Fodder 'n' Frivolities: a complaint against Spectacle Society

[doolhoofd]

your work has quality.

Thanks again for your praise JohnDoe7, happy to have found a fan in you.
At the risk of shamelessly self-promoting, I also have a poem about money:
https://www.deviantart.com/doolhoofd/ar ... -770553945
And a journal with ten quotes about the Sun and the Stars:
https://www.deviantart.com/doolhoofd/jo ... -770910337

[BlackChristianMind]

People don't have time to read about what is destroying them.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's destroying people.
Seduction doesn't destroy, it merely distracts.
Okay, in the case of junk food, it's different.
But watching a movie has never destroyed anyone, I think.

People gain their identities by what they assume.

This assumption is the grounds for awareness.

This awareness in turn, through assumption, in turn takes the form of what is assumed (ie we become what we meditate on).

The awareness of multiple images causes a division in the inhernet nature of assumption. With the division of assumption comes the division of focus, hence identity.

Without an identity people's minds become disturbed, causing an inhernet disturbance of value placement that reciprocates and magnifies over time.

Distraction is psychic death, with eventually reverberate to empirical suffering and death due to fragmented value placement.

Sound Mind, sound values. Disturbed mind, disturbed values.

Value is the continuum of a perspective that allows us to cultivate an inherent sense of order and balance.

The continual repetition of images and sensations disturbs our ability to not just maintain values internally, due to the inability and reflect, but also exert those values as well.

Very insightful. Richard Foreman had this to say about it:

But today, I see within us all (myself included) the replacement of complex inner density with a new kind of self-evolving under the pressure of information overload and the technology of the "instantly available". A new self that needs to contain less and less of an inner repertory of dense cultural inheritance—as we all become "pancake people"—spread wide and thin as we connect with that vast network of information accessed by the mere touch of a button.

I am becoming increasingly troubled by the idea that thinkers of the past who didn't even have the Internet seemed to have much more wisdom, knowledge, and depth than even the highly specialized professionals of today, who may be good at the one thing they rely on to pay their bills, but concerning everything else, they seem to have only a surface or pancake understanding, such as politics, money management, religion, morality, the spirit realm, nutrition, child rearing.

We are being encouraged to remain in a child-like state with endless flashy cartoons and gadgets to hold hostage our attention and thus distract us from reflecting deeply on anything. Why bother thinking when the TV and computer screen will do it for you? A YouTube subscriber who also started visiting my website made an off-topic comment under one of my articles telling me it was time for me to start making YouTube videos again, as if to say he didn't acknowledge the many posts I'd made on my website because they weren't keeping his attention I guess like a video would. Instead, he wanted to receive me in the form of a TV show, the way he's used to receiving his entertainment.

Unfortunately, even people who try to provide more than distraction are lumped into the big distraction and become surface-level entertainment to passing viewers who like to see faces on screens regularly and can somehow "enjoy" a "performance" without even understanding it. Entertainment and distraction, a relaxing of the mind to allow it to be merely a receptacle, are making the human mind redundant. "Why be a thinker when I can be a consumer?" they think, as they are losing everything that separates them from beasts.

[Skepdick]

I am becoming increasingly troubled by the idea that thinkers of the past who didn't even have the Internet seemed to have much more wisdom, knowledge, and depth than even the highly specialized professionals of today, who may be good at the one thing they rely on to pay their bills, but concerning everything else, they seem to have only a surface or pancake understanding, such as politics, money management, religion, morality, the spirit realm, nutrition, child rearing.

And who should say whether depth is preferred to breadth when it comes to knowledge?

Depth is synonymous with specialisation. Breadth is synonymous with generalisation.

In so far I consider myself - I am a specialist at being a generalist. I know how to learn and what to learn when I need to learn it, and don't bother to acquire any depth any sooner than I need it.

The way the world is configured in 2019 allows for Just-in-Time knowledge acquisition.

[BlackChristianMind]

I am becoming increasingly troubled by the idea that thinkers of the past who didn't even have the Internet seemed to have much more wisdom, knowledge, and depth than even the highly specialized professionals of today, who may be good at the one thing they rely on to pay their bills, but concerning everything else, they seem to have only a surface or pancake understanding, such as politics, money management, religion, morality, the spirit realm, nutrition, child rearing.

And who should say whether depth is preferred to breadth when it comes to knowledge?

Depth is synonymous with specialisation. Breadth is synonymous with generalisation.

In so far I consider myself - I am a specialist at being a generalist. I know how to learn and what to learn when I need to learn it, and don't bother to acquire any depth any sooner than I need it.

The way the world is configured in 2019 allows for Just-in-Time knowledge acquisition.

The world in 2019 is configured as a kind of virtual reality. Sports players, actors, and even gamers become millionaires from creating a fictional world for your mind to wander in while the rulers make real moves. Being a specialist at some job and being a deep thinker are not the same. I could be a master at understanding and solving the Rubik's cube. I could know everything there is to know about the silphium plant, but that doesn't mean that my thoughts ever compel me to think about why I've wasted my life learning the Rubik's cube.

The problem in today's world is that with all the gadgets and toys for adults to play with, they have lost sight of what they should be giving their attention to and what is a waste of time. As a result, they fill their brains with mostly distractions.

[Eodnhoj7]

I am becoming increasingly troubled by the idea that thinkers of the past who didn't even have the Internet seemed to have much more wisdom, knowledge, and depth than even the highly specialized professionals of today, who may be good at the one thing they rely on to pay their bills, but concerning everything else, they seem to have only a surface or pancake understanding, such as politics, money management, religion, morality, the spirit realm, nutrition, child rearing.

