Author
|
Topic: Possibly not important (Read 906 times) |
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.27
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
  
|
 |
Possibly not important
« on: 2003-05-20 08:20:29 » |
 |
Here is a random topic description
Where do accredited/named scholars hang out online?
What is their importance for the appeal of a hangout?
How does CoV fare at that compared with other projects?
Why so? Is this important?
|
|
|
|
|
Drakeo Vortex
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 77
Reputation: 7.89
Rate Drakeo Vortex
|
|
Re:Possibly not important
« Reply #1 on: 2003-05-20 13:24:02 » |
|
Credentials don't neccesarily mean they are computer literate or intelligent. The older scholars who have the most prestige probably don't use anything besides email. Also they don't understand the importance of a hang out. In most cases I think they believe that thier slightly increased intelligence is cause by some individually special attribute like a soul. I think this deters them from participating in things that will question thier precious status like group discussions. Especially group discussions where a nobody can dispute thier reasoning. CoV is important because Self and Group worship are not a problem. No individual gains unchallengeable status. It escapes the evolutionary psych trend of meme control by a social heiarchy. The only problem I have is Action. If action is not taken we can not claim to be more intelligent or less biased or anything. If the the CoV is not trying to make changes like every other group than it's meme-plex and everything it stands for will not be replicated enough times to impact anything. WE have seen the meme-tactics of the most basic and simplistic organization and yet I see intelligent people everywhere still refusing to play the game. Do you think you are better than that? I think many intelligent people fall into the same ego-chasm of self indulgent praise that those scholars and religious people do. Creating change should be a reaction to the acknowledgement of being more intelligent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
billroh@churchofvirus.com
Guest
|
|
Re: virus: Re:Possibly not important
« Reply #3 on: 2003-05-20 15:32:53 » |
|
I was about to respond to this post in my typically sarcastic, "what
kind of dumbass are you" sorta tone. Then I stopped and decided that a
little introspection might be in order - instrospection like: "Why do I
get so irriatated when children post about how they are the shit and
those that are far more intelligent, hard working and who have actually
achieved something with themselves are simple, ego-centric, automatons
wrapped in the chains of self indulgence"
Well, I know the answer to all the questions:
1> True communication happens only between equals AND time = money. Not
only do we lack enough people of serious intellect to communicate
meaningfully with many scientists and doctors (we are not equal) they
have much better things to do with their time then sit in front of their
computer and chat with us. Their "hangout" is with others of equal
skills. Unfortunately the computer literacy you speek of is not
meaningful or a sign of intelligence - quite the contrary, any and every
bumpkin in the world can become computer literate in a few weeks
(months for the seriously challenged). We are not equal and we take
their time (money). I am fortuante to have many doctor and scientist
friends. Many of them are in the field for months at a time - difficult
and a waste of time, to say the least, to try to keep up regular
computer communications. Most are atheists and have, when approached,
expressed no interest in joining a group like ours. Though I must admit
my friends in anthropology did seem at least glad to see that groups
like ours exist.
2> If you were building a bird house and wanted to attract birds, but
none came, would you fault the bird, or the birdhouse?
3> You make a lot of assumptions about "us" . What makes you think "Self
and group worship" are not a problem? What makes you think we have
escaped the "evolutionary psych trend of meme control by a social
heiarchy"? You say "I think many intelligent people fall into the same
ego-chasm of self indulgent praise that those scholars and religious
people do." Are you suggesting that the intelligent people here do not
fall into the "same ego-chasm of self indulgent praise that those
scholars and religious people do"?
4> And now I know why it makes me angry. When I was a kid in my late
teens and early 20 I thought much like you have illustrated below. It
makes me mad because of the years wasted in hypocracy. You are acting
just like a young pseudo intellectual who has seen the light and thinks
that no-one except your select group has seen that same light. (I'm not
saying you are, just acting like) Fortunatley that light you have
discovered are the taillights of harder working more intelligent people
that are so far ahead of most that they appear as stars on the horizon.
They are not unapproachable, it is not their fault that most people
cannot communicate with them.
So, sorry for being an ass to you jubungalord, it's myself I'm really
mad at. Trust me when I tell you that these people whom your disparge,
are just people living their lives, happily, without us. We cannot make
hazy generalizations about such a vast group and expect positive
actions. It seems to me that the Virian book club is going about things
the right way, getting authors to chat and such. Currently I have a DR.
friend that is doing a psilocybin study at the U of Arizona. I was
considering asking him to do a 1 hour chat with us. We'll see.
