurable enough to expose
that viewpoint to the critiques - or rarely praises of others. What gets
you in crap on this list is playing the conventional party record. We can't
and won't ( I have no right to speak for others here) force anyone to have a
personal viewpoint, however we will gleefully challenge anothers viewpoint,
call it philosophical ping pong, no one gets hurt, everyone gets a little
exercise and we leave the game at the table.
Kind regards,
Mark Measday
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. wrote:
Mark Measday wrote:
Yep, if that makes any sense, though I don't know about the zen bit.
So
can we expect a golden socialist future of mutual understanding
based on
some scientific knowledge tempered with wisdom? Or the same old
dialectic between opposite understandings?
MM
Thomas Lunde wrote:
In a world of pure self-interest, can there be any paradigms of
communication?
Thomas: This question sounds like one of those zen koans where
you
feel
there should be an obvious answer and every time you put one
forth,
the
master answers "nyet".
[snip]
I've been thinking about these Zen masters lately, in
part based on thinking about how they exploit their students
as cheap labor. And I had an idea for an answer to
that famous Koan:
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
The student should simply amputate one of the master's
hands, so that the master could learn.
\brad mccormick
--
Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but
Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world.
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA
---
![%THINK;[SGML]] Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
Mark Measday
UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167
France tel: 0033.450.20.94.92/fax: 450.20.94.93
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Fwd: Re: The X Files (deus ex machina excuses)]
I think Eva meant this to go to the list and not just
to me personally Since she said this was
meant for the list, I've appended the response I
sent to her
\brad mccormick
Eva Durant wrote:
Durant wrote:
In a world of pure self-interest, can there be any paradigms of
communication?
I did not write any such thing, I responded to it
in a negative sense.
Those who do not reflectively cultivate their
paradigms may imagine they live in the
paradigm free zome of the obvious (or of
"hard facts", etc.), but they're only unwittingly
*being lived by* some socially conditioned
paradigm or other. As the philosopher
of physics Norwood Hanson once said (more
or less...) the only paradigm-free experience he
ever had was when his airplane crashed and he
was momentarily in a total daze.
The word "paradigm" represents post-modernist/relativist
claptrap to me. Sorry. "Idea" seems a perfectly
good word to me, easier to pronounce and spell
for us sixpacks. And the less fuzzier, the better, please...
Eva
---
--- My response follows:
Subject:
Re: The X Files ("deus ex machina" excuses)
Date:
Tue, 01 Sep 1998 07:35:45 -0400
From:
"Brad McCormick, Ed.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization:
AbiCo. ![%THINK;[SGML]]
To:
Eva Durant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
References:
1
Eva Durant wrote:
Durant wrote:
In a world of pure self-interest, can there be any paradigms of
communication?
I did not write any such thing, I responded to it
in a negative sense.
As often, I find it hard to determine who said what in
these forums.
On the other hand, I am finding it difficult to
"classify" "where you're coming from". I seem to
think you are politically "left". But then
you also seem(?) to take a "naively realist"
stance. I am confused (not that that is highly important
to me, or that my confusion on the issue should
be a *big deal* to you, but I *am* confused about
your position)
Those who do not reflectively cultivate their
paradigms may imagine they live in the
paradigm free zome of the obvious (or of
"hard facts", etc.), but they're only unwittingly
*being lived by* some socially conditioned
paradigm or other. As the philosopher
of physics Norwood Hanson once said (more
or less...) the only paradigm-free experience he
ever had was when his airplane crashed and he
was momentarily in a total daze.
The word "paradigm" represents post-modernist/relativist
claptrap to me. Sorry. "Idea" seems a perfectly
good word to me, easier to pronounce and spell
for us sixpacks. And the less fuzzier, the better, please...
It should be clear that I am rabidly anti-postmodernist
claptap. Relativism? Well, that's a more complex
question. I think all "first-order" theories are
"relative", but that transcendental reflection
provides a -- albeit trepidant and not dogmatic! --
standpoint beyond the relativity of all first-order
theories, but at the "price" (I find it a benefice!)
of situating certainty in the process of human communication,
rather than in the objects of that discourse.
