Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 230
Netizens-Digest Thursday, December 17 1998 Volume 01 : Number 230
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Re: Electronic constituency
[netz] Re: Voltaire's Bastards
[netz] BCBI: Netizen Polls Vary from TV Polls
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 10:57:24 -0500
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
Subject: Re: [netz] Re: Electronic constituency
Thanks Kerry for the sources.
I'll add them to the list.
Haven't had any reaction to sending to
the education lists yet.
Odd?!?
Has anyone tried the various first amendment type
lists? Just a thought.
Kerry Miller wrote:
>
> Greg wrote (responding to PA Gantt),
<snip>
- --
P.A. Gantt, Computer Science Technology Instructor
Electronic Media Design and Support Homepage
http://user.icx.net/~pgantt/
<a href="mailto:pagantt@technologist.com?Subject='eTech'">Email me.</a>
http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/vision/1998-11.asp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 19:56:14 -0400
From: kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)
Subject: [netz] Re: Voltaire's Bastards
Carsten,
{ Since this has got rather long, and since a general idea can never
{ emerge from a point-to-point comment, I am starting this with a
{ general comment first.
...
{ I actually hesitated to post it to the list, since it is rather
{ off-topic here
Far from being off-topic, I think we've stumbled onto something that is
directly related to the concept of Netizens. We (here and elsewhere) all
preach that the net expands 'communication' and promotes international
'understanding,' but the terms are always left undefined, so that (to be
precise) the effects of the very difference you mention, between thoughtful
general comment and 'quick and dirty' point-by-point response, are left
unexamined. I won't pretend to make an ironclad argument here, but I think
these two styles (which are both typically called dialog) parallel the ideas of
'reasonableness' and 'rationality.'
Broadly, I believe one typifies an effort to understand the idea; the other, to
bring the *expression of the idea into line with what one already understands.
One tends to lead to broader contexts; the other, to narrower ones. One
maintains a dynamic parity between speakers; the other, a static 'one-up/ one-
down' relation. As long as these possibilities are ignored, very little
understanding is actually achieved *either way* -- because whatever
'communication' or understanding or intelligence or even knowledge is, it
cannot be a unidirectional thing; some exercise of *alternatives* is needed.
Conventionally, this is construed as the 'back and forth' or 'give and take' of
conversation between two parties - but if the *choice of who is giver and who
is taker is not itself negotiable, then the relation collapses into simply
'giving' or 'froing'; there is no cycling. Or, one party may 'rant,' and the
other party says nothing -- parity collapses. Or again, one may post without
any evidence of having read what another had posted; certainly it demonstrates
'equal opportunity,' but where is any sense of relationship at all? For there
to be what is called 'real' communication (etc), I am convinced that 'cycling'
has to take place *throughout* the range of association: sign to symbol, symbol
to idea, idea to intention. As soon as a 'fiat' is put in place (say,
'Rational' means such and such," or "*I* mean thus and so" or "It's not my
field" or "The Internet requires governance"), the power *structure* takes
over, and ultimately the only thing that can be communicated is that one
either accepts or rejects the position assigned by it.
I chid Ronda the other day for not responding to Becky Burr by claiming the
high ground -- that just this kind of 'vague,' 'inefficient' dialog is just
what science (which is simply the Latin word for knowing) *is* -- not just
falling into (or out of) line with a 'top-down' decree of what is to be
'decided.'
Therefore I continue the present dialog as a 'demonstration communication,'
*regardless of whether we 'agree' or not on the 'content'* -- as this is, I
think, what JRS has in mind when he refers to humanism and specifically, to
'speaking out' as an 'exercise of power.'
If this be off-topic, then make the most of it ;-)
====
{ The first problem is that "Reason" hasn't been defined here, which is
{ a bad thing per se, since this word has got several meanings, as every
{ dictionary shows. However, the use of a capital "R" and what appears
{ to be the general line of the book (as well as the subject line of
{ this thread), it seems mainly to refer to Rationalist (in a
{ philosophical sense) concepts.
{
{ Still, I wonder... Reason would then be the capacity of everyone to
{ think on his own, with his own mind, independently of thoughts imposed
{ from the outside and of feelings. ...
