He had not asked for transmission but it was given to him in spite of the complaints. The train was late, the connection was missed and lost dog never found its way back. Still, those people drew salaries, wages and investment profits while the others lay in wait for their opportunity.
When the cost of making things is so low because cyber-robots produce everything, only those who own cyber robots will earn money which they will gladly pay in taxes to be redistributed to those who cannot earn money and who will have the legal obligation to spend at least 8 hours a day spending money to keep the economy going. At that time the poor will have as much money as they want, more than they can imagine but will not have time to for life.
He thought he would not mind if others thought he was behind but it turned out others thought he was a behind. At the point it seemed the better part of sanity was ignorance and he went returned to that place he had never been.
Sometimes its better not to say anything, I mean know words are just the same. If too many people are looking for that same piece of emptiness it will surely be found and that is why its best left to the few who will search but never find.
David Riesman in his book The Lonely Crowd developed a theory of the evolution of social-personality types (as opposed to psyhcological personality types) known as tradition directed, inner directed and other directed. These personality types were related to the type of society in which they appeared. I am going to suggest a fourth to this list— the personal career directed.
In our society now personal career seems to be the evaluation of life-meaning for individuals and society. Any behaviour which you can do in pursuit of your career is not just acceptable now it is considered successful, as long as you can get away with it. Imagine the dean of a prominent business school admonishing a daughter with aspirations to be a Hollywood actress not to make a sex video and distribute on the WWW —come on, its just another business tool for success in the field.
I do not mean that everyone has the same standard or perhaps relative to more traditional society a lack of standards, but rather the continuum of acceptable/non acceptable behaviour for individuals and society is qualitatively different from previous societies as regards what is considered acceptable behaviour in pursuit of career.
When I was at university in the 1960s I was interested in the sociology of automation/cybernation and in my readings I came across an interesting longitudinal study (from the Upjohn institute) concerning attitudes of “higher educated business executives and lower educated blue collar workers (remember when we had them?) and their attitudes toward promotions and family. Overwhelmingly the former would not refuse a promotion which would require them to leave their hometown and extended family relationships while the latter overwhelmingly would not take a promotion if it meant leaving their hometown and extended family relationships. The former valued career advancement as an opportunity not to be missed while the latter did not consider career advancement as important as family relationships.
In the decades since then personal career advancement is increasingly the “holy grail” of modern life and while not everyone is willing to behave unethically, immorally or illegally, some are, and for the rest there is a continuum of behaviour which would have been considered “unacceptable” in the 1950s is now considered acceptable.
In my example above concerning the Upjohn study, both groups believed they were acting ethically, or morally. The educated business manger believed that their obligation to wife and children was to take the promotion even if it meant moving away from “ extended family while the blue collar believed moving from their extended family for a better job was unethical/immoral.
The specifics may differ on a continuum but for most people in society this qualitative shift has occurred to some degree. things that previous generations believed were not acceptable behavior have become commonly acceptable in pursuit of career.
I think it is in a direct line with Reisman’s theory considering that this behaviour further weakens the transmission of the unifying forces of Culture (the sociological/anthropological definition) and makes us more alone in the crowd. When we look at the divorce rate and the acceptance of extra-marital affairs it could be said that career success is more important than successful marriage and family. Even the opposite may be observed as many in public lie stay in an unhappy marriage because it would negatively affect their career.
I will write in more depth on this later. However we can also consider McLuhan’s input on this. For him it was print that created the cultural forces of individualization/specialization which, concerning behaviour and social personality type was a similar observation about society as Reisman’s. Preprint society was sociologically tightly knit—the village—and post print society was individualistic. McLuhan predicted electronic media would create/bring back a Global Village, i.e. a return to a society in which human behaviour generated sociological forces of cultural unification rather than the forces of cultural division as generated by print society.
I have always liked McLuhan, in the 1960s I heard him speak and took a one time seminar with him, but I think in this case he is wrong. I think face to face contact is necessary for the generation of unifying cultural forces. As our society becomes more individualist and computer code increasingly becomes a barrier between direct communication among people, the meaning of being human is being removed from human communication and human experience becomes intellectual thinking and not doing.
The Standard, and as it becomes a written standard it increasingly becomes “perfect” which computerized machines do well, especially when the standard is defined in writing, as words themselves are abstracts about Reality and not the Reality. The Standard increasingly becomes what computerized machines can do and people will always fall short of “perfect.’
When tightening a bolt you can tell the machine to tighten it to a very specific torque level, even say 0.000235784… ” and it can do it. But if one mechanic says to another, “Snug it up,” the mechanics know what is meant but the machine will never understand and increasingly there is even less chance the human computer coder will understand.
