Re: Mind's Eye Re: A Call To Democratic Arms?

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 <nwterry@gmail.com> 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 <nwte...@gmail.com> 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 <nwte...@gmail.com> 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 <gabbyd...@gmail.com> 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 <nwte...@gmail.com>
>>
>> > > > 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 <allanh1...@gmail.com> 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 <nwte...@gmail.com> 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 <allanh1...@gmail.com> 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 <nwte...@gmail.com> 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 <nwte...@gmail.com> 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 »
>
> --
>
>
>



--
(
)
|_D Allan

Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.

Of course I talk to myself,
Sometimes I need expert advice..

--