[MD] Hive mind, more fully explicated

[John Carl]

DT,


> I just finish "Liberty" centered around a 4th of July parade that is the
> last one to be overseen by a 60 year old Lake Wobegon mechanic.
> I grew up close friends with a large Norwegian family. His cultural take on
> their peculiarities is spot on and I think sheds light on RMP too.
>

Yes, I agree.  I think the midwestern writers and thinkers have had a
powerful impact on our national culture, and will continue to do so, as long
as we're such a big country, we need a unifying middle.




> >
> > And how do parents respond?  Plop 'em in School and in front of the tv.
>
> Again this is a social myth. Do some parents do this? Sure. Just like some
> parents are single, do crack, and sell themselves to buy it.




Social myth?  MYTH?  Fact my friend.  And statistical analysis will show you
that like, 97% of parents put their kids in public school and let them watch
virtually as much tv as they want.  That's no myth.  And crack whores are
probably about 3%.

I might not have my figures exactly right, or even close.  But the vast
majority follows the normal social patterns I describe.

You really oughta read Dumbing us Down, by John Gatto.  He's smarter than me
and more informed and much more capable of persuasive argumentation.  But
when you made that "social myth" remark, I'd have done a spit-take, if I'd
been eating.

And had a laugh track and a film crew.

Which I don't.

And won't.



> But conflating
> some to most is buying into a cultural myth that is just not true in my
> experience. Most parents are as responsible and want the best for the
> children as you and I do. And if there is a problem it is not some outside
> cultural force such and TV or the Internet that is damaging that effort. It
> is poor behavior and parenting of individual parents. And that poor
> behavior
> is just as likely to be in a penthouse as it is in a ghetto.
>


My point is "responsible parents" from penthouse to ghetto, follow the
social norms for their children:  Putting them in school, and letting them
watch tv.  That IS the social norm, Dave.  That's considered proper
parenting.  Saying "most parents want what's best for their children" begs
the whole issue and is just throwin' sand in the bull's eye.

The normal pattern I suggest IS what a caring parent does.

Ya know, the non-tin-foil-hat kind of child-rearing.



>
> >Thus IF there is an intellectual pattern,
> > trying to take control of the future culture, all it has to do is grasp
> the
> > reins of these two institutions.
>
> I capitalized the operative word IF. As long as cultures runs in parallel
> this if remains just that.
>


Well here you at least make some sense, and move the dialogue forward.  If
in main, the cultural inputs are narrowly controlled, wouldn't all these
parallel cultures being "disovered" on the discovery channel, or analyzed on
the history channel, or displayed on the nature panel, don't these all have
in common, despite their variety and diversity, an outlook.  A hidden
narrator, presenting along lines that are meant to communicate to the
broadest audience possible, and in the most simple, lowest common
denominator fashion, a broadly SOMish philosophical underpinning.

Not merely because of the happenstance of that's the dominant paradigm, as
given, but even more pointedly so, a medium whose only existence is the
objectification of everything, is just naturally gonna be reductionistic and
object-oriented.

And thus, self-perpetuating and self-magnifying and getting broader all the
time.

Tidal Wave!!!!



> > I don't quite get the logical connection, but it's been a while since I
> saw
> > reefer madness.
> >
> The logical connection is that they are both hysterical myths. Both in the
> "laughing out loud" and the "quick get the men and the white suits" sense.
> I  think your right in that "community" integral to the problem. But it is
> not because some outside source is going to take over and control all of
> them. But rather that it is darn near impossible to establish and maintain
> one in a meaningful way. In this country both the ease and desire for
> mobility both economically and culturally make the whole country like one
> big national park campground on the Fourth of July. A quick picnic with a
> thrown together group of family and friends and move on down the road
> tomorrow.
>

This exact problem left me pondering how to go forward, after my Community
Building Workshop experience in '89.  I couldn't see an answer till I went
to the Nevada County Fair in '93, and found out about this fascinating thing
called "the internet".  A way of keeping communication open, even though we
move all over the place.

Ever notice the common roots between "Com'munity and "Com'munication...??
Hmmmm???

And if the irony here escapes you, you must not have followed a recent
dialogue with dmb where he asked me that question.



>
> Here's the reverse take on the hive-mind. One that I think that is more
> closely corresponds to reality and is the real source of angst.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8
>
>
You know who invented the modern pencil?  The guy who came up with the
modern formulation?  He was an individual, ole HD.  And he certainly didn't
need to pierce anything to prove it.  Everybody who met him, knew he was
unique.



> The comments on the clip are just as enlightening as the clip.
>
> RMP touches on this in his comments on NYC. No single individual in the
> whole city has a clue how it works. Or in other than a very general way who
> does what. This is specialization to a degree that has never been before.
> It is both the power that got the human race where it is now and is also
> scary because it makes everyone dependant on a long chain of other people
> they have no relationship with, other than economic.
>
> My guess is that you, like I, consider yourself a "do it yourselfer" in the
> sense that if something needs to be fixed or built on your piece of dirt
> you
> can pretty much do it. But this is a myth. Take everything out of our shops
> made by others and we would be darn near helpless.



Well there's a big difference, I'd say.  The California Indians were
disparaged as "diggers" because it seemed that's all they could do.  But
that's all they needed to do, to have a long and prosperous life.  Dig a
little here and there.  Eat the seeds, sow the seeds.  Dig some more.  It
doesn't have to be complicated.

But we enjoy our toys.  Who wouldn't?  Take any primitive tribe and offer
them the fun of modern goodies, and they'd grab for it every time.  But
that's because they assume they could have their goodies, and their families
and tribes and relations also.  If they saw what all those goodies cost in
the long run, they'd turn them down.

I'm thinking, maybe we should too.




> Imagine being given two
> piles of stuff. One all the individual pieces and parts of a disassembled
> chainsaw. In the second all the raw materials, like iron ore etc, to
> necessary to build the tools to assemble the chainsaw. Nothing else, Would
> we ever get it done before we died? I doubt it. Even though we know what a
> screwdriver, wrench, hammer etc are, we do not have the skills to build
> them
> from scratch from basic raw materials. And even if we did we could not do
> it
> alone. Making steel from iron ore requires the cooperation of many people
> with specialized skill sets working together. That is what I think is the
> source of uneasiness in everyone down deep. Dependency on primarily
> economic
> relationships with strangers can tend to isolate one from community
> particularly in tough economic times.
>
>
Well, I think we'd be better off by downscaling a bit, and staying put more
and keeping our extended family together more.

But I want to keep my internet connection so... I admit there is no quick
and easy answer.


Hypocritical John