And the Iphone is as good as I thought.

AJ
AJ
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 1:51 pm
Location: Blue Mountains, New South Wales

Sun Jul 08, 2007 5:35 am Post

Yes, he blames his students for not understanding his subject. I reckon he should have a word with their teacher.

:D
"Writers are troublemakers. A psychotherapist tries to relieve stress, strain, and pressure. Writers are not psychotherapists. Their job is to give readers stress, strain, and pressure." - Sol Stein

User avatar
vic-k
Posts: 7135
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:23 am
Platform: Mac + Windows
Location: Protesting in the nude, outside ex Red Lion TESCO Store

Sun Jul 08, 2007 1:27 pm Post

AJ, good morning,
Your opening paragraph describes a group of people who did, and arguably, still do, wield a frighteningly powerful and lucrative influence over our lives, i.e. the gatherers,scribes and disseminators of knowledge. Any attempt at wresting control of that power-base from their grasp would now, as then, be met with a cornucopia of spurious rationales, in the resisting of that attempt.

`You` don`t have to take it as a given, that the vested commercial interest was at the heart of their protestations, that`s you prerogative. Knowing what I do (or think I do), about human nature, I`m inclined to think it was.

If your cynical reference to people growing up in extreme circumstances is directed at my recounting, of my upbringing in the 40s and 50s, then let me assure you, AJ, the only thing that I considered extreme about my upbringing, was the amount of love and affection lavished on his son, by a poor widower. A man who raised his child (as I did with mine), to neither disparage nor embrace ` concepts` of any consequence, before giving them their due consideration. If it isn`t directed at me, then do take it as a given, that I apologize for taking umbrage at the remark, undeservedly. However I can`t extend that apology on behalf of anybody else, who may take offense at the cynicism, implicit in your choice of words. Sorry AJ

That an evolutionary process is at work, involving our `means` of communication, per se, has never been an issue in this debate. What is an issue, one of a few; is our apparent impotence, indifference, unawareness of the dangers, inherent in the fatalistic acceptance, of a perceived inevitability, when it come to influencing, both the nature and the magnitude of the changes taking place, and their consequences. The ability to control the process, resides in the hands. of a very small but inordinately powerful vested interests group.

One of the more bizarre consequences of this evolutionary process, is the proliferation within our midsts of `Knob Caput Capatis` (dickhead)
Let`s have a closer look at the dick-head, AJ, shall we? Because you seem to be laboring under a misconception, as to what the term `dickhead` refers to.

In the Hairyarsed Welder`s lexicon, the term dick head does not refer to the young girl, 16 ish or so who last week approached and passed by yours truly, whilst having what appeared to be an ernest conversation with somebody via a mobile. I have to say appeared to be, because, her mood was only apparent through her facial expression. I couldn`t hear one fecking syllable she uttered. She, at such an early age, had already figured out that: when you use a telephone, just because you can`t see the person you`re talking to you don`t have to shout. The dickhead, AJ, is the one you can hear before they actually enter your field of vision.

Dickhead doesn't refer to all those people who realize that the world doesn`t revolve around them and try to lessen any impact they make on others. I`m in total agreement with you AJ, when you say that what other people do with technology is their business. It`s when they insist on making it mine, that I get irritated.

Can we examine you remarkable facility for `tuning them out`. Two questions on that front, AJ: 1) How do you do it? 2) aren`t you the one who posted your love of tuning `in` on peoples conversations; alcoholic mums etc.

If your fellow travelers are of the dickheadish persuasion, then the pleasure you derive from this audio voyeuristic pursuit, no matter how perverse it may be, is innocent enough, I suppose, under those conditions. Each to his own, I say. Some men have a love of heavy weights being tied to their scrotum, or a scantily clad dominatrix lashing them senseless with a feather duster.

AJ how would you tune out a woman negotiating a fairly gradual bend in the road, with one hand on the steering wheel, whilst holding a mobile to her ear with the other one, then letting go her hold of the steering wheel, in order to gesticulate franticly in mid air, whilst the vehicle begins to realign its trajectory on to the opposite side of the road? The vehicle ended up almost totally across the road before she made any effort what so ever to regain control. There were no oncoming vehicles in her immediate vicinity, so this incident resolved itself free from any mishaps. But, what if there had been one, and you happened to be the driver of that vehicle, AJ. How would you `tune out` a couple of tons of SUV suddenly swerving into your path, because the driver just happened to be a dickhead-ess.