As for action - you will be heading out to Hermit's I take it? If
everyone goes that has posted interest, you will have a full plate of
action coming. Also, action takes many forms. Elven needs people for the
monthly - there is some good action for you there as well - we need writers.
Bill Roh
jubungalord wrote:
>Credentials don't neccesarily mean they are computer literate or intelligent. The older scholars who have the most prestige probably don't use anything besides email. Also they don't understand the importance of a hang out. In most cases I think they believe that thier slightly increased intelligence is cause by some individually special attribute like a soul. I think this deters them from participating in things that will question thier precious status like group discussions. Especially group discussions where a nobody can dispute thier reasoning. CoV is important because Self and Group worship are not a problem. No individual gains unchallengeable status. It escapes the evolutionary psych trend of meme control by a social heiarchy. The only problem I have is Action. If action is not taken we can not claim to be more intelligent or less biased or anything. If the the CoV is not trying to make changes like every other group than it's meme-plex and everything it stands for will not be replicated enough times to impact anything. WE have seen the meme-tactics of the most basic and simplistic organization and yet I see intelligent people everywhere still refusing to play the game. Do you think you are better than that? I think many intelligent people fall into the same ego-chasm of self indulgent praise that those scholars and religious people do. Creating change should be a reaction to the acknowledgement of being more intelligent.
>
>----
>This message was posted by jubungalord to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS.
><http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=28481>
>---
>To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
>
>
>
--
Reason - Vision - Empathy
Tools for a healthy mind
Bill Roh
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Drakeo Vortex
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 77
Reputation: 7.89
Rate Drakeo Vortex
|
|
Re:Possibly not important
« Reply #4 on: 2003-05-20 16:23:53 » |
|
Although you say most scientist and doctors are rational they simply are not very rational. The externally sort things but very seldom relate to thier time or themselves. Only a very small percentage of doctors and scientist actually analyze the problems are face and then ACT to change the root of problems. I see many scholars hiding behind popular morality never uprooting or challengeing these opinion for fear of thier own personal loss. What good does it do to sit at dupont and run a thousand batteries of tests everyday? What good does it do to the same medical procedure on thousands of patients every year? Is this going to change anything? No, the people who have the most control and influence will still have it. The system has it's meme traps and many scholars fall into them thinking that they still can change things. Once thier self-definition becomes permenent in thier ideal roles they have tied and gagged thier potential. Not only professional definition. Once human define the world too black and white they become obsolete like a computer.
|
|
|
|
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.27
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
|
|
Re:Possibly not important
« Reply #5 on: 2003-05-20 18:03:03 » |
|
[Bill Roh]
True communication happens only between equals AND time = money. Not only do we lack enough people of serious intellect to communicate meaningfully with many scientists and doctors (we are not equal) they have much better things to do with their time then sit in front of their computer and chat with us. Their "hangout" is with others of equal skills.
<snip>
If you were building a bird house and wanted to attract birds, but none came, would you fault the bird, or the birdhouse?
[rhinoceros]
"Lack of enough people of serious intellect" sounds like a tad too strong choice of words. I am sure every one of us has some knowledge/skills which the others don't have.
Anyway, what I had in mind was people who have made a name for themselves both in their field and in communicating the "state of the art" to the public. I have no doubt that those people value their time, but some of them might be interested in promoting their new book to us for just one evening, if they are convinced that it's worth it. I believe we can bring them to a rather small but much better than their average audience, provided we can keep some rules of conduct.
I don't know... would the "big names" ask money for that? Perhaps if we design an entry page to a network of virian sites we could use that as an additional argument for our importance.
My other question was how important that would be for the appeal of CoV, if it is to grow.
|
|
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.89
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re: virus: Re:Possibly not important
« Reply #6 on: 2003-05-21 18:37:25 » |
|
I think the key here is that CoV SHOULD always be striving to consciously engineer a would-be designer religion. The day it stops is the day we have old, dead dogma as our core. We can learn a few truths along the way, even have a dynamic manifesto, but can we really have any sacred, canonized truths and meet our adaptivity goals.
jubungalord wrote:
> Credentials don't neccesarily mean they are computer literate or intelligent. The older scholars who have the most prestige probably don't use anything besides email. Also they don't understand the importance of a hang out. In most cases I think they believe that thier slightly increased intelligence is cause by some individually special attribute like a soul. I think this deters them from participating in things that will question thier precious status like group discussions. Especially group discussions where a nobody can dispute thier reasoning. CoV is important because Self and Group worship are not a problem. No individual gains unchallengeable status. It escapes the evolutionary psych trend of meme control by a social heiarchy. The only problem I have is Action. If action is not taken we can not claim to be more intelligent or less biased or anything. If the the CoV is not trying to make changes like every other group than it's meme-plex and everything it stands for wi!
