highpurityusbcable
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2020
- Messages
- 196
- Likes
- 279
I don't feel like this is an audio problem. More like behavior on the internet problem in general.
Most existing technologies and innovations are already removing the factors of human diversity or individualism. Take for example taxi meters. Imagine if we didn't have that technology. We would then be sometimes judging taxi drivers for being greedy or dishonest, and sometimes happy to meet an honest or generous one. Progressively, we are eliminating our unrealistic expectations and reliance on human individualism. Humans can live like animals and cavemen... Or we can create a whole new system that does not rely on, and does not encourage our belief in, our natural emotions and instincts.R U Serious? It's been thought of before soma and the feelies.
I agree with this perspective. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." It's not that we disagree, it's that we lack the means of disagreeing constructively, and we lack the cultural imperative to do so. Schools once taught debate, in "speech" class, where disagreement was part of the formula, and the tool for expressing it was wit. They taught it because the ability to disagree productively was culturally recognized. Kids who got in fights at school were pulled apart just long enough to don boxing gloves, because the conflict wasn't the problem, the injury it caused was. Society imposed norms of behavior (in all social classes, though it different measures) that taught that conflict was human, but modes of conflict had to be bounded by moral imperatives built into culture.If you abolished Marriage and Religion, you would create the very thing you wish to destroy. Underground 'cults' would gather popularity in the shadows, and due to the lack of different tribal characters (large proportion of people who score low on openness and agreeableness) you would have a group of 'Heavens Gate' type extremists in no time.
Avoiding conflict is the wrong way to go. You want more meaningful conflict, to burst the 'bubbles' of echo chambers that people are now in. We need the mixed communities we have had for the last 2 million years, which means people need to get used to sitting next to people the disagree with, not sulking off to find someone who always agrees with them so they can all mutually masturbate one another's egos.
I agree with this perspective. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." It's not that we disagree, it's that we lack the means of disagreeing constructively, and we lack the cultural imperative to do so. Schools once taught debate, in "speech" class, where disagreement was part of the formula, and the tool for expressing it was wit. They taught it because the ability to disagree productively was culturally recognized. Kids who got in fights at school were pulled apart just long enough to don boxing gloves, because the conflict wasn't the problem, the injury it caused was. Society imposed norms of behavior (in all social classes, though it different measures) that taught that conflict was human, but modes of conflict had to be bounded by moral imperatives built into culture.
Nowadays, conflict is seen as a character flaw, and the tools for expressing and resolving conflict are rejected as enablement of behavior that is unacceptable at the outset. Culturally, we expect that people being nice to each other will make productive progress in whatever is being discussed, when prior generations would have believed the opposite. Disagreeing with those in power brooks no debate, so those who opposed the dominant paradigm are driven to disproportionate reaction, lacking any sense of proportion that comes from developing the skills of productive conflict.
All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Conflict is inevitable. So, the proscription of conflict and the avoidance of learning the tools of productive conflict lead those who disagree to express it unproductively.
I do not believe any generation has the corner on the market of productive disagreement, or specially exemplifies its lack. Baby boomers are just as brittle and unbending as any of their forebears, they are just so on different topics. The generations that followed the baby boomers likewise. What has changed, though, is that the idea of conflict (and the idea of sin) has been rejected, in violation of our very nature.
I do agree that science is not taught well in schools, and that in part is a result of a false conflict between science and belief (even religious--or specifically anti-religious--belief) that is itself unscientific. Science has become a religion for many, but science in and of itself does not solve the same problems or form a basis for ethics or a standard of behavior. So, we see highly intelligent and scientifically trained individuals who still cannot tolerate disagreement, or respond to it productively with any degree of emotional maturity or wisdom. The most contentious meetings I have ever attended were academic faculty meetings. One math professor friend of mine explains this as the product of nothing of particular importance being discussed. But it means to me that re-establishing scientific education will not solve the problem of bad behavior. That requires a moral compass, and science is not good at providing such. Religion, for all that it is rejected by many (certainly not all) modern scientists, is.
We have to admit, though, that calm and witty debate usually changes nothing, which results in escalation for those who believe the topic to be truly important. Yet escalation doesn't work, either, for those who have tried it, and we see it so much because many lack alternative strategies. So, conflict festers finding no productive outlet. This does not turn out well.
Still, I come back to all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, so I'm reasonably sure that greater knowledge is not the answer.
Rick "who uses his own name online and always has, since the days of Usenet" Denney
If religion is such a source of ethics, why is the proportion of paedophiles higher among religious leaders than across the gen pop? Money has done a better job than religion to keep the majority of people in line.