I watched this happen, with a sense of disbelief that turned to dismay and disappointment at where we are and where we`re possibly heading.

So please don`t come back at me with more of the sanctimonious pseudo- intellectual drivel thats contained in your last post AJ. It kind of smacks of dickheadedness.

Vic
As a professional, you, are your one and only asset. Without integrity you are worthless, but with it, you are priceless.

User avatar
alexwein
Posts: 1063
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:30 pm
Platform: Mac
Location: Ashland, Oregon, USA
Contact:

Sun Jul 08, 2007 2:26 pm Post

vic-k wrote:Alexandria,
I`ve offended you, and I`m sorry, but I wasn`t ascribing the sentiments embodied within the words, "or "There`s nothing you can do...." to you. And I did actually say that `for me`, those words were, along with `" It aint going anywhere", a death sentence, to someone, somewhere. Those aren`t words I`d use lightly....You`re a big hearted woman Alex, who wants the best for everyone. I`m an old cynic who wishes things were better. But I wasn`t putting words into your mouth. I`ve too much respect for you to do that.


Thanks, Vic. I appreciate that. I feel the same way about you and Amber and all the folks in this discussion. So very thoughtful. I do have my cynical moments, believe me. I grew up in a family of social activists and the how and why of how to get people to move in a different direction has plagued me my entire life. I am actually inclined to agree with you about people. I've been around 52 years myself--long enough to know you are justified in your cynicism. What I've come to is that, despite my own cynical tendencies and despite the fact that it might have absolutely no impact whatsover, it's what I'm here to do--try to change things, or perhaps I should say, try to change people or at least get them to 'think' about who they are and is this who/what they want to be. I wrote my dissertation on the phenomenology of evil, but at it's heart it is about human action.

And I also truly believe that all of the angles at which we come to this discussion are important, including looking at the impact, mostivations for and meaning behind technology et al. I have my own perspective, which I feel strongly, but I've also been affected by the words presented here and have thought about them. I mean it when I say, this is a VERY interesting group of folks!

Alexandria
Inspiration is for amateurs...the rest of us just show up.
-Chuck Close
http://alexandriapallas.com

User avatar
alexwein
Posts: 1063
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:30 pm
Platform: Mac
Location: Ashland, Oregon, USA
Contact:

Sun Jul 08, 2007 3:00 pm Post

Hi Amber. I definitely never thought of you as a silly person for thinking the way you do. I find your perspective to be very evocative, especially since I find you to be a really, REALLY intelligent, thoughtful person. So anything you say I'm going to take quite seriously. I just have a different perspective on the connections you are making. I don't think of artifacts as evil. If there is evil, to me, it's found in human action.

But I also find your perspective on things quite, quite interesting! It makes me think and opens up a different way of looking at things. I'm not a technology 'apologist.' I'm surely not arguing for it. I don't give a shit about technology at bottom. That may seem onerous to you, but to me, at bottom, it's just stuff. I find it to be a pain in the ass, quite frankly, to have to lug around gadgets, but I lug them around because they make my life work better. My iPod allows me to take around all my digital research material without having to lug around my computer. And my Treo. It took me months to decide to spend the money, but after my 3rd forgotten appointment, I broke down and got something that will beep at me and not stop till I listen! I call it my second brain, and I need one!

But that's just a personal point of view. I also see a way that this 'stuff' can definitely impact us and the way it can be created and used with the express purpose of impacting us in a particular way, and that can be quite evil in my mind. Like developing a bomb big enough to kill millions of people for that express purpose. And then, of course, using it. But of course, it is the intention with which it was created that is evil, not the bomb itself.

I also have had the sense that human creations can take on a life of their own. I don't mean a la Blade Runner, where the creations have the ability to think and even feel, etc. But even 'insentient' creations, human and social artifacts. That perhaps get ahead of our ability to control. I think this happens quite a bit, actually. I still wouldn't call these creations evil, but I do think they absolutely shape us. I can see (and have heard/read) arguments for how they might shape us in very negative ways and also very positive ways. But they do definitely have the potential to change us either way.

