Re: Mind's Eye Re: Aliens

Brilliant mixed metaphors from Facil - 'golf and ducks' perhaps ... the boundaries of human thought lead mainly to head-banging against them.  Art and literature seem badly hindered (perhaps gelded) by genre boundaries - art less so away from the direct sales pitch and chocolate box picture.  The 'fourth wall' is a genre though Tony.  Molly points to an important problem - I sense this even if I can't frame the problem much and have no answers - a sign of boundary singularity.  I wrote a few chapters on Allan's theme of 'alien ethnography' some years back.

My view was that the aliens were studying a simulation of their own past here.  This is a new universe, created by beings from others.  The story cannot be completed without resort to magic concerning space-time travel (the quarantine problem of the speed of light).  In genre terms, one faces the long history of religious myths and Attic tragedy - sending humans into space to play out old soap opera or Nietzsche's pathetic journey into the molten pit of reality and coming back to no one listening (this is derivative of earlier work).  The aliens are either evil (what could they want of us unless our huge brains are cultivated as a sweetmeat?) or salvationists.  Let's face it, we aren't good enough at sex for that to be an interest.

The 'knock down' issues I sense as key.  I go queezy, almost robbed of words or representation - urged to 'paint it upside down Neil' things get worse - I feel like a talentless outsider under the 20 ton anvil of 'positive manners', expected to speak Undead languages of magic procedures like monetary policy.  Refusal leads to the instant knock down that I know nothing of economics and can be safely regarded as a blowhard,  Studying insects, one finds a consensus formation of piercing shrieks and hygiene procedures of fascists.

I saw a lecturer evaluation the other day.  The complaint was he set essays where there was no easy evidence to support the themes.  What a horror!  Most students prefer drivel like 'compare and contrast process and content theories of work motivation' - where the evidence (copying opportunities) lie in the answer given in chapter three of a standard management text not worth reading (they are never read, just copied from).

One is first engaged in systems theory when one looks at the world through the eyes of another.  Imagine a world in which work becomes embodied in machine.  One might write here on such as the move from cottage weaving to factories or invent a world through new eyes involving quite near technology that allows anyone to do accounting or even surgery.  Such thought is highly deconstructive - as was the move to factories, during enclosures and such.  The primary deconstruction concerns much we have come to hold dear.  Wittgenstein 'hides' ridicule in speaking of not doing it.  Economists and politicians still speak "groaf jawbs" without being shot.  When they talk of hard work they surely never do any - that's on slave boats producing our shrimp.  We resist technology because it takes the jawbs we hate, but need to keep the wolf from the door until we win the lottery.  Molly's beneficent god can seem to me like the blandishment of 'comparative advantage' - a key myth in economic control fraud - though I know she is talking of something else.  The god of comparative advantage will fix all while one rots on the unemployment heap with the magic wand of a dud 18th century thought experiment being waved to tell you it is for the greater good.

Dogs need a walk.  These are the most rational creatures I have found on Earth so far Allan!  About 20 yards up the road, Max will give me a look of gratitude and admiration.  The walls, as in containment (what do you keep anti-matter in when it enters into annihilation with matter?) are built with fear. 

On Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:27:35 PM UTC+1, Molly wrote:

Not all of us require someone else's blood to find our way.  I suppose in here we respect that.

On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:45:16 PM UTC-4, facilitator wrote:

To be convinced of a thing doesn't mean I am convinced of that thing.  To pose the question doesn't mean I do not know the answer, nor the reciprocal.  The answers I seek are the walls or boundaries of current thought.  I am happy to know I have convinced myself but often seek the voracity of others beliefs to test my own.  This is not an inquisition on my part but rather a building of walls that are sturdier than my own hands can sometimes make.  I do find it a bit odd that in this forum the birdie barely makes it over the net before a fowl is called.  Maybe it is a virus of social weariness.  Maybe each having given so much blood as to despise the thought of sharing an ounce of hemoglobin, coming up against the briars and thickets, as if something were to be forever lost in the searching.  Perhaps it is the laughs we don't share between the sips of tea.  Cast me in the shallow waters before I get too deep.

--

---
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/d/optout.