Yours in the often foggy dimension of cyberspace
\brad mccormick
Re: The X Files (deus ex machina excuses)
In a world of pure self-interest, can there be any paradigms of communication? MM Durant wrote: It depends how you define and in whose interest rational thought is used. Eva ... In my sense of our current historical position, the rational argument has become the de facto operating procedure in which any lie which serves the goal of self interest is preferable to any action which may be morally right and perhaps not serve the goal of self interest has become the dominant paradigm. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Mark Measday UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167 France tel: 0033.450.20.94.92/fax: 450.20.94.93 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Among herd animals, we are unique in that we can fall upon another herd and destroy it. Or we can consciously decide to leave it in peace. I can think of no other herd animal that has that capacity. Ed Weick
Re: The X Files (deus ex machina excuses)
Yep, if that makes any sense, though I don't know about the zen bit. So can we expect a golden socialist future of mutual understanding based on some scientific knowledge tempered with wisdom? Or the same old dialectic between opposite understandings? MM Thomas Lunde wrote: In a world of pure self-interest, can there be any paradigms of communication? Thomas: This question sounds like one of those zen koans where you feel there should be an obvious answer and every time you put one forth, the master answers "nyet". My point was that when self interest, whether personal, or national, or your local stockbroker is involved in which their answer is related back to "whats the best for me" then you cannot trust that answer. For any statement "they" make will become fluid should their self interest change. This then becomes the paradigm - lack of trust. This is the spiral to chaos.
Re: The X Files (deus ex machina excuses) Off topic....
Mark Measday wrote: Yep, if that makes any sense, though I don't know about the zen bit. So can we expect a golden socialist future of mutual understanding based on some scientific knowledge tempered with wisdom? Or the same old dialectic between opposite understandings? MM Thomas Lunde wrote: In a world of pure self-interest, can there be any paradigms of communication? Thomas: This question sounds like one of those zen koans where you feel there should be an obvious answer and every time you put one forth, the master answers "nyet". [snip] I've been thinking about these Zen masters lately, in part based on thinking about how they exploit their students as cheap labor. And I had an idea for an answer to that famous Koan: What is the sound of one hand clapping? The student should simply amputate one of the master's hands, so that the master could learn. \brad mccormick -- Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world. Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] 914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA --- ![%THINK;[SGML]] Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
Re: The X Files (deus ex machina excuses) Off topic....
Er, chief, this is beyond me, are you the zen master? Who is the zen master? I'm not a zen master, just a bad case of sinusitis and consequently not expressing myself well. Whose arms are you going to cut off and why do you want to do it? Alternatively, and more practically, organize a real conference or debate simulating the futurework list where the evas', jays', rays' etc can be made material. If people pay to come, all the better. Or set up a revolutionary cell teaching non-exploitative transactional conversational exchange values, so people can talk again without fear of having their pockets picked. Don't really see the advantages of amputation or learning to say no in Russian though. Please explain the depth and complexity of your thought. Kind regards, Mark Measday Brad McCormick, Ed.D. wrote: Mark Measday wrote: Yep, if that makes any sense, though I don't know about the zen bit. So can we expect a golden socialist future of mutual understanding based on some scientific knowledge tempered with wisdom? Or the same old dialectic between opposite understandings? MM Thomas Lunde wrote: In a world of pure self-interest, can there be any paradigms of communication? Thomas: This question sounds like one of those zen koans where you feel there should be an obvious answer and every time you put one forth, the master answers "nyet". [snip] I've been thinking about these Zen masters lately, in part based on thinking about how they exploit their students as cheap labor. And I had an idea for an answer to that famous Koan: What is the sound of one hand clapping? The student should simply amputate one of the master's hands, so that the master could learn. \brad mccormick -- Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world. Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] 914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA --- ![%THINK;[SGML]] Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/ Mark Measday UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167 France tel: 0033.450.20.94.92/fax: 450.20.94.93 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The X Files (deus ex machina excuses)
Durant wrote: In a world of pure self-interest, can there be any paradigms of communication? As I think Eva may be suggesting, it's a question of the *kind* of self-interest. If I may quote one of Eva's deceased compatriots, Melanie Klein: Enjoyment is always bound up with gratitude; if this gratitude is deeply felt it includes the wish to return goodness received and is thus the basis of generosity. There is always a close relation between being able to accept and to give, and both are part of the relation to the good object [prototypically, the nurturing mother] and therefore counteract loneliness. Furthermore, the feeling of generosity underlies creativeness, and this applies to the infant's most primitive constructive activities as well as to the creativeness of the adult. (Melanie Klein, Envy and gratitude and other works, 1946-1963, 1975, p. 310) One of the highest forms of self-interest is for a nobel laureate to teach young persons what (s)he got their prize for. Alternatively, a deprived child may grow up to be a Leona Helmsley or such like [snip] Eva (for a paradigm-free zone) Those who do not reflectively cultivate their paradigms may imagine they live in the paradigm free zome of the obvious (or of "hard facts", etc.), but they're only unwittingly *being lived by* some socially conditioned paradigm or other. As the philosopher of physics Norwood Hanson once said (more or less...) the only paradigm-free experience he ever had was when his airplane crashed and he was momentarily in a total daze. \brad mccormick -- Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world. Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] 914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA --- ![%THINK;[SGML]] Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
Re: The X Files (deus ex machina excuses)
Go on then, Eva Durant. Wine, Beer or something new? MM Durant wrote: In a world of pure self-interest, can there be any paradigms of communication? The world is not more self-interested than before but we know more about the pattern of this self-interest and in the way it works best as a force to integrate and cooperate humans to live in societies without which they couldn't have become so successful as a species. We have more chance to communicate to the widest of the populations than ever before. Eva (for a paradigm-free zone) MM [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Mark Measday UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167 France tel: 0033.450.20.94.92/fax: 450.20.94.93 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Among herd animals, we are unique in that we can fall upon another herd and destroy it. Or we can consciously decide to leave it in peace. I can think of no other herd animal that has that capacity. Ed Weick
Re: The X Files (deus ex machina excuses)
Yes, I agree with your premise that "The present system is farcical" but the power that has been given to those with economic clout has been so effective in stifling change, on has to conclude that it will take some major catastrophe to change the existing order. Lobbying, protesting, legal challenges do make change, but they are glacial in terms of time and while the new changes often correct an imbalance or injustice, by solving one, it often seems like three more are created. If the regimes of the Shah, of the USSR etc, etc, could collapse in a matter of months or even days, inspite the total control over media and the police/military, than I don't think the situation is so hopeless. The important point is to have some idea of what to strive for - though I wonder if the next step could be fairly automatic now towards that well-informed democracy and collective power. To be on the safe side, the only useful thing to do is to inform as many people as possible. The basic assumption that "the people" have some inate wisdom that can be expressed in vote in which 50 plus one is the deciding factor seems to me, not to be sustainable in the light of history. There is no such basic assumption. If the information is false or not sufficient, there is no chance of making the "right choice" consciously. However, if everyone is participate independently in the thinking process, there is a chance that the interests of most people will be considered. I might argue that leadership should not be the result of popularity, but training. We do not select generals or captains of industry on their popularity but because of a thousand instances of demstrated capability within a chosen arena. That some of these leaders still turn out to be bozzo's negates the truth that most are fairly competent. I think we do not need to separate to "leaders" and "lead". Those elected to do something should be "managed" by the electorate, the electorate will execute the "leader's" decisions as being part of their own decision. This is the new concept of identifying with the leaders and the lead in the same time, breaking the "them" and "us" stuff. Besides, we will take part in decisionmaking in so many various forums and capacities, that there will be few chance of not being a "leader" on some. So this demarcation will hopefully disappear. ... Once chosen, the leader was given the powers associated with the solution of the presenting problem. In my mind, this model has just a much a chance of providing superior choices than the political party model of representative democracy or the pure citizen vote model of direct democracy. Both create leaders seeking power, while the other creates leaders accepting power to perform their duties. this is more or less what I mean The Age of Enlightment has brought to ridiculous heights, the power of the intellect while reducing the power of character which often arises out of feelings, honour, respect