But in any case, I would hope that people would be willing to stick it out, even if others don't get what they are saying, and clarify. I personally experience a real dearth of meaningful discussions about such things and it adds greatly to my life to have them! And just so I'm clear, I never, ever want to shut anyone down! I may disagree, and I'll say so, but I also recognize I may be quite wrong and that, at the least, I am very likely limited in some way in how I see things!

Alexandria
Inspiration is for amateurs...the rest of us just show up.
-Chuck Close
http://alexandriapallas.com

User avatar
AmberV
Posts: 24424
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 4:30 am
Platform: Mac + Linux
Location: Ourense, Galiza
Contact:

Sun Jul 08, 2007 5:41 pm Post

AJ wrote:Campaign against it if you must. I believe it will have about the same effect on the world beyond yourself as does the rhetoric of the 15th and 16th centuries on your practice of reading.


This is a tired argument, and faulty. At least you took it beyond a few decades though! Even still, you are talking about an extremely small wedge of time in the total duration of the speaking, conscious human being. When you see everything going on at a nearly biological mirror tens of thousands of years (and possibly hundreds of thousands if you count the non-verbal stretches), and then this outrageous spike, this hard blip, at the very end of it all where suddenly the relationship between our biological imperatives, and the manners in which we occupy our conscious thoughts, have become completely divorced from one another.

You are simply highlighting two different aspects of an identical rift!

Does this mean that the entire notion of modern civilisation (and I mean modern in the grand scope of things. I'm including late era Greece in this) is a bad move? Not in the least, but it does mean that nearly every single thing we do today is embedded in a reality that our minds and bodies are only haphazardly connected to. This has become even more radical in the past 100 years, and it is only speeding up.

The anthropomorphistic tendency we all have is very clear evidence, in my mind, that we do not yet fully comprehend what we have created. We form emotional bonds with things that will never be able to reciprocate that bond. We know it, but we do it anyway. Becoming emotionally bonded to a person that has no feelings for you at all is generally considered to be an unhealthy thing. Why do we not have the same instinct when forming an emotional bond with an object? My opinion is that we have had each other around for a lot longer than things, and thus we have a built-in protection against hurting ourselves in interhuman relationships. But we do not have much protection, if any at all, in our relationship with products and created things. This is one of those weaknesses that I alluded to earlier that advertisers have built an entire industry around. You see people, violently sometimes, defending an object (such as a BMW) that they might not even own or even dream of every owning. What could possibly explain such behaviour, other than the fact that we are swamped with signals encouraging us to emote towards this particular car. Beyond the signals, we apply our own unique systems of "chemistry" and become attracted to some objects over others. This is only intensified as one becomes more interested in that object and gathers information about it.

Another point: Why is it that we, nearly universally, feel that rapid development is something to be cautious about? Be it the cheap, portable book, or the mobile orchestras we can all plug into our ears anywhere we want. Do you really feel it is wise to brush aside such a collective pool of hesitancy as "rhetoric?" I think all trends should be paid only the utmost seriousness, and especially those that are nearly universal. Brushing these deeper causes aside as rhetoric is a more grievous form of rhetoric than the original statements could ever hope to be. And trust me, I'm watching your anti-anti mindset very closely! :)

The rest of your post, I'm not going to mess with. I feel the statements you are making have already been amply addressed in prior posts from this thread.

Alex,

You should know I have the utmost respect for you, too. Much of my longer post above was not actually meant to be aimed at what you said, but some of the prior comments on this thread that caused me to give up on it for a while. It had degenerated into a group of people thoughtlessly shrugging off any of the deeper currents in this debate, and simply going after the easy pickings. The NRA answers, as I put it.

I consider myself to be fairly cynical, especially considering my age, and I simply love a good debate.

My comment made way back in which I used the word 'vile,' was never meant to mean that the iPhone itself, or any other cell phone is actually vile, in the anthropomorphic sense described above. What I was attempting to convey is that the iPhone is perhaps the first successfully designed product that can bring a number of common vices into one portable device (and that word, incidentally, has a more than circumstantial connexion with vice, but that is more amusing than relevant). It is the abuse of these technologies which is vile, and abuse means a human must be involved. It is the relationship between the technology and the human that is in error here. A technology that makes it simple to drop further away from reality, wherever you are, has a big potential for creating this sort of "vile" relationship. That is really all I meant by that statement.