> ll not be replicated enough times to impact anything. WE have seen the meme-tactics of the most basic and simplistic organization and yet I see intelligent people everywhere still refusing to play the game. Do you think you are better than that? I think many intelligent people fall into the same ego-chasm of self indulgent praise that those scholars and religious people do. Creating change should be a reaction to the acknowledgement of being more intelligent.
>
> ----
> This message was posted by jubungalord to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS.
> <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=28481>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
"Reminding you to help control the human population. Have your sexual partner spayed or neutered."
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
billroh@churchofvirus.com
Guest
|
|
Re: virus: Re:Possibly not important
« Reply #7 on: 2003-05-23 15:06:35 » |
|
Quotes in line:
jubungalord wrote:
>Although you say most scientist and doctors are rational they simply are not very rational.
>
They are simply people, and like people, some are rational and some are
not. However, I think we can assume that in general they may be a
little more rational than others though because of a few reasons:
1> They are less likely to believe in gods, spirits, demons, ghosts
and the like. This is a statistical fact.
2> They frequently use data to come to conclusions insead of making
conclusions and then looking for data. This is not to say they don't
follow hunches.
3> They usually have spent many years dedicating themselves to their
skill and knowledge. A lot of work and dedication. I usually find these
attributes in more stable people.
> The externally sort things but very seldom relate to thier time or themselves. Only a very small percentage of doctors and scientist actually analyze the problems are face and then ACT to change the root of problems.
>
A question of personal goals and resources. There are only so many
resources to spend. Like professional athletes or musicians - there are
a few thousand famously successful ones, and untold millions more that
are just living life and trying to succeed. Some may one day be great
and others may fade away having only helped to peddle the bicycle of
knowledge a little ways.
> I see many scholars hiding behind popular morality never uprooting or challengeing these opinion for fear of thier own personal loss. What good does it do to sit at dupont and run a thousand batteries of tests everyday?
>
You mean product safety tests? Materials tests? Do you think Dupont
likes to waste money? I guarantee that these people are not wasting
time, they are, like everyone else, making a living, raising children,
paying a mortgage.
> What good does it do to the same medical procedure on thousands of patients every year?
>
It makes better doctors and safer procedures. I would rather have my
appendix removed by a 58 year old doctor that has performed thousands
of procedures, than a 26 year old who has done it 2x. Besides, they
don't pluck people from the street and say - "Hey, you need an
operation". People have problems and the procedures need to be
performend in the statistically most successful manner. It's really
pretty simple.
> Is this going to change anything?
>
Aside from maybe saving a life for each of those operations? Certianly
improving peoples lives is making a difference?
> No, the people who have the most control and influence will still have it.
>
Why should scientists or doctors have control? What makes you think that
control should be in the posession of the intelligent objcetive people?
The people need to be represented and find their control in people they
know, like and trust. Seldom is this a scientist or doctor. Usually it's
a charismatic person that is successful or appears successful, good
spirited and approachable.
> The system has it's meme traps and many scholars fall into them thinking that they still can change things. Once thier self-definition becomes permenent in thier ideal roles they have tied and gagged thier potential. Not only professional definition. Once human define the world too black and white they become obsolete like a computer.
>
Why should they even want to change things? Some do, some dont. You are
assuming way too much about a huge and diverse group of people with
dynamic interests and capabilities
You are doing what everyone calls "US vs Them". You have categorized
this entire group and then placed them in some sort of contructed
opposition to yourself and people you see as similar to yourself. You
need to "Have lunch with a bum". In other words, go make some friends
that are living in the science world and your respect for them as a
group may improve. Actually, I guarantee it will improve.
Reason - Vision - Empathy
Tools for a healthy mind
Bill Roh
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
billroh@churchofvirus.com
Guest
|
|
Re: virus: Re:Possibly not important
« Reply #8 on: 2003-05-23 15:16:08 » |
|
rhinoceros wrote:
>[Bill Roh]
>True communication happens only between equals AND time = money. Not only do we lack enough people of serious intellect to communicate meaningfully with many scientists and doctors (we are not equal) they have much better things to do with their time then sit in front of their computer and chat with us. Their "hangout" is with others of equal skills.
>
><snip>
>
>If you were building a bird house and wanted to attract birds, but none came, would you fault the bird, or the birdhouse?
>
>
>[rhinoceros]
>"Lack of enough people of serious intellect" sounds like a tad too strong choice of words. I am sure every one of us has some knowledge/skills which the others don't have.