Fear and insecurity is innate in all animals as a survival mechanism. But we don't live in the wild anymore. Religion is just a shortcut to solve emotional problems. It is unsustainable. Science should be the only way forward.
It is not my intent to provoke the anti-religious. And I am not talking about organized religions as institutions, which like all human institutions, are corrupted by sin. Furthermore, because the religious recognize the existence of sin so visibly, their lapses into it indeed seem all the more hypocritical.
But I was not talking about pedophilia, I was talking about the topic of the thread, which is conflict.
Rick "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Denney
I dunno. I know lots of scientists, and I am a scientist (and engineer) myself. I don't think I could make the case that scientists are more moral than nonscientists, or that science isn't used to achieve immoral ends at least often as it is used to achieve moral ends. In fact, science doesn't really give me the language to distinguish between what is moral and immoral, unless morality is defined as an intellectual form of survival of the fittest.
It's pretty good at solving the physical problems that have plagued the world, and those who are not in extremis are less apt to kill each other. But even that is debatable--the worst wars in history have taken place in the last little over a century, using the tools of science to be all the more effective at killing each other. We certainly live more comfortably than past generations because of science, but I'm not sure I see evidence that morality has bloomed over the face of the earth as a result.
Rick "not offering religious belief as an excuse to be anti-scientific--yet a different corruption also be opposed" Denney
Progressively, we are eliminating our unrealistic expectations and reliance on human individualism.
I agree with this perspective. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." It's not that we disagree, it's that we lack the means of disagreeing constructively, and we lack the cultural imperative to do so. Schools once taught debate, in "speech" class, where disagreement was part of the formula, and the tool for expressing it was wit. They taught it because the ability to disagree productively was culturally recognized. Kids who got in fights at school were pulled apart just long enough to don boxing gloves, because the conflict wasn't the problem, the injury it caused was. Society imposed norms of behavior (in all social classes, though it different measures) that taught that conflict was human, but modes of conflict had to be bounded by moral imperatives built into culture.
Nowadays, conflict is seen as a character flaw, and the tools for expressing and resolving conflict are rejected as enablement of behavior that is unacceptable at the outset. Culturally, we expect that people being nice to each other will make productive progress in whatever is being discussed, when prior generations would have believed that constructive but still vigorous contention is more likely to make productive progress. Disagreeing with those in power brooks no debate, so those who opposed the dominant paradigm are driven to disproportionate reaction, lacking any sense of proportion that comes from developing the skills of productive conflict.
All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Conflict is inevitable. So, the proscription of conflict and the avoidance of learning the tools of productive conflict lead those who disagree to express it unproductively.
I do not believe any generation has the corner on the market of productive disagreement, or specially exemplifies its lack. Baby boomers are just as brittle and unbending as any of their forebears, they are just so on different topics. The generations that followed the baby boomers likewise. What has changed, though, is that the idea of conflict (and the idea of sin) has been rejected, in violation of our very nature.
I do agree that science is not taught well in schools, and that in part is a result of a false conflict between science and belief (even religious--or specifically anti-religious--belief) that is itself unscientific. Science has become a religion for many, but science in and of itself does not solve the same problems or form a basis for ethics or a standard of behavior. So, we see highly intelligent and scientifically trained individuals who still cannot tolerate disagreement, or respond to it productively with any degree of emotional maturity or wisdom. The most contentious meetings I have ever attended were academic faculty meetings. One math professor friend of mine explains this as the product of nothing of particular importance being discussed. But it means to me that re-establishing scientific education will not solve the problem of bad behavior. That requires a moral compass, and science is not good at providing such. Religion, for all that it is rejected by many (certainly not all) modern scientists, is.
We have to admit, though, that calm and witty debate usually changes nothing, which results in escalation for those who believe the topic to be truly important. Yet escalation doesn't work, either, for those who have tried it, and we see it so much because many lack alternative strategies. So, conflict festers finding no productive outlet. This does not turn out well.
Still, I come back to all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, so I'm reasonably sure that greater knowledge is not the answer.
Rick "who uses his own name online and always has, since the days of Usenet" Denney
Where do the shape shifting lizard aliens fit into all this?
Brave New World.Interesting what beliefs will look like in the future when baby making and child rearing are no longer left to random people but completely state managed from factories/laboratories to nurseries according to best practices for whatever future societies need.
At least I'm not hostileBrave New World.
One can only hope your tongue is firmly planted in your cheek.