4 ms·

I'm speaking as someone who makes a living with technology, and I have a vested, material interest in keeping this status quo. I make a differentiation between

by hosh 9y ago

I'm speaking as someone who makes a living with technology, and I have a vested, material interest in keeping this status quo. I make a differentiation between knowledge and wisdom. We can learn a lot from nature -- in the sense that we can learn a lot of knowledge. And you are right, we are nowhere near the peak. Maybe I am reading into your words too much, but it feels like there is a lot of enthusiasm you have for technology. That resonates with me. However, I agree with the other guy -- it is hubris. How I get there has to do with wisdom not being normative. We might be able to gain a lot of knowledge, but we have not been gaining much wisdom. There are other frames I can get into -- for example, Eisler's "Chalce and Blade", Mander's "In the Absence of the Sacred", Mazis's "Trickster, Magician, and Grieving Man". I think we very much have an arrogance which comes with technology, in our attitudes around it and what we want to do with it, and the many consequences around how we use and abuse technology. For me, a fly is not just amazing because it shows how much knowledge we have yet to learn about a fly. To use the language of mystics: there is wisdom in _being_ the fly, one that is non-obvious.

agumonkey 9y ago
I could add so system theory on how insect perceive the world in great detail yet a bit different than us (bertalanffy did research on the "render period" of insects). IT's not really "mystique", more a holistic view on things. It's an insect, it's a pile or bio mechanic organic goo, it's quite intelligent, it's beautiful to watch, it's similar to us, it's part of the whole ecosystem. But the thing is, the more I know about the universe, the less I want to "know". Or at least the less I want to turn into application, business and all that; which in this is case is often hubris, ignorance (selling things hidden behind marketing talk and shiney package), for the purpose of being the best, owning a market, "advancing" the world (when most people need more basic things but alas).
- hosh 9y ago
  You could, but that would not be what I meant by shifting consciousness. I mean modifying or altering consciousness such that one experiences the world from that view point, and in doing so, also understand how that experiencing relates to the world. The latter part assumes a "consciousness as first principle" rather than as an emergent property of matter -- that is, why would consciousness configure itself and experience in this particular way ?

by hosh 9y ago

agumonkey 9y ago

I could add so system theory on how insect perceive the world in great detail yet a bit different than us (bertalanffy did research on the "render period" of insects). IT's not really "mystique", more a holistic view on things. It's an insect, it's a pile or bio mechanic organic goo, it's quite intelligent, it's beautiful to watch, it's similar to us, it's part of the whole ecosystem. But the thing is, the more I know about the universe, the less I want to "know". Or at least the less I want to turn into application, business and all that; which in this is case is often hubris, ignorance (selling things hidden behind marketing talk and shiney package), for the purpose of being the best, owning a market, "advancing" the world (when most people need more basic things but alas).

hosh 9y ago
You could, but that would not be what I meant by shifting consciousness. I mean modifying or altering consciousness such that one experiences the world from that view point, and in doing so, also understand how that experiencing relates to the world. The latter part assumes a "consciousness as first principle" rather than as an emergent property of matter -- that is, why would consciousness configure itself and experience in this particular way ?