[MD] Intellectual and Social

[John Carl]

On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 6:20 AM, Krimel <Krimel at krimel.com> wrote:

John,
> You act like you expect Arlo or I to provide you with basic science
> education.


John the well rested replies:

What I expect, on a philosophical forum, is some backbone to your
assertions, postulations and beliefs.  When you offer me "Nova", I have to
pause and laugh my ass off and totally deride you because the assumption
that the highest quality intellectual cosmology will be found in an
understandable tv program just has that effect upon me, almost against my
will.

I can't help it.  I'm an existentialist.

How Existentialism instantiates in this particular discussion, is that it
really doesn't make any difference, to me here in my "now" whether the world
came into being at the behest of Zeus, Krimel/Avatar-Case's probabilistic
encapsulations or Robert M. Pirsig's creative hand.  Whatever.

I deem all such postulations as composed of varying degrees of intellectual
baggage, all of
which, I don't need.

What matters to me is how it affects me now.

What matters to you, from what you've said so far, is that you get
recognized as an expert authority based upon the quality of tv shows you
watch.

I'm more interested in postulations about  the projected future, than pet
postulations of the past.   Postulations of the future are more interesting
because they invite actual creative possibility.  The past is gone.


You do inadvertently bring up a good point though, about the transferal of
intellectual values through a socially controlled media.  You trust Nova,
you say.  You have empirical reasons in your head for doing so, all the
interesting insights gleaned over the years and put into your head.  It's
addicting, I'm sure.



An Existentialists recognizes  the good in the now.  That's all.  It's as
simple as can be.  What direction does my moral compass nudge me in the
moment.  I know something does, but I can't define it or capture or control
it.  Pirsig postulates rhetorically and Royce deduces dialectically this
moral force at the basis of all being, and I've encountered other good
thinkers on this list who have nurtured and realization of this in the
moment, which gives me a different perspective than you.



> When I recommend Nova you get all outraged and huffy. Whatever
> the problems with mass media and education in America are, I want to assure
> you emphatically that Nova is not among them. Nova is part of the solution.
> I have never seen a Nova program that did not challenge and enrich my
> thinking.
>

Yeah?  Well horseshit can make your  roses bloom.  I wouldn't recommend
making it the center of your values, though.

Oh... wait a minute.  Too late.


> In subject areas with which I am familiar, I am always delighted to see
> interviews with some of the top flight experts along with excellent
> summaries of their work and its impact on the field in question.



Sounds like we got here is a failure in communication.  What's needed, no
doubt, is just get on the same channel.  Why don't you write out the program
guide and guide me into cosmological consensus.  The hive mind you crave
would be born,  the nasty stench of individualism would be erased with it's
varying world views and cosmologies...  Christianity would be Krimelized..



> PBS does
> not work on the same business model as other mass media and the quality of
> their programming provides us all with a model of the media's power to be a
> positive force for education in society.
>
>

A seemingly positive force can often lead to hidden catastrophe.
 Programming people, children, with "the accepted truth" means that the
capacity for questioning accepted truth becomes latent in a people and they
go along with whatever force seems strongest in the moment.  If a knife
wielding man convinces you to let him fly your plane into a building, why,
who are the sheeple to object?

Once nurtured on the boob toob,  weaning becomes very difficult.



> I am tempted to suggest that your lambasting of Nova is evidence that you
> don't know shit from shine-ola.



You already have.  The only possible reticence you could have at this point
is fear of repeating yourself, thus setting up a pattern that your adversary
can use to do a probabilistic analysis of your entire thought process.

A trivial task, admittedly, and one I don't find at all enticing so never
fear.



> But in fact all it does is add support to
> the ample evidence already present in your posts. If you would like to
> improve the quality of your discourse here, adjusting you attitude toward
> Nova would be a positive and dynamic step forward.
>
>
Welll... thanks for the advice Krimel.  I never knew you cared.

About anything.



John