posted
I was thinking on systems and theories, and how in a lot of science fiction, man-made machines take over, usually physically. I think it's happened. Not with machines but with the calculations which gave rise to the machines.
Whether you are a socialogist, economist, businessman, Christian, democrat, conservative republican, or communist, how much have we surrendered thinking over to these systems that cranks out effects. That may be the virtue in kids, they don't take anything for granted, at least when they are young.
There is a turning off something that is important when we give ourselves over to even the legal system, at least when we do so in an unqualified manner. What do we sacrifice for the sake of these systems? What do they choke out?
posted
I don't know if this is the same thing as what you're referring to, but I'm really uncomfortable with the way mathematics has come to be the be all and end all of everything. By that, I mean that even in the social sciences, anecdotal evidence has been marginalized to the point of being considered pretty much useless, and the only kind of evidence that is considered valid is evidence that can be whittled down to an equation or a set of statistics.
Now, it is true that one anecdote or two or ten may not be useful in making sweeping generalizations. However, a sufficient number of anecdotes should count for something.
Just my two cents' worth.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the way you are using systems and theories is too broad to make a cogent point in relation to turning things over to machines.
What "calculations" are you referring to? Or -- how are you using that word?
It sounds like what you are referring to has something to do with the rise of modernism as the main system of thought for society -- and modernity as the main mode of society.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really follow you, Irami. Can you give a specific "for instance"?
If you mean that by giving over to larger systems and theories of social behavior we subsume ourselves as individuals, you're correct. It's also worth nothing (I think) that lacking inclusion in these larger systems to the extent that we're able, we potentially diminish the value of larger systems. For example, if I choose not to vote, I've deprived our country's system of self governance of my wisdom, such as it is. Because I withdrew from the system, the system suffered, because it was designed for inclusion, not exclusion.
All of which is a cold way of saying that we are connected whether we choose to observe it or not. We are all part of many systems whether or not we choose to participate. And this is not a new thing. Systems are. They always have been, undocumented or documented, designed, chaotic or organic, they are and always have been.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This calculating, this drive to submit everything to a part for our use without thought. I don't have a problem with the world appearing as something for our use, it's the unthinking way that we do it that bothers me.
I think it's got something to do with interchangable parts. I don't know. For example, the ability to use the a stradivarius violin as a crow bar. You can use it as a crow bar, but we don't seem to be paying attention to what it is when we do that, and if we keep ignoring what it is for the sake of what it can be used for, what do we lose? We might lose what it is to be a stradivarius violin.
When patients become health care users, and people become human resources, we lose something. Something dear.
There is an arbitrariness in ignoring a person as a person, or a patient as a patient, and seeing them as a resource or a user. It's a severing of something. It's like looking at your husband and seeing a new car. At some point, we may forget what it is to be a husband.
Systems take something, and use a feature of that something, whether it's an accidental feature or an essential feature. There is something amoral about that. It's bothersome.
________ As an aside:
On this level, I understand the problem with stem cell research. If we are really degrading life for the sake of efficiency there is something spooky about that. I just don't understand stem cells to be people, so it's not as big of a deal as using a stradivarius as a crow bar.
It all comes down to noise and resolution. Seriously.
In order to see the big picture, to be able to get a sense of its scale and deal with it effectively, you have to zoom out. The instant you do that, detail is lost.
If you're particularly good at sweating the small stuff, you're essentially capable of displaying a higher resolution than most people -- but you, too, will hit a point at which dealing with any large problem means that you can no longer usefully treat with the individuals that make up the population affected by this problem.
The way you deal with this problem on a computer -- either through having multiple monitors or zooming in and out as needed -- is also, I think, the preferred one in MeatSpace. Either you need multiple people working on an issue -- at a granular level AND a top-down level -- or you need extraordinary people who are willing to take the time to switch their perspective around regularly and are willing to accept that this will make any one task harder.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Systems take something, and use a feature of that something, whether it's an accidental feature or an essential feature. There is something amoral about that. It's bothersome.
And thus, imo, the need for active civic, cultural and religious institutions/communities.
While they become systems in their own right, they still tend to preserve some sense of holistic-ness as well as the virtue of non-useful features. Or at the very least counteract this focus on "parts."
----- Tom:
Great point.
What I'm amazed at is the number of people who never consider zooming out at all.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And thus, imo, the need for active civic, cultural and religious institutions/communities.
In that they preserve what is sacred as sacred and what is trivial as trivial, I agree. In a way, I think this is what makes art possible.
I do have an issue with faith. I think there is something non-thinking about faith. It seems that they could be two sides of the same coin, which explains why there are so many engineers of Faith. But I think that's fodder for another thread. ? I don't know about zooming out. How much does this zooming out take you away from the thing? For instance, if I'm in a blimp and everyone on earth looks like an ant, it's hard to remember that they are people. You get the larger view, but it doesn't make that view any more or less appropriate.
If you are talking about zooming out as in seeing yourself as part of the total network of interations and interelations tied by unseen bonds, then maybe you are right.
_____
I'm thinking about this election. Isn't there something wrong with all of the politicians spending time in the battleground states. Shouldn't Kerry have gone to Georgia and Bush to Connecticut more often? Didn't the way they campaigned trivialize the process by submitting to an amoral system of winning?
posted
I meant zooming out in a less pulled back sense than the blimp analogy.
I mean zooming out just to the point where you take a look at how what you're doing connects with and impacts what others are doing as well as the overall goals/values of whatever institution/business/entity you are engaged in supporting.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