You've stated that technology is "just stuff," and then used the rest of your post to illustrate how it is more than just stuff. I would appreciate clarification on this. Do you mean that we should philosophically regard things as just stuff, but that it is our tendency to not? With that I would tentatively agree, insofar as we clearly separate Living and Cogitating. Here we are cogitating on the impact of this stuff, and it is important there to not diminish the impact it has on our lives. But when living with things, we should strive to regard it as stuff; to not form emotional bonds with our computers; our software; our cars; our bicycles. I would have to give that one some thought. But clearly, what this is suggesting is in my experience, not how most people go about their lives. Most people rarely seem to step out of the living mode and truly cogitate upon the full impact of their actions and existence. That could, in all reality, merely be the cynic in me coming out. :)
.:.
Ioa Petra'ka
“Whole sight, or all the rest is desolation.” —John Fowles

AJ
AJ
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 1:51 pm
Location: Blue Mountains, New South Wales

Sun Jul 08, 2007 6:10 pm Post

vic-k wrote:If your cynical reference to people growing up in extreme circumstances is directed at my recounting, of my upbringing in the 40s and 50s...

No, it's not directed at you, Vic, nor at anyone I've encountered here. A friend of mine who was born in the mid-1960s grew up without radio or recorded music, because her music-teacher mother thought those things would corrupt her appreciation of live orchestral music. So I didn't want to assume that everyone grew up with printed books just because I did.

vic-k wrote:Can we examine you remarkable facility for `tuning them out`. Two questions on that front, AJ: 1) How do you do it? 2) aren`t you the one who posted your love of tuning `in` on peoples conversations; alcoholic mums etc.

I don't think of it as remarkable. I probably do it much the same way as I can walk up a flight of steps without being able to tell you how many there were. Yes, I do enjoy overhearing others' conversations when they're interesting. When they're not interesting, they don't bother me.

I can't tell you how I would respond as a driver. I don't drive.

Vic, I don't like you calling me sanctimonious or a dickhead. I want you to stop calling me names.
"Writers are troublemakers. A psychotherapist tries to relieve stress, strain, and pressure. Writers are not psychotherapists. Their job is to give readers stress, strain, and pressure." - Sol Stein

AJ
AJ
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 1:51 pm
Location: Blue Mountains, New South Wales

Sun Jul 08, 2007 6:40 pm Post

AmberV wrote:...the relationship between our biological imperatives, and the manners in which we occupy our conscious thoughts, have become completely divorced from one another.

I don't believe you speak for me there, Amber. One of my life's projects since my early teens has been to become continually more aware of my body, my feelings, my intuitions, my thoughts, and how they relate, to each other and to my environment. You do not know what occupies my conscious thoughts. I am aware of my tendencies towards anthropomorphism and commodity relations, and I counter them consciously when I feel the need. Advertisers find me a very hard sell. I have most of what I need, and when I want to make a purchase, I examine my feelings and motivations carefully. I am not helpless in the face of mass-media messages and signals.

AmberV wrote:Another point: Why is it that we, nearly universally, feel that rapid development is something to be cautious about?

I don't.


AmberV wrote:Do you really feel it is wise to brush aside such a collective pool of hesitancy as "rhetoric?"

I didn't. I described as rhetoric the views of those in the 15th and 16th centuries who opposed printing - not your views, nor anyone else's views. I don't want you putting words in my mouth, Amber.

AmberV wrote:And trust me, I'm watching your anti-anti mindset very closely! :)

I don't believe I'm anti-anti anything. You're entitled to your hesitancy, doubts, and concerns. You'll work them out.
"Writers are troublemakers. A psychotherapist tries to relieve stress, strain, and pressure. Writers are not psychotherapists. Their job is to give readers stress, strain, and pressure." - Sol Stein

User avatar
alexwein
Posts: 1063
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:30 pm
Platform: Mac
Location: Ashland, Oregon, USA
Contact:

Sun Jul 08, 2007 7:59 pm Post

AmberV wrote:

"You've stated that technology is "just stuff," and then used the rest of your post to illustrate how it is more than just stuff. I would appreciate clarification on this. Do you mean that we should philosophically regard things as just stuff, but that it is our tendency to not? With that I would tentatively agree, insofar as we clearly separate Living and Cogitating. Here we are cogitating on the impact of this stuff, and it is important there to not diminish the impact it has on our lives. But when living with things, we should strive to regard it as stuff; to not form emotional bonds with our computers; our software; our cars; our bicycles. I would have to give that one some thought. But clearly, what this is suggesting is in my experience, not how most people go about their lives. Most people rarely seem to step out of the living mode and truly cogitate upon the full impact of their actions and existence. That could, in all reality, merely be the cynic in me coming out."