and overall character. The book Brad recommended several months ago, Cosmology identified the change from a society of that allowed the differences of individuals to flourish to one in which rationality degreed there is a right and wrong way. We moved in my opinion from an analog society to a digital society, but natures way, the animals way is analog, it is only man who sees right and wrong - the digital decision. Our current mess is the result of a million - million right decisions. Perhaps a few more decisions that could not be justified by rationality and were made from character might have given us a much different world. ramble... strawmen stuff. Just because we strive for rational decisionmaking, that doesn't mean that individuality should somehow suffer; and decisions do not have to be "digital" always. Eva Respectfully, Thomas Lunde Eva Respectfully, Thomas Lunde - So what's wrong with going the whole hog to have a proper direct democracy [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The X Files (deus ex machina excuses)
The Age of Enlightenment has brought to ridiculous heights, the power of the intellect while reducing the power of character which often arises out of feelings, honour, respect and overall character. The book Brad recommended several months ago, Cosmology identified the change from a society that allowed the differences of individuals to flourish, to one in which rationality decreed there is a right and wrong way. We moved in my opinion from an analog society to a digital society, but natures way, the animals way is analog, it is only man who sees right and wrong - the digital decision. Our current mess is the result of a million - million right decisions. Perhaps a few more decisions that could not be justified by rationality and were made from character might have given us a much different world. ramble... strawmen stuff. Just because we strive for rational decision making, that doesn't mean that individuality should somehow suffer; and decisions do not have to be "digital" always. Eva Dear Eva: Reading the morning paper, I read a book review of "Letters to Kennedy by John Kenneth Galbraith. To bolster my argument that character often will produce better decisions than rationality, I will quote a quote. Quote: There's also a discussion on whether what is now known as "the Kennnedy tax cut," a highly successful economic stimulus, was needed. Galbraith thought not: "Too much about the tax cut has to be explained. The unemployed man has to be told that we cannot much increase his benefits but we can reduce the taxes on the stiff who has a job. We will have to explain - indeed I will have to explain - to the underdeveloped lands why we can afford only fairly modest aid programs at a time when we are cutting taxes at home." To me these are comments of character intelligence rather than rationality. Obviously, Kennedy's advisors had come up with the idea that reducing taxes would put more money in the hands of the consumer - a rational and logical thought - which would increase the demands for goods and services - which would improve economic activity - and because the working guy could buy more he would feel beholden to the Democrats and be more inclined to vote for Kennedy in the next election. This is all logical and rational thinking. However, Galbraith brings to the fore the unexplored consequences for which Kennedy is also responsible - the plight of the poor and unemployed American and the commitments and promises made to other countries in terms of foreign aid. Neither of which is rational but matters of honour and responsibility. Given that a leader who makes decisions based on morality rather than rational self interest, the possibility exists that more respect, honour, and trust will be generated which will increase the relationship between those governing and those governed. In my sense of our current historical position, the rational argument has become the de facto operating procedure in which any lie which serves the goal of self interest is preferable to any action which may be morally right and perhaps not serve the goal of self interest has become the dominant paradigm. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
Re: The X Files (deus ex machina excuses)
It depends how you define and in whose interest rational thought is used. Eva ... In my sense of our current historical position, the rational argument has become the de facto operating procedure in which any lie which serves the goal of self interest is preferable to any action which may be morally right and perhaps not serve the goal of self interest has become the dominant paradigm. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The X Files (deus ex machina excuses)
no thank you. It doesn't sound inspiring to me, but if you can sum up your Big Truth and Virtue stuff (I don't think there are things like that) in a couple of paragraph, I'll read it. Eva YOU REALLY HAVE AN INTERSTING LIST THERE: "Culture and Future! I would like to make you aware of http://www.metaself.org/ maybe you start with: A Metaphor Model of the Self http://www.metaself.org/model/ Social Relationships and Virtues http://www.metaself.org/model/2realm.html this are the basics I fully subscribe to and can recommend after reading night and day. It is the basic building block also to my work and I would have loved to haveit 8 years ago. WE CAN BRIDGE NOW THE CANYON and GO BEYOND WORDS AND LANGUAGES! Heiner - SHARING FUTURES http://newciv.org/cob/members/benking/ WHAT IS NEW !?: ON CREATIVITY UNDERSTANDING http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/genre/benking/landscape.htm http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/genre/benking/visual/visualization.htm http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/uiu_plus/isss98/house-of-eyes.htm ** Wisdom, imagination and virtue is lost when messages double, information halves, knowledge quarters,... ** [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The X Files (deus ex machina excuses)