For each mechanic “snug it up” may not be exactly the same as measured by a computerized best practices torque standard measure. While each mechanic may have a different muscle power in their hand and ability to feel “snug,” because the mechanic spent time learning under another mechanic these secrets which can only be learned by doing, and usually doing the grunt work at an entry level hands on job, they come to know by feel what is means. Knowing by feeling (I do not mean feeling happy or sad) is increasingly being removed from the work place while “knowing by meeting a pre set standard” which is beyond the capabilities of men is replacing that ability.
Machines run by computers will never “know by feeling,” that is a human quality that can only be passed from one person to another and I think there is a chance that at some point humans will not be able to do that either—then we are no longer human.
In 1909 E.M.Forster wrote “The Machine Stops,” I remember reading it in high school, and everyday it seems we increasingly live in that world he described. Excuse me while I plan it, i.e. my next career move.
“Men carried swords about with them, to kill animals and other men.”
“It does not strike me as a very good idea, but it is certainly original. When did it come to you first?”
“In the air-ship—–” He broke off, and she fancied that he looked sad. She could not be sure, for the Machine did not transmit nuances of expression. It only gave a general idea of people – an idea that was good enough for all practical purposes, Vashti thought. The imponderable bloom, declared by a discredited philosophy to be the actual essence of intercourse, was rightly ignored by the Machine, just as the imponderable bloom of the grape was ignored by the manufacturers of artificial fruit. Something “good enough” had long since been accepted by our race.
I listened to the Roger Penrose interview, “Cosmic Inflation is Fantasy” with Ira Flado on a Science Friday show. http://www.sciencefriday.com/segment/04/04/2014/sir-roger-penrose-cosmic-inflation-is-fantasy.html).
He offered an alternative view of the “history and nature of the universe,” basically agreeing on the accepted empirical observations of scientists but suggesting a different interpretation for them.
For example one disagreement with “string theorists” was that they answered their “unanswered questions” by suggesting there were more dimensions than the The Three Dimensions— height, width and depth—and space time.
His suggestion was that there are only the three dimensions and space-time. While there may be “other dimensions” or universes each are still three dimensional and are connected in a linear relationship with each other through qualitatively different periods . Even more he suggested that maybe “expansion and contraction” generate the qualitatively different universes and that what the “string theorists” describe as multiple dimensions are simply things left over from previous universes.
This is not a new idea. The Vedas from thousands of years ago, long before writing, described the universe in a similar way, as a series of expansions and contractions with each qualitatively different period called a Kalpa and suggested this process of expanding and contracting has been going on forever.
If as Penrose suggests, there is stuff in this universe from a previous universe then it might be possible that its a message from a previous universe and it might be possible for us to send the next universe a message.
Well Roger, my question would be “Are you working on how send a message to the next universe?”
Add to this discussion the early Asimov story “Nightfall.” I don’t know if I should spoil it for you but basically the society in the story has two suns and is “almost” always light, except it periodically experiences an unexplainable period of total darkness which results in a large number of deaths and a major technological step backwards.
The hero who seems to be a “scientist” has a continuity theory and is preparing for the next “Dark Destruction” event in order to try to live through it or at least leave an important communication for the next society. As you read the story and the period of “Dark Destruction” approaches it becomes clear that the “Nightfall” is just the suns at some point being in some critical alignment which blocks the light for a while, but the darkness is so qualitatively different people go crazy and destroy themselves and society.
Sounds to me like a metaphor for one way science advances. Science thinks it knows something and then finds it does not know it. And fortunately, as science seems to be very valuable for society, a basic tenet of science is that it is open to criticism and change, unlike most other “human ways of knowing.”
And then bring into this Camus in “The Myth of Sysiphus ” where he suggests that science, even though it promises one day to know the universe, its very process results in creating new things to differentiate and define and it will be a never ending process.
And then Kant who noted the human condition is that we know through our senses (science is empirical) which is the human experience. An “independent universe,” i.e. something that exists independent of human experience is something we may not know, indeed we may not know that we don’t know it. Science after all may just be a diary of human experiences and have little to do with “knowing the universe.”
Finally for me personally, the process of differentiating one thing from another and giving it a name, which is pretty much what science is, is what gave people the survival edge and its human nature. We cannot help doing it, but I think its no so wise to think its Truth, or it makes us any“higher on some meaningful scale” than other living things.
After enjoying the interview I was disappointed about one thing, not in Penrose or Flado but rather that many of the comments that followed were quite crude and disrespectful of Penrose and in this way quite disrespectful of Science, its process and methodology.