>
You are right, that was a strong choice of words - and we do have
varrying skills. But we have very few, if any, doctorate level
participants - and very few discussions that ever get that deep. You
don't talking about serious details very often. We make good
businessmen, students, programmers, geeks, ex-military, we have a lawyer
and a Dr of Pharmacy and a lot of in betweens. But we don't have any
anthropologists, sociologists, chemists, biologists, doctors,
physists... We have a lot of people with a lot of reading and a little
experience.
>
>
>Anyway, what I had in mind was people who have made a name for themselves both in their field and in communicating the "state of the art" to the public. I have no doubt that those people value their time, but some of them might be interested in promoting their new book to us for just one evening, if they are convinced that it's worth it. I believe we can bring them to a rather small but much better than their average audience, provided we can keep some rules of conduct.
>
In this I 100% agree and would love to help.
>
>I don't know... would the "big names" ask money for that? Perhaps if we design an entry page to a network of virian sites we could use that as an additional argument for our importance.
>
>My other question was how important that would be for the appeal of CoV, if it is to grow.
>
It's very appealing to me, I would love their time. I also do not see a
problem paying some of them for their time. If Dennet were to offer for
a reasonable fee, then I would certainly be willing to work on paying
part of it.
--
Reason - Vision - Empathy
Tools for a healthy mind
Bill Roh
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Anarch
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 3.81
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re: virus: Re:Possibly not important
« Reply #9 on: 2003-06-01 19:29:51 » |
|
In a message dated 5/23/2003 2:25:14 PM Central Daylight Time,
billroh@churchofvirus.com writes:
You are right, that was a strong choice of words - and we do have
varrying skills. But we have very few, if any, doctorate level
participants - and very few discussions that ever get that deep. You
don't talking about serious details very often. We make good
businessmen, students, programmers, geeks, ex-military, we have a lawyer
and a Dr of Pharmacy and a lot of in betweens. But we don't have any
anthropologists, sociologists, chemists, biologists, doctors,
physists... We have a lot of people with a lot of reading and a little
experience.
[Jake] As the lawyer, I would also like to claim my background in sociology.
I started out as a sociology major in undergrad. After a few years of it, I
abandoned the field in disillusion and widened my major to Social Sciences in
order to get a better background in history and political science. At the
time, and as far as I can still tell sociology continues to be a waste of time
field driven more by ideology than any scientific basis. The only thing
worthwhile I got out of it was a basic understanding of statistics, an area that
sociology has no monopoly over. The rest of it was just a spewing of liberal
ideology. As a liberal myself, I have no real allergy to the ideas, but I was a
bit disappointed in the pretense of scientific basis that the field claimed for
this agenda. To me memetics, as a biologically based mythology about
sociology and culture is at least more ideologically neutral and intellectually
honest and many of its adherents do not hold to any pretenses of its supposed
scientific foundations. Some do, of course, but I find them in the minority of
self-proclaimed memeticists. Often the "more serious" scholars, doctorate level
etc., are simply the more indoctrinated and deluded. What I find more
refreshing is a serious commitment reason and rational criticism. Many of the more
serious participants in CoV do have at least a Bachelor's degree education, and
have somewhere along the line achieved more appreciation for reason and
rationality than many post graduate level educated people. I still hold a bit of
respect for people with more education in the more real sciences like biology,
chemistry, physics etc. (though many physicists have now descended in a lot of
pseudo-science themselves as research opportunities in their own field has
dried up in the last 20 or so years and their dreams scientific priesthood have
more or less been flushed down the toilet).
The lack of doctorate level indoctrination in our ranks does not cause me any
real despair. The diversity of real world experience, the ability to
intelligently articulate our ideas, and our capacity for and/or openness to rational
criticism in my mind makes our community more intellectually exciting and open
to possibility than many of the more indoctrinated communities I have
encountered or participated in. Sure, there are some hard hitting academics that I
would love to see participating here, but there are plenty more who are simply
deluded by their own credentials and indoctrination whom I don't have the time
of day to waste on.
I don't think that we have ever held ourselves out to be any more than a
community with an interest in science and religion and a dedication to reason,
empathy, and vision. As such I have been far less disappointed in it than I have
been in other more academically indoctrinated communities.
This thread seems to capitalize on some people's insecurities about lack of
higher (post-grad) education credentials. As such I think it is definitely not
important. More often than not, those who go on to get such credentials do
so out of their own lack of sense and drive to make real world accomplishments
out of their more basic education. The ivory towers are largely full of
people who are hiding from the real world for whatever reason. If that is the
"lack of experience" we are talking about I certainly don't miss it. I will take
real experience over that.
Love,
-Jake
attached: index.html
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
|
Logged