Jay Hanson: Unfortunately, there are no other alternatives. Once we overshot carrying capacity we were left with only two choices: #1. Be managed like farm animals. #2. Dieoff like wild animals. Dear Jay: I do not like either/or answers, I much prefer to seek the possibilities of and/and answers. Given, for the sake of argument, that we have overshot carrying capacity, the third answer might be self management. In other words, when a truth becomes self obvious - which the carrying capacity metaphor is not to the majority of the worlds population, then change becomes possible - voluntary change. Also, we have used a very successful strategy in the past which is war. Though morally I don't condone war, it has successfully reduced populations and provided the needed impedus for new thought and new paradigms. It is true, there are some ghastly tales around like Thor Hyderals books on Easter Island about when a population exceeds the carrying capacity of an environment. However, even in that nightmare, there were eventually survivors who did not have to resort to gamekeepers and found the strength to start over again with reduced resources. In nature, there are a number of examples of massive population die-off such as lemmings and the seven year rabbit cycle that still retain the possibility of regeneration without an outside authority, the gamekeepers you postulate. I would suggest that catastrophe is one of natures strategies for eliminating gamekeepers, as in the case of the rabbits, the foxes and wolfs also die off. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
Re: The X Files (deus ex machina excuses)
So what's wrong with going the whole hog to have a proper direct democracy? If you leave capitalism intact, power stays with those who own the economy. How can you ensure an independent executive power? Why are obvious questions such as these ignored in favour of some really old-fashioned and tried and failed ideas? Eva (perplexed) (as always) Thomas: This does seem to be the crux of all systems of government. How to ensure that those in charge remain "virtuous to its stated goals". It would seem to me that an agency like a "supreme court" - though not legal, I'm fishing here, an agency that had the power to delve into every aspect of the governing individuals at every level, I guess sort of like our Ombudsman in Canada, would provide the necessary transparency or monitoring. This agency would have to be totally independant and also be allowed a far amount of personnel to be effective. Of course, what if they become corrupted, then perhaps and agency to monitor the agency. Well, it's pretty fuzzy thinking here but, Jay, I think you have identified the right criteria. What happens is that over time, those who govern lose their perspective and start to see the worlds problems from the view of the continuance in power. This leads to the two levels of government you alluded to, the backroom and the front room. If we could have complete transparency and an incorruptible watchdog function and perhaps a totally unbaised press, ie not owned by anyone who stands to profit individually or corporately we would go a long way to improving the art of governing. I would be interested in more thoughts in this area. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The X Files (deus ex machina excuses)
At 11:28 PM 8/26/98 GMT, you wrote: So what's wrong with going the whole hog to have a proper direct democracy? Absolutely nothing wrong with a proper Direct Democracy. You will always get my support on this one, Eva For those who have yet to grapple with Direct Democracy, see http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/ Colin Stark Canadians for Direct Democracy Vancouver, B.C. http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ( Listserv) If you leave capitalism intact, power stays with those who own the economy. How can you ensure an independent executive power? Why are obvious questions such as these ignored in favour of some really old-fashioned and tried and failed ideas? Eva (perplexed) (as always) Thomas: This does seem to be the crux of all systems of government. How to ensure that those in charge remain "virtuous to its stated goals". It would seem to me that an agency like a "supreme court" - though not legal, I'm fishing here, an agency that had the power to delve into every aspect of the governing individuals at every level, I guess sort of like our Ombudsman in Canada, would provide the necessary transparency or monitoring. This agency would have to be totally independant and also be allowed a far amount of personnel to be effective. Of course, what if they become corrupted, then perhaps and agency to monitor the agency. Well, it's pretty fuzzy thinking here but, Jay, I think you have identified the right criteria. What happens is that over time, those who govern lose their perspective and start to see the worlds problems from the view of the continuance in power. This leads to the two levels of government you alluded to, the backroom and the front room. If we could have complete transparency and an incorruptible watchdog function and perhaps a totally unbaised press, ie not owned by anyone who stands to profit individually or corporately we would go a long way to improving the art of governing. I would be interested in more thoughts in this area. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The X Files (deus ex machina excuses)