JRS describes Voltaire's 18c as one in which "justice still used torture as an
official means ofd interrogation, and the condemned faced a variety of brutal
punishments, being broken on the wheel, for instance. This and other tools of
arbitrary power constituted a social form of darkeness. The philosophers of
Europe, England and America threw themselves into the arms of reason, convinced
that birth would be given to new rational elites capable of building a new
civilization...
" And yet the exercise of power, without the moderating influence of any
ethical structure, rapidly became the religion of these new elites. Their
reforms included an unparalleled and permanent institution of state violence...
acoompanied by a growing struggle between democratic and rational methods,
with the rational increasingly at an advantage." (p 5)
My interpretation is that JRS is distinguishing the human capacity of reason
from the *institution* of reason -- thus the capital R -- in order to gather
together a number of concepts which otherwise tend to be left in isolation --
especially when it comes to technocracy and "means of production" in relation
to society. (The way political power is treated as if completely distinct from
physical power is a prime example; really, do the Texas Freemen have nothing to
do with being "off the grid"?)
In all other respects, I think we can take reason to be defined as you say.
{ ... this is the way Reason is presented today by
{ those who need to justify their "rationalisations" and their attempts
{ to increase the power of the technocrats. But this hasn't got anything
{ to do with Reason. On the contrary, it does mean imposing Thought on
{ man....
{ The opposite of Reason, according to the context, would be either
{ obscurantism (religious, ideological, technocratic, ...) or the rule
{ of feelings (as opposed to thought).
I agree, and i think JRS would agree, this is true for reason *as an idea*, if
we can sum up the small-r 'individualistic' reason this way. But when you
write,
{ If we look at today's political
{ systems, only Western-type democracy is based on Reason, whereas
{ dictatorships (as old-style monarchies) are based on
{ obscurantism. Capitalism, OTOH, is based on feelings (greed), even
{ reduced to their simplest stimulus-response form, if we take the
{ financial markets as an example. (I am not saying that capitalism
{ doesn't work, but only that it cannot be seen as a rational
{ mechanism).
then I think it misses the point. Economic and political *systems are not
ideas, but institutions, with their own 'compelling logic.'
Institutionalization is not 'just another layer' of social organization, but is
the embodiment of power. That is, it takes power away from the citizen and
doesnt give it back; in ergonomic terms, its a non-reversible ('non-
recyclable') conversion. Thus 'Western-style democracy' operates on a more and
more ad hoc basis -- Sure, it preaches a fine line, but its practictioners do
'whatever works' to and never mind the greatest good for the greatest number or
any other public, humanist *cause for government in the first place.
{ What worries me is the part on knowledge being rather useless. This
{ makes me think that the author is happily accepting the lies that say
{ that technocracy is based on Reason, only to reject Reason as a whole
{ and to promote some kind of obscurantism (either political or
{ religious). In that sense, what appears to be the thought of JRS
{ according to the excerpts posted here, seems to hide some dark design.
{
"Ours is a civilization astonishing in the degree to which is seems to see
and to know. Never before have there been such enormous elites carrying such
burdens of knowledge. This success story dominates our lives...
"The possession, use and control of knowledge have become their central
theme... However, their power depends not on the effect with which they use
that knowlege but on the effectiveness with which they control its use. Thus
[we have] an absolute belilef that the solution to our porblems must be a more
determined application of [*]rationally organized[*] expertise. The reality is
that our problems are largely the result of that application. The illusion is
that we have created the most sophisticated society in the history of man. The
reality is that the division of knowledge into feudal fiefdoms of expertise has
made general understanding and coordinated action not simply impossible but
despised and distrusted." (p 8)
{ It would have been a good idea to give those definitions here from the
{ beginning, especially when they differ from the common ones.
Are they so different? It was your comment that the 'humanists' were perhaps
'the new heroes' which seemed to me to twist the meaning. In contrast to the
_cynical suggestion that JRS was setting out toly 'prove himself' by the same
standards he was using to criticise the establishment, I wrote that he was a
_careful writer.