Actually, you point out something I myself noticed in my own post. :) So quite right to ask for clarification. You actually stated it rather well already. I would first have answered it's the difference between my own perspective regarding 'stuff,' and a more general perspective. Yes, the way I stated, the way I regard it, that is something I hold as normative in my life. I think we get lost, in a way, when we focus on the external things we create, use, etc., and come to believe has real import. As you said, striving to stay focused on who we really are, what is really important, and not form bonds with the stuff. I would also agree heartily that this is not how most people live their lives. I think that is why I shifted. I do recognize that. That is where I think starting with the 'stuff' and the impact it has on us, etc., could be quite worthwhile, since I think that is where most people are focused. I still would want to get to what I see as the root, the heart of the matter. Like what you said about the iPhone and how it can feed into this really distorted relationship between technology and people. Now THAT sounds really interesting to me, stated that way. So looking at what we create, etc., as a starting point to get to this fundamental 'human' issue, i.e., what it creates in us, between us, the motives behind it, yes, I can definitely see that.

I have a very cynical side of me as well. You should hear some of the ways I refer to the 'masses.' It would make Aristotle's hair curl (he often said less than flattering things about the masses!). But at the same time, I figure, what the hell? No one may be listening, but this is what my years on the planet have taught me and I think it may have some value, so I'm going to put it out there. I have a pretty big part of me that believes we are well on the way to creating our own extinction and that a goodly number of my fellow humans are flaming crazy! I mean, how nuts is it to grab after things and money and power and extinquish ourselves in the process? You'd think anyone with kids or grandkids would be marching in the streets to protect the future viability of the planet!!

But I accept this, in the sense that I acknowledge reality!, and know it's quite possible it will mean nothing to anyone and all I can do is say what I believe and see and work things through, these very difficult human knots, with as much integrity as I can muster. I think, at bottom, really, that's all we have to fall back on. Our own honesty and integrity and others of a like mind. Doesn't mean we agree, in fact, the disagreement is very, very fruitful in my experience.

I thought of this image I love, the one about the people in a dark room all feeling the elephant. Each person feels a different part of it and says 'this is the elephant,' and each one's perspective is different and they are all right! And by listening to each other instead of insisting on one perspective above all others, the understanding of what the elephant really is becomes more expanded and enriched. Something like that, anyway.

Enough waxing philosophical. I'm not sure I responded adequately to your request for clarification. Let me know if I haven't!

Alexandria
Last edited by alexwein on Sun Jul 08, 2007 8:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Inspiration is for amateurs...the rest of us just show up.
-Chuck Close
http://alexandriapallas.com

User avatar
alexwein
Posts: 1063
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:30 pm
Platform: Mac
Location: Ashland, Oregon, USA
Contact:

Sun Jul 08, 2007 8:04 pm Post

AmberV wrote:

"My comment made way back in which I used the word 'vile,' was never meant to mean that the iPhone itself, or any other cell phone is actually vile, in the anthropomorphic sense described above. What I was attempting to convey is that the iPhone is perhaps the first successfully designed product that can bring a number of common vices into one portable device (and that word, incidentally, has a more than circumstantial connexion with vice, but that is more amusing than relevant). It is the abuse of these technologies which is vile, and abuse means a human must be involved. It is the relationship between the technology and the human that is in error here. A technology that makes it simple to drop further away from reality, wherever you are, has a big potential for creating this sort of "vile" relationship. That is really all I meant by that statement."

Nothing to disagree with here! You know, I really have had the thought that much of what we are saying is in agreement, but we are dealing with semantics or the need to just clarify things a bit.

"(and that word, incidentally, has a more than circumstantial connexion with vice, but that is more amusing than relevant)."