So who decides on who are to be the elite ones? Everyone with a phd? But I know a few really stupid professors... Why do you think such an "arrangement" could be worked out, but democracy cannot be made effective? You watched/read too much sci-fi, they seem to come up forever with wierd aristocratic hierarchies, like if in a well functioning future the social relations must relapse into some sort of medieval setup. I see no reason for this. The trend must be towards real democracy, now that we have enough experience about all the possible hindrances so far. You have contempt for Joe Sixpack, but he/she is as intelligent as you are, if allowed to be. We should use our collective creativity without categorising and exploiting the majority. You are definitely into this "deceiving the thick masses by the clever and good hearted elite" idea. Don't be so sure it works forever. Eva So who decides who takes the role of the gamekeeper and the role of animals? This is really an interesting problem and I have been thinking about it for years. I haven't found anyone willing to discuss it calmly because most people become hysterical at the very thought. Here is a very short outline of my present thinking: The problem is how to construct a global political "system" that can remain virtuous to its stated goals? My first cut at the problem is to separate what might work from what would be politically acceptable to Joe Sixpack. In other words, I assume there would be "internal" politics and an "external" politics. (We probably have this kind of system now with Ivy League elites pulling the levers in the back room.) My next cut is to divide the new "internal" system into two more parts: "administration" and "policy making". Policy-making would be done by an elite group of scientists and religious and cultural leaders. Administration would be done by computers. Obviously, working all this stuff out would take an enormous amount of effort. I haven't taken the time because I haven't seen any willingness to junk the present system. Jay [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The X Files (deus ex machina excuses)
Eva Durant: So who decides who takes the role of the gamekeeper and the role of animals? Jay Hanson: Policy-making would be done by an elite group of scientists and religious and cultural leaders. Administration would be done by computers. Obviously, working all this stuff out would take an enormous amount of effort. I haven't taken the time because I haven't seen any willingness to junk the present system. There have been serious attempts to work it out. I recall many years ago seeing a book written by scientists of the day working for the Nazis. In it there were pictures of how you could tell the difference between Aryans and Jews by the way they sat on the toilet. Just a little later, their colleague engineers, inspired, aided and abbeted by their cultural and religious leaders, designed gas chambers and developed Cyclone B.I also recall seeing publications on eugenics, honest proposals to improve the human species by selective sterilization and breeding, some of which were actually carried out by computers - human ones because we were still some distance from the microchip. Some of the things that the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission is finding out also suggest that cultural and religious leaders and scientists have given considerable thought to how the human race might be improved. Jay, I take your postings very seriously because they contain important messages, but, sorry, I can't buy this one. While you appear to be a cynic, you are really the highest of idealists. You expect far too much of us poor human animals, and want to save us from ourselves. And for what? Simply to be administered, bred and culled on a scientifically managed game farm? Thank you, but I'm going to go have a beer with Joe Sixpack. Ed Weick
Re: The X Files (deus ex machina excuses)
If it is all in our genetic fate, why we bother doing anything? We should go for rape and pillaging, that will make us again blissfully sustainable? What's your point? We are human beings and at our best we can consciously control all of our behaviour - when we are aware of all the conditions that may influence our thinking. We have every chance to behave totally to contrary to any expectations, and with a bit of luck - we will eventually. Our only choice is to go for this chance, rather than capitulate to a barbaric new-dark-age you have such a faith in. There is no god-module, we survive well without deception, all we need is a society where we may become whoever we want to be, without all the present constraints. Eva This endless minting of excuses is simply part of our genetic propensity to deceive ourselves. It makes us better liars. Jay -- www.dieoff.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The X Files (deus ex machina excuses)
Eva Durant wrote:
I saw one estimate that behavior was 1/.3 genetic, 1/3 family, and 1/3
culture. The point is that if we are ever going to solve these problems, we
are going to have to stop making excuses and start dealing with people as
they really are: animals.