And who should say whether depth is preferred to breadth when it comes to knowledge?

Depth is synonymous with specialisation. Breadth is synonymous with generalisation.

In so far I consider myself - I am a specialist at being a generalist. I know how to learn and what to learn when I need to learn it, and don't bother to acquire any depth any sooner than I need it.

The way the world is configured in 2019 allows for Just-in-Time knowledge acquisition.

The world in 2019 is configured as a kind of virtual reality. Sports players, actors, and even gamers become millionaires from creating a fictional world for your mind to wander in while the rulers make real moves. Being a specialist at some job and being a deep thinker are not the same. I could be a master at understanding and solving the Rubik's cube. I could know everything there is to know about the silphium plant, but that doesn't mean that my thoughts ever compel me to think about why I've wasted my life learning the Rubik's cube.

The problem in today's world is that with all the gadgets and toys for adults to play with, they have lost sight of what they should be giving their attention to and what is a waste of time. As a result, they fill their brains with mostly distractions.

True.

[Skepdick]

The world in 2019 is configured as a kind of virtual reality.

The reality isn't virtual - only the information is. And if that's not to your liking - the libraries are still there. Is just the latency of retrieving information from libraries is a few orders of magnitude higher than The Internet.

Being a specialist at some job and being a deep thinker are not the same.

So lets unpack the distinction then? What's the difference between a deep thinker about physics and an expert in physics?

I could be a master at understanding and solving the Rubik's cube. I could know everything there is to know about the silphium plant, but that doesn't mean that my thoughts ever compel me to think about why I've wasted my life learning the Rubik's cube.

Are you suggesting that the the answer to the "why?" question is deep? I can tell you why I solve Rubik's cubes.

It amuses me. It's algorithmic. I am a computer scientist. Solving Rubik's cubes with mechanical devices adds an extra dimension to the fun - computer vision, robotics etc.

The problem in today's world is that with all the gadgets and toys for adults to play with, they have lost sight of what they should be giving their attention to and what is a waste of time. As a result, they fill their brains with mostly distractions.

Isn't the purpose of automating ourselves exactly the opposite though? Give the mundane, quantitative, mechanical tasks to the machines so that we, humans can focus on the important, non-mechanical, qualitative side of things.

Machines can save time or they can waste time - it's how we use them.

[Eodnhoj7]

The world in 2019 is configured as a kind of virtual reality.

The reality isn't virtual - only the information is. And if that's not to your liking - the libraries are still there. Is just the latency of retrieving information from libraries is a few orders of magnitude higher than The Internet.

And yet reality exists through information.

Being a specialist at some job and being a deep thinker are not the same.

So lets unpack the distinction then? What's the difference between a deep thinker about physics and an expert in physics?

"Deep thinker" is not subject strictly to group agreed interpretations where an expert (as "expert" is a given title) is subject strictly to the say so of others as it is a title. One is a dynamic process (deep "thinker") and the other is a static interpretation of how others perceive the individual's awareness.

I could be a master at understanding and solving the Rubik's cube. I could know everything there is to know about the silphium plant, but that doesn't mean that my thoughts ever compel me to think about why I've wasted my life learning the Rubik's cube.

Are you suggesting that the the answer to the "why?" question is deep? I can tell you why I solve Rubik's cubes.

It amuses me. It's algorithmic. I am a computer scientist. Solving Rubik's cubes with mechanical devices adds an extra dimension to the fun - computer vision, robotics etc.

The term algothrythmic, in an age where algorithms are applied to describing any and everything is subject to equivocation. I can stare at a clod of dirt, and I am not saying this mockingly, and claim I am develop a logical or algebraic formula for localized chaotic particle distribution.

The problem in today's world is that with all the gadgets and toys for adults to play with, they have lost sight of what they should be giving their attention to and what is a waste of time. As a result, they fill their brains with mostly distractions.

Isn't the purpose of automating ourselves exactly the opposite though? Give the mundane, quantitative, mechanical tasks to the machines so that we, humans can focus on the important, non-mechanical, qualitative side of things.

That is a fallacy, if you are focusing on automating phenomena then you are focusing on automating them. There is no set standard for what is and is not "fully" automated thus we are left with a rabbit hole.

One could argue: "I am automating things so I can spend time with my father or son".
Or you can just go out and chop wood with your father or son.

Automatation, as grounded in probabilistic problem solving share a paradox in the respect the same statistical evidence it relies upon to justify its claims also points that excessive automation results in mental illness.

Machines can save time or they can waste time - it's how we use them.

And when one uses them all the time, the time is focused on the machine.

[Skepdick]

The world in 2019 is configured as a kind of virtual reality.

The reality isn't virtual - only the information is. And if that's not to your liking - the libraries are still there. Is just the latency of retrieving information from libraries is a few orders of magnitude higher than The Internet.

And yet reality exists through information.

Being a specialist at some job and being a deep thinker are not the same.

So lets unpack the distinction then? What's the difference between a deep thinker about physics and an expert in physics?

"Deep thinker" is not subject strictly to group agreed interpretations where an expert (as "expert" is a given title) is subject strictly to the say so of others as it is a title. One is a dynamic process (deep "thinker") and the other is a static interpretation of how others perceive the individual's awareness.

I could be a master at understanding and solving the Rubik's cube. I could know everything there is to know about the silphium plant, but that doesn't mean that my thoughts ever compel me to think about why I've wasted my life learning the Rubik's cube.

Are you suggesting that the the answer to the "why?" question is deep? I can tell you why I solve Rubik's cubes.

It amuses me. It's algorithmic. I am a computer scientist. Solving Rubik's cubes with mechanical devices adds an extra dimension to the fun - computer vision, robotics etc.

The