{ > and the humanists
{ > are not in the running. Martyrs might be a better title, but titles
{ > of course are not a humanist thing...
{
{ Erm, what's your definition of humanism ?
Humanism accepts the full spectrum of human characteristics -- "spirit,
appetite, faith and emotion, but also intuition, will, and most important,
experience." ( p15; in the London interview, he lists "common sense,
creativity, ethics, intuition, memory, and reason.")
{ Oops, I didn't understand that "the West" was Canada...
{ And I think that at least Eastern Canada has some very active
{ extremists. But maybe "the West" refers to BC only ? :)
What extremists? The point of contention is simply that Reason is only *one*
such characteristic, and deserves to be kept in proportion. By means of its
(institutionalized) power (the 'Age of Reason'), it has "driven the other
elements into the marginal frontiers of doubtful respectability."
{ > Does 'mutual ownership' mean stockholders? Or linked boards?
{
{ what I meant was companies owning shares of each others. Linked
{ boards, if I understand the term right, are, in part, a consequence of
{ this.
Isnt it more accurate to say the shareholders are the owners and members of the
board(s) are *managers*?
{ > 'Wrongness' is a moral ('reasonable') concept; 'illegal' is a legal
{ > (rational) one.
...
{ The fact that law and morals aren't *always* compatible seems to be
{ self-evident to me. (OTOH, I wouldn't say that the law and
{ jurisprudence are entirely on the side of the rational).
The *institution* of the law is entirely, 100% on the side of the rational.
There are a few unreconstructed souls who try to apply it still in a humanist
way -- and who get ridiculed for their trouble.
{ > ... not
{ > questioning the nature of power remains a profound symptom of
{ > *something*.
{
{ No, it wasn't a general point. "Another" was a reference to what I
{ said just before.
The larger question is which interpretation leads to further thought
('improves understanding'). "A" (JRS) made a claim, and provided an example in
support; "B" (CL) disputes the example, but "C" (KM) doesn't see that the claim
of cyclicity ('just another swing') _leads_ anywhere. (In short, I'd call it
_ex post facto_ -- but maybe in 1989 you foresaw the penchant for body
piercing?)
{ - During the late 60's, 70's, the contestation targetted as much the
{ system as appearances...
{ - Today, we are heading back to a very structured society ...
And now do you think the drive for bigger faster *personal* computers reflects
something else? What about the revival of automotive extravagance? Or the
whole drug milieu?
{ Therefore, what JRS seems to denounce as a plot to keep the masses
{ quiet (but, then again, it is an impression from an *excerpt*) is,
{ IMHO, just another swing of the pendulum.
'Plot'? No, just the alienation of the indiv from any *real sense of power.
{ > I think he means *relative to the community*
{
{ So was I :) At all times, some words had a different meaning for a
{ specialist than for the "common man" ...
I disagree. The common man used to know 'everything he needed to know' to live
his life; now I need a plumber to fix the water pump (what's a 'foot valve'?)
somebody else to repair the gas furnace (wheres the 'sensor switch'?) -- and
both are useless when the electricity goes off!
{ Still, how would you trim a rosebush "reasonably" ?
I would do whatever was necessary to make it look reasonably trimmed ;-)
{ I said "this lead him to", which means there was an implication:
{
{ - when he wanted to free all slaves, his "common sense" told him that
{ they could certainly not live in the same society as the whites. This
{ led him to the project to ship them off to Haiti. But this "common
{ sense" was the product of his experience (as c.s. always is). Had he
{ grown up in another society, he might have had different
{ thoughts.
{
{ - when he commented on Voltaire's theory about some sedimental stone,
{ his common sense made him find the better explanation (Voltaire's
{ really seems stupid today), because his empirism was better fit for
{ that kind of subjects than Voltaire's rationalism.
I'm confused; are these examples of cleverness or stupidity?
{ French teachers are still unspoilt by pedagogy teachings, even today :)
{ And I'm sorry, pedagogy is in no way philosophy. Or you'd have to
{ call everything involving ideas in some way or another
{ "philosophy"... even politics !