This is intriguing! Care to expand on this?
Inspiration is for amateurs...the rest of us just show up.
-Chuck Close
http://alexandriapallas.com

User avatar
Juddbert
Posts: 1100
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:08 pm
Platform: Mac
Location: Penzance, Cornwall, UK

Sun Jul 08, 2007 8:16 pm Post

All a bit off track, don't you think? The thread, if I'm not mistaken, centred around the iPhone. But I do have to agree with AJ - personal insults have no place in this, or any other forum. I’m not above hurling the occasional brickbat myself, but I do try to ensure that it targets an argument, not an individual.
Back to the thread - I simply can’t wait for the dratted device to hit the UK. I suspect that, with very little arm twisting from Messrs Jobs and Co, I’ll be coughing up serious quantities of quids (informal GBP) in short order. But then, I always was a gadget freak.
Can't write right. Don't care neither. Er...either.

Scrivener 3.1.5 on macOS 10.15.6
Occasional player of the old Scappleodium...

User avatar
AmberV
Posts: 24424
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 4:30 am
Platform: Mac + Linux
Location: Ourense, Galiza
Contact:

Sun Jul 08, 2007 8:39 pm Post

I don't believe you speak for me there, Amber.


But, I wasn't. I was remarking upon cultural trends, not any individual person. I think it is wise that you fortify yourself, and exert your energy into staying rooted. Do you think all of this would be necessary if the culture trend did not exist? Your testimony of personal diligence is only necessary in a culture that encourages that which you defend against.

AmberV wrote:Another point: Why is it that we, nearly universally, feel that rapid development is something to be cautious about?


I don't.


Again, what does that have to do with my statement? You yourself brought up the examples of times where people have regarded new technologies with a sense of hesitancy, even dread.

I didn't. I described as rhetoric the views of those in the 15th and 16th centuries who opposed printing - not your views, nor anyone else's views. I don't want you putting words in my mouth, Amber.


Good, because I have no intention of doing that. I'll remind you that it was your post drawing a parallel between historic distrust of technology and modern distrust, in the context of a thread about whether or not the technology we are creating is moving humanity in a positive direction. I was responding to your parallel and statement.

The way I read it: You diminish the importance of caution because it is not possible to know how present developments will be developed into culture in the future. It's not a bad point, but I think we should also look at why that caution exists in the first place.

If that isn't at all what you meant, then please do clarify, because that is precisely how it reads to me.

You are taking this altogether far too personally. When it comes to regarding how "things" impact "humans" and how "humans" impact the production of "things", you cannot just extract a few isolated cases from the billions of humans that have ever walked the face of earth, and declare truth or errancy from those cases.

Of course, some level of abstraction is necessary, but saying: "Advertisers find me a very hard sell," means nothing in the context of this discussion. If advertising did not work on a large scale it would not exist at all. So let's focus on why it works, and how that relates to technology and humanity.
.:.
Ioa Petra'ka
“Whole sight, or all the rest is desolation.” —John Fowles

AJ
AJ
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 1:51 pm
Location: Blue Mountains, New South Wales

Sun Jul 08, 2007 8:41 pm Post

alexwein wrote:You'd think anyone with kids or grandkids would be marching in the streets to protect the future viability of the planet!!

I did my marching before I became a parent. I helped to organise our local grassroots Green/Peace movement. I found marching was a great way to get people emotionally involved and feeling like they were contributing to a solution without actually having to do much more than walk. It was also a great way to get people arrested.

For example, a friend of mine, who was in her twenties, got sick of getting phone calls from the police to come bail out her parents, who were frequent marchers. It put her right off politics of any sort.

When I confronted our local chief grassroots Green/Peace movement organiser over the numbers of our marchers getting arrested while our political objectives weren't getting achieved, he took me into his confidence about what his true objectives were. I can tell you they were nothing to do with the publicly stated causes.

The (ostensible) causes we marched for, back in the day, did not get resolved, and people continue to march. I believe change is effected, not by marching, but over decades, as one generation dies out and the next comes to the fore, practising what it has learned from the previous generation's example.