If it is only one-third genetic, then only 1/3 animal.
Back to the conscious control of the social/economic
environment that determines the family and the culture...
[snip]
I think the question is: Which side and society and the
family on? Are they preflective ethnicity which, for
all practical purposes is as natural as genetic
inheritance, and which -- as long as we're into metaphors --
looks a lot like a semiotic virus which infects persons
to perpetuate itself ("social customs", from FGM to the
Free Market, etc.)?
Only when family and culture teach the individual to
adopt a critical/reflective stance vis-a-vis themselves
(and everything else...)
do they rise above the unaccountable
anonymity of the Unconscious to true selfhood which
is the capacity to give(and the passion for
giving...) an accounting for oneself:
"Yes, we have raised you. But that doesn't mean we've
done what's right. You must scrutinize this social
world in which you find yourself, and see how far you find it
truly good, and you should seek all possible outside
perspectives to help you get as rich a possible
basis for your critical evaluation of us. Of course
we hope you will approve of how we have treated you, and
that you will want to contribute into the continued
development of *our* society. But we'll try to be
more suspicious of your compliments and more
receptive to your criticisms. And, so long as we can
afford it, we'll try to work with you if you don't like
how we've treated you, for you had no choice where
you were born and reared, and, now,
there may well be nowhere better for you to go. Of
course such tolerance must have its limits, but it
is the role of power to dispense largesse, not of
weakness to be made even weaker in the service of power."
*We* will keep trying, and we hope you will choose
to help"
Well, how many "cultures" address each child and
worker that way every day? Those that
do have either risen above animality, or ennobled
animality to a new height, however you wish to use
words. Mens sana in corpore sano is a delight
for both self and others.
\brad mccormick
--
Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but
Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world.
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA
---
![%THINK;[SGML]] Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
Re: The X Files (deus ex machina excuses)
Jay Hanson wrote: From: Durant [EMAIL PROTECTED] If it is all in our genetic fate, why we bother doing anything? We should go for rape and pillaging, that will make us again blissfully sustainable? What's your point? I saw one estimate that behavior was 1/.3 genetic, 1/3 family, and 1/3 culture. The point is that if we are ever going to solve these problems, we are going to have to stop making excuses and start dealing with people as they really are: animals. Ah! Bue what *kind* of animals? Like our closest relatives, the peaceable pygmy chimps who hold their society together with liberal sexual gratification of just about everybody by just about everybody else? Cuckoos who avoid having to parent by depositing their eggs in other birds' nests and tricking the other birds into raising them as their own? Over-sized beavers whose dams drastically modify the natural ecosystem? Horses, who, even though vegetarian, are alert and active? Cows, who are eponymously "bovine"? Clear-sighted and high flying eagles? Or blind burrowing moles? Or maybe that animal we uniquely are: the being for which its being can become a theme of disciplined and sustained mutative inquiry over generations? Shall we be weak animals like Darwin and Stephen Hawking, or strong ones like Mike Tyson and OJ? Shall we protect the week, or "expose" them (or maybe *eat* them?)? Yes man is an animal (I have sores in my mouth, which surely are an index of animality -- minerals don't get them, e.g.). I do not find the man-is-an-animal metaphor (self-conceptualizaton) very rich or enriching -- unless we're perhaps talking about reorganizing social life and genetic engineering so that everyone would have a body in which they could always take delight. Others may like comparing what they do on Wall Street or on the tennis court to dog fights, dogs sniffing each other's behinds, etc. But, please, if you do, don't think I've signed up to participate in *your* fantasy. \brad mccormick -- Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world. Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] 914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA --- ![%THINK;[SGML]] Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
Re: The X Files (deus ex machina excuses)
Re: your "next/second cut" below: Science, Religion, and Culture carry with them no certainty of moral rectitude. (Albert Teller, Ian paisley, Woody Allen ... personages most would regard as unworthy of moral emulation.) Better leave one chair for a "sixpack" at the table. Harv (an otherwise lurking "sixpack") Jay Hanson wrote: From: Eva Durant [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's back to the game manager problem again. So who decides who takes the role of the gamekeeper and the role of animals? This is really an interesting problem and I have been thinking about it for years. I haven't found anyone willing to discuss it calmly because most people become hysterical at the very thought. Here is a very short outline of my present thinking: The problem is how to construct a global political "system" that can remain virtuous to its stated goals? My first cut at the problem is to separate what might work from what would be politically acceptable to Joe Sixpack. In other words, I assume there would be "internal" politics and an "external" politics. (We probably have this kind of system now with Ivy League elites pulling the levers in the back room.) My next cut is to divide the new "internal" system into two more parts: "administration" and "policy making". Policy-making would be done by an elite group of scientists and religious and cultural leaders. Administration would be done by computers. Obviously, working all this stuff out would take an enormous amount of effort. I haven't taken the time because I haven't seen any willingness to junk the present system. Jay
Re: The X Files (deus ex machina excuses)
From: Eva Durant [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's back to the game manager problem again. So who decides who takes the role of the gamekeeper and the role of animals? This is really an interesting problem and I have been thinking about it for years. I haven't found anyone willing to discuss it calmly because most people become hysterical at the very thought. Here is a very short outline of my present thinking: The problem is how to construct a global political "system" that can remain virtuous to its stated goals? My first cut at the problem is to separate what might work from what would be politically acceptable to Joe Sixpack. In other words, I assume there would be "internal" politics and an "external" politics. (We probably have this kind of system now with Ivy League elites pulling the levers in the back room.) My next cut is to divide the new "internal" system into two more parts: "administration" and "policy making". Policy-making would be done by an elite group of scientists and religious and cultural leaders. Administration would be done by computers. Obviously, working all this stuff out would take an enormous amount of effort. I haven't taken the time because I haven't seen any willingness to junk the present system. Jay
The X Files (deus ex machina excuses)
From: David Burman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Riane Eisler, in her books "The Chalice and the Blade" and "Sacred Pleasure", which report and interpret up-to-date interpretations of palaolithic archeology, shows that violence and domination are far from eing natural human traits. The is like saying the propensity for people to shoot other people isn't natural because we only started doing it in the last 500 years or so. But the ONLY important difference between the man of yore and the Joe Six-pack of today is the "system" he is embedded in. Apologists for human behavior resort to an infinite variety of "deus ex machina" excuses such as "agriculture", "politicians", "capitalists", "communists", "television", "alien abduction", "Ken Star", on-and-on ad nauseam. Of course this is utter nonsense. We screwed ourselves. This endless minting of excuses is simply part of our genetic propensity to deceive ourselves. It makes us better liars. Jay -- www.dieoff.com - deus ex machina deus ex machina (dA´es èks mä´ke-ne, -nä´, màk´e-ne) noun 1.In Greek and Roman drama, a god lowered by stage machinery to resolve a plot or extricate the protagonist from a difficult situation. 2.An unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot. 3.A person or event that provides a sudden and unexpected solution to a difficulty.
Re: The X Files (deus ex machina excuses)
From: Durant [EMAIL PROTECTED] If it is all in our genetic fate, why we bother doing anything? We should go for rape and pillaging, that will make us again blissfully sustainable? What's your point? I saw one estimate that behavior was 1/.3 genetic, 1/3 family, and 1/3 culture. The point is that if we are ever going to solve these problems, we are going to have to stop making excuses and start dealing with people as they really are: animals. It's back to the game manager problem again. Jay