Call it whatever, but there are always two ways of thinking about things:
synthetic (how they fit together) and analytic (how they come apart). The main
effect, imo, of institutionalization is the glorification of the analytic, and
in a culture which gets the message that 'breaking down' things is the only
road to success, anybody looking 'upstream' for causes and explanations is cast
as a philosopher.
{ But technology isn't knowledge. It's just something which *uses* some
{ kinds of it. Knowledge is about understanding, not about creating. In
{ that sense, understanding (in every way) your immigrant neighbour has
{ much more to do with knowledge than designing microprocessors at
{ Intel... even if Intel would certainly want to make you believe
{ the opposite !
I dont know how it is in France, but I guess that in English, the phrase
'know *how*' is heard 10 times more often than simply 'know.' And what but the
same *instrumental* idea explains the use of 'knowledge' as an exact synonym
for 'information'? Or, for that matter, to use your own example, the
identification of an 'ology' as 'something'? ( _Technique_ uses knowledge;
technology *ought to mean the knowledge embodied in (or abstracted from)
technique. But, you see, this is looking *back* for the meanings of words, and
is no longer readily acceptable in 'popular' discourse, which prefers to always
push ahead, as if 'whatever' will fully cover any confusion of what one means.)
{ Well, there is a certain obscurantist fear of science.
{ Still, the first ones to warn about the real dangers of science or
{ technology are always scientists themselves
Yes, science 'looks both ways'; there are really very few surprises in the
field. The general public 'understands' only the _institution of science, which
cranks out toys for us to play with: we arent 'supposed' to worry about
'negative' consequences. Occasionally, a scientist speaks out (individually,
ex cathedra) to say that the negatives are always there, and (yes, like
Oppenheimer) is criticised by 'the establishment' for 'abusing his authority'
or 'not having the facts' -- meaning, there is not yet 'proof' because there
has been no *institutional* study of the 'issue.' Thus, the hazards of
ionizing radiation, or (to move beyond the 'risks' aspect) the fact that early
childhood nutrition leads to better health and 'performance' in school wait for
'thorough research' and peer reviewed blind studies before 'we' need to believe
in them, when any South Pacific islander or 'underdeveloped' family has known
such things for years.
Cheers,
kerry
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 12:56:38 -0500
From: "P.A. Gantt" <pgantt@icx.net>
Subject: [netz] BCBI: Netizen Polls Vary from TV Polls
Before Clinton Bombed Iraq (BCBI)
=================================
Quotes found here:
Impeachment tide surges
http://www.usatoday.com/
Pro-impeachment wave continues
The president continued to lose support as
lawmakers returned to town to review the House Judiciary Committee's
final evidence.
Republicans ''are putting integrity and principle first.''
===================================================================================
http://www.dreamscape.com/
Weekly Quick Poll
Total Respondents: 923
If President Clinton were caught lying in his grand jury
testimony, should he:
Remain in office
366 votes
40%
Resign or be impeached
554 votes
60%
http://cgi.dreamscape.com/
Weekly Quick Poll
Total Respondents: 239
Do you feel President Clinton committed perjury?
Yes
160 votes
67%
No
46 votes
19%
I'm not sure
33 votes
14%
http://www.kcweb.com/vote/votemain.htm
Should Clinton be removed from office either by resignation or
impeachment?
Yes No Don't Know
Current Poll Results
12/14/98:
Yes: 45% No: 39% Don't Know:
16%
http://www.openpoll.com/
12/14/98
There were 45 respondents.
Description
Question 1
Two Southern Democrats in the House of
Representatives have
already said they'll vote to impeach Clinton, as
the ranks grow for
impeachment of the President. Should the House vote
to impeach
the President?
Definitely Yes:
80%
Probably Yes:
2%
Not Sure:
2%
Probably Not:
0%
Definitely Not:
16%
- --
P.A. Gantt, Computer Science Technology Instructor
Electronic Media Design and Support Homepage
http://user.icx.net/~pgantt/
<a href="mailto:pagantt@technologist.com?Subject='eTech'">Email me.</a>
http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/vision/1998-11.asp
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #230
******************************