I've also come to believe that the planet is bigger and more resilient than anything we can throw at it. I'm not anxious about the future.
"Writers are troublemakers. A psychotherapist tries to relieve stress, strain, and pressure. Writers are not psychotherapists. Their job is to give readers stress, strain, and pressure." - Sol Stein

AJ
AJ
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 1:51 pm
Location: Blue Mountains, New South Wales

Sun Jul 08, 2007 8:59 pm Post

Amber, I don't want to appear rude, but I'm sorry, I'm not going to respond further. We just don't appear to be connecting, you and I. I respond to what you write, and then I read you saying that what I read is not what you meant, or you ask what that has to do with what you said. I share my experience with you as a counter-example to what you've said "we" do, and then I read you calling it an isolated case and irrelevant. I think we're talking past each other. I don't want to go on doing that.

Cheers.
"Writers are troublemakers. A psychotherapist tries to relieve stress, strain, and pressure. Writers are not psychotherapists. Their job is to give readers stress, strain, and pressure." - Sol Stein

User avatar
AmberV
Posts: 24424
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 4:30 am
Platform: Mac + Linux
Location: Ourense, Galiza
Contact:

Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:03 pm Post

I've also come to believe that the planet is bigger and more resilient than anything we can throw at it. I'm not anxious about the future.


I pretty much agree with this. I've certainly done my marching. I mean hell, in Portland it's hard to not get stuck in the middle of one protest or another while picking up groceries.

I once read an interesting article in a magazine called Adbusters, that really impacted the way I approach the issue of social awareness. I wish I had it in front of me so I could cite some of the references, but memory will have to do. The main point of the article is that the classic forms of protest; people marching in the streets, boycotts, et cetera; rarely get anything accomplished. It proposed an alternate way of passive protest that when translated to English is simple, "As-if." The idea is to live your life as if things already are the way they should be. To bring it to an example you brought up earlier: If you feel advertisements are invading our way of life, then live as if they do not exist. Ignore them, consciously if you have to, and never buy anything based on what you see in ads, those that you do accidentally see. The magic to this formula is two-fold. On the micro scale, you get to feel better about yourself. If you think something is wrong, you live as if it doesn't exist. This might even include civil disobedience for some people, it might just simply be altering the way you live. For example, I live as if cars do not exist. I do not own one, and I never request rides from anyone I know. I rely strictly upon where my feet can take me, and what public transportation can do for me when I need to go further than I can walk in a few hours. This makes me feel better about the way I live my life. The second part of living "as-if" is that enough people do it, society will change. So it is a process of education, living by example, and living for what is right. There have been documented cases (which again, I wish I could produce citations on this), where this form of passive protest has promoted radical change in society. I think the Portland area in general is a good example of the potential for this. There are a lot of people here who live as-if, and as a result we have a wonderful city in many respects. Way ahead of the curve compared to many other American cities, when it comes to environment, keeping massive corporations in cheque, and promoting local business of national and transnationals. It's not perfect, but I've live in a lot of places where even the concept of being a vegetarian is unheard of. Portland restaurants have to cater to vegetarians because there are so many living here. That is as-if in action, right there.

This is nothing novel, and it only an attempt to label what many intelligent people already do. I applied this criterion to my artistic motivations back in 2002, and I've been much happier with my art since then. I live as-if art is not a commodity. I make an active effort to avoid consumer driven art, and am an active proponent in movements like the Creative Commons. This helps me feel good about myself, and my role in society, and it sets an example to those around me.

To bring this back on topic to the thread: I think what Alex just posted above, and what I was saying earlier in a request for clarification are a big part of what is going to get humanity through these growing phases. We must live as-if the temptation to let these technologies rule our life is not a factor. Because it is our nature, we should consciously avoid the types of technology that tend to corrupt us. Again, this is really common sense, but if you live this way every day of your life, you will make a change. And if enough people around you start living that way too, it will change your community.
.:.
Ioa Petra'ka
“Whole sight, or all the rest is desolation.” —John Fowles

User avatar
AmberV
Posts: 24424
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 4:30 am
Platform: Mac + Linux
Location: Ourense, Galiza
Contact:

Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:05 pm Post

That's fine AJ. I'll be the first to admit that I get all fired up and bombastic in a debate. It's what I enjoy; and I often forget that not everyone else enjoys confrontation and sparring.
.:.
Ioa Petra'ka
“Whole sight, or all the rest is desolation.” —John Fowles