Message 02145 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT01690 Message: 19/89 L15 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] Germ of a new form of society ? [Philosophical Investigation]



On 8 Feb 2004 at 2:37, Adam Moran wrote:

I suspect / theorise that some of the self / other descriptive
techniques ... views of the world, so to speak ... are flawed if
adopted on mass.

Most ideas become flawed when adopted en mass unless they make use of
the need of systems to grow. For example if communism had enshrined a
dynamic constantly changing worldview at its heart, it would like
have succeeded (of course it wouldn't be communism anymore).

One thing very good about capitalism is that it rewards taking risk.
It's very risky to change or even often to suggest change because
people don't like change. But boy has a lot of change in the world's
population occurred primarily because of capitalism (many complain of
its culturally homogenising effect, but an ecosystem thrives not only
from diversity but also from /coupling/ between the diverse
elements).

it) important for only two reasons: (i) Incompleteness of number and
(ii) that rigorous logic rationalises all problems.

The key with point (ii) is that logic won't solve problems. As
Russell found, if you break everything into steps of logic you
recurse back onto yourself - a Hofstadler G.E.B. "strange loop" but
more accurately a fractal, or chaotic strange attractor.

Are these modeling techniques ?

They are in the sense that we use number-based maths when describing
and iterating a fractal equation and as all number-based maths is
necessarily incomplete, a fractal equation must be a modelling
system.

However that's not all bad. After the implications of Godel's work
sank in, quantum mechanics showed us that by observing we alter the
experiment and thus there cannot be any objectivity. What we see,
hear, touch and understand is *modulation* of our brain's feedback
loops by external stimuli - therefore what we perceive comes more
from within us than from without.

Therefore if we've achieved what we have despite this, the future
actually looks very rosy. Why? Because if we can accept that we don't
understand because of our internal limitations, we can learn to
understand by changing ourselves. This is very eastern spirituality,
but whereas before it was a "could be right, could be wrong" issue we
now know it has the full weight of science behind it.

Unfortunately most western individuals won't accept this and get very
angry if confronted with it. Surprisingly though western *societies*
excluding the Americans are proving very successful at internalising
these realisations.

Therefore I can predict with great confidence that future discoveries
in science will tend to be made by non-Americans, though that country
will continue to bleed the world dry of their best researchers.

Also none. Indeed my mind and your mind are inextricably linked and
the same, but also totally separate and different. The inevitable
consequence of recursion :)

Remembering that we belong to the lager world and greater universe do
you think it would be useful to theorise on how our collective *I* is
becoming our collective *We* in order to demystify this phenomenon
both to ourselves and others ?

I think this phenomenon is simpler than it seems. First and foremost
every human being is a product of their culture, their society and
their upbringing (in that order). Those three factors will influence
them far more than anything else.

Yet to each of us, it /appears/ like we have total control over what
and how we think and even more amazingly, we think we can change the
opinions of others when in fact with most people the more strange the
thing you wish to convince them of, the exponentially harder it gets.
Whether you're right or wrong is not particularly relevent.

Again ecosystem theory helps here. Each person resides in a state of
homeostasis with their immediate set of relations. If you try and
pull them out of that equilibrium, the more you do so the more
resistance you will meet.

Hence the best way of changing people's minds is to sow doubt - raise
points and issues which will nag at them subconsciously. Then when
they're ready (and it may take decades), they themselves will
initialise a new stage of growth.

This is why it'll be interesting to see how people handle software
designed around some very odd (for them) principles.

I think they'll be hit with reality ... which is far nearer to
Aristotle's description of phenomena than we have been lead to
believe.

I think they'll hate it passionately. People always hate anything too
new, but if it's got merit, and people are ready to grow in that
direction, it'll take off. The trick is to get the balance right -
not too radical to begin with.

Cheers,
Niall






_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/



Thread: oxenT01690 Message: 19/89 L15 [In index]
Message 02145 [Homepage] [Navigation]