What you are suggesting is right, as always, Neil. And the answer is, as always, education. Do not object the porpoise that humans raising humans to become humans is the purpose and all is being said and done. - Sorry, but all this "we can do better if only we communicated better" rhetorics with knowing all the mistakes in the past but never in the present bores me. Let's escape to dream world then.
2013/1/29 archytas <nwterry@gmail.com>
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/
> > >> nursemaid/sex-object/inspiration all while getting published to prove
> > >> their value/worth to the institution.//Once one learns to read and
> > >> comprehend they can teach themselves most anything. A library card
> > >> will do...
>
> > >> On Jan 28, 6:39 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > Strangely enough Lee I do experience that! Brian Clough should have
> > >> > been England manager! One finds a lot of arrogant ignorance in
> > >> > classrooms and a lot of stereotyping by teachers and students.
> > >> > Teaching is often a weird experience and difficult to drop from the
> > >> > system - something pretty important to let learning take place. I
> > >> > don't use textbooks unless I've given up on a class that won't fend
> > >> > for itself (some demand spoonfeeding and find discovery learning
> > >> > terrifying). It's easy enough to get classes round to looking at work
> > >> > motivation in terms of the content and process theories of 'chapter
> > >> > three' and regurgitate what's there. To a man jack they'd all give up
> > >> > work if they won the lottery, suggesting a rather different theory.
> > >> > I'm sure the books are mostly wrong and that more than that the need
> > >> > for basic texts is a combination of bad teachers and commercial
> > >> > pressures to get bums through seats. I try to met people do what
> > >> > interests them, what they want to find and express - but as in all
> > >> > human activity there is a problem with people promising 'your own way'
> > >> > who don't mean it. And it's much more difficult today to defend
> > >> > students who don't toe to the party line. Is it possible to 'respect
> > >> > ignorance' but at the same time fail it? What is a person who wants
> > >> > to stay ignorant doing in a learning environment? Further down the
> > >> > line one often finds research leads one to the conclusion that what's
> > >> > taught is rubbish - something one might also achieve just in reacting
> > >> > to a teacher one doesn't like without doing the hard work! Our
> > >> > schools claim to be doing a better job than ever - but walking Max
> > >> > through litter and evading broken bottles left by the products of
> > >> > school education I'm not so sure. Still smirking on your comment me
> > >> > old China.
>
> > >> > On Jan 27, 11:13 pm, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > > Ahhh but what if majority opinion was to sway towards your way Archy?
>
> > >> > > On Sunday, 27 January 2013 22:56:22 UTC, archytas wrote:
>
> > >> > > > Much majority opinion, when tested, contains almost no evaluation,
> > >> > > > nothing on alternative views (other than suspicion) and no critique or
> > >> > > > originality. Many of the people involved are remarkably decent,
> > >> > > > hospitable and so on. The majority view on the science I've done is
> > >> > > > non-existent - people don't have the requisite languages.
> > >> > > > Anthropology throws up majority views across cultures that are frankly
> > >> > > > barking (as in our own histories and probably now). We might walk one
> > >> > > > of Andrew's thought parks and look back from the near future and
> > >> > > > realise neo-classical economics really was a barking mad control fraud
> > >> > > > that held us back from world peace - or that it saved us from a world
> > >> > > > once again dominated by religion.
>
> > >> > > > On Jan 27, 5:54 pm, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > > If you asked someone in the herd, if they considered themselves to be
> > >> > > > > part of the herd, or if their view was their opinion, I suspect that
> > >> > > > > you would hear a view entirely different than the opinion you just
> > >> > > > > voiced, Andrew. An opinion filled with judgments presented as fact
> > >> > > > > (or a an attempt of such,) twisted words and thinly veiled accusations
> > >> > > > > are always weak argument. Words like arrogant and vain are value
> > >> > > > > judgments. Herd mentality is a documented sociological phenomenon.
> > >> > > > > Most operating under herd mentality do not understand that the basis
> > >> > > > > of their thinking or opinion is fear. I would speculate that most
> > >> > > > > political rhetoric is aimed at forming herd mentality with fear. At
> > >> > > > > least, all the political ads in every city I have ever lived in the
> > >> > > > > US.
>
> > >> > > > > On Jan 27, 12:23 pm, andrew vecsey <andrewvec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > > > > > Heard mentality or herd mentality is not an opinion. It is just
> > >> > > > blindly
> > >> > > > > > following the loudest voice heard either out of fear or out of not
> > >> > > > having
> > >> > > > > > an opinion but taking it from the herd you chose to follow in order to
> > >> > > > > > conform. The majority opinion in not necessarily the loudest opinion
> > >> > > > you
> > >> > > > > > hear. The loudest opinion usually comes from an arrogant, vain and
> > >> > > > > > disrespectful person who is power hungry and has enough money for a
> > >> > > > > > brainwashing campaign. Like a dictator who disregards majority
> > >> > > > opinions as
> > >> > > > > > mindless.
>
> > >> > > > > > On Sunday, January 27, 2013 5:12:08 PM UTC+1, Molly wrote:
>
> > >> > > > > > > Of course, I meant herd mentality. Now, off to work!
>
> > >> > > > > > > On Jan 27, 10:00 am, Molly
>
> ...
>
> 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.
---
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.
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário