[MD] Social Imposition ?

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net>:

Great post, Ham. Thanks. Merry Christmas to you and yours. Platt

 
> Arlo, Platt, SA, Case, Ian, Chin --
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, this entire debate is an "imposition" on our
> intelligence.  It reminds me of the monastic mind-teasers of the Dark Ages:
> "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"  When you define reality
> as so many fixed patterns, you force everything into a rubric made up of
> labeled slots, and whatever doesn't fit a particular slot has to be
> shoe-horned into it.
> 
> Why is all this necessary?   To make reality conform to Pirsig's emergence
> theory of the collective, a theory which the author himself could not
> adequately explain.
> 
> SA is the only one making any sense here:
> 
> > Ok, fine, you choose Pirsig's use of evolution here.
> > I'm not denying this topic.  Yet, I am wondering.
> > Since this thread is trying to clear-up intellectual and
> > social levels, but Pirsig couldn't do it.  Pirsig tried to
> > outline differences, but for some reason these
> > differences have not been clarified enough for anybody,
> > thus far, to notice distinctions.  Some have stated a
> > problem exists.  Others have gone their own way,
> > and the debate still goes on.
> 
> Ian began this thread on 12/15 by asking us to discuss a quantitive theory
> of quality that looks as if it had been extracted from a physics textbook:
> 
> > "The quality of an intellectual pattern is inversley proportional
> > to the level of effort (needed to be) imposed by society to
> > maintain that pattern, (but is proportional to how widespread
> > it is believed by free thinkers)."
> 
> In plain English, Ian wants to make the point that Society (i.e., mankind)
> is the great "spoiler" of what you folks regard as Intellect.  The more
> "thinking individuals" contribute to it, the less quality it has.  This has
> to be the most preposterous defense of the Intellectual Level concocted to
> date.
> 
> Do any of you really believe that there would be anything remotely
> resembling Intellect in the absence of individual cognizance?
> 
> Then, on 12/18, Case enlightened us with this observation:
> > As long [as] people were confined to talking amongst
> > themselves and repeating tales around the campfire
> > culture remained in a relatively primitive state.
> > Culture really only became a significant force
> > with the advent of writing.
> 
> Ignoring Platt's plea that credit should be given to somebody for this
> invention, Case argues on a technicality: it was not "one" person, he
> insists:
> > Writing itself was not invented by any one person.
> > It developed over thousands of years.
> 
> Well, so what?  It was developed by PEOPLE -- human beings with ingenuity
> and a desire to record their experiences and thoughts for others to
> evaluate.  Isn't that how culture advances?  After all, language and the
> alphabet weren't floating around somewhere as DQ for humans to discover.
> They had to be created and applied to parchment in order to communicate
> information.  Guttenberg's press, which Case characterizes as "an
> exponential shift in the process", was just one of a continuing series of
> man-made inventions that have enhanced the use of language, thereby
> accelerating man's access to information.
> 
> There was Henry Mill's typewriter (1714), Samuel Morse's telegraph (1835),
> Alexander Graham Bell's telephone (1876), Edison's phonograph (1877),
> Marconi's wireless telegraphy (1902), Deforest's triode tube (1906),
> Zworykind's CRT (1923), Eckert & Mauchly's UNIVAC computer (1951), and
> Robert Metcalfe's computer networking  (1973).  These are the names of major
> technology leaders who, of course, worked with developmental teams in the
> corporate world.  Without such human beings, or others with their expertise
> and persistence, we would not have radio, television, computers, and the
> Internet as communication tools.
> 
> Arlo's statement that "the entire process moves towards DQ" is an expression
> of faith in a doctrine.  That human culture advances to better serve the
> needs of mankind is an historical fact only for cultures that are free to
> recognize the needs and reward the innovators.
> 
> Emergence?  Exponential shifts?  Are these words supposed to transfer the
> inventiveness of man to some cosmic force that creates all these
> technologies in his place?  I mean, let's be serious, gentlemen.  The only
> "pattern" I can see as relevant to the history of human communication is the
> one that appears on my TV set when the broadcast day is over.
> 
> Merry Christmas to All,
> Ham





-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/