Re: Mind's Eye Re: the majority opinion

I suppose most will assume I've got the 'injection thing' the wrong
way round with Seven-of-nine. I assume many things will be very
different in the future, including our breeding related wiring and
pleasure. I have to dream my science fiction as what the mejar (fits
better than media) offers is soap opera of the present. I have
trouble, even in the dreams, working out what we would do in the
vastness of space free of sexual chemistry, cowboys and indians and so
on. Great engineering projects spring to mind and have been part of
Star Trek. I don't fancy pruning vines like Jean-Luc's dad. I try to
get into what physical form would be, but being dreams there is a
takeover - currently a tall ship race in which I have to climb to the
top rigging to win at the finish line. Interest is a bit bleak in
dream-space - but something interesting is emerging - that human
literature is about as good as Vogon poetry. Even rigs has given up
on Russian classics to focus on the new venture. We don't know what
this is yet but are happy enough to wait in a condition not known on
Earth. We tried work ethics out on robots but they were far too smart
to fall of that!

On Jan 29, 11:12 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 <nwte...@gmail.com> 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 <nwte...@gmail.com> 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 <allanh1...@gmail.com> 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 <rigs...@gmail.com> 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 <rigs...@gmail.com> 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/
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--

---
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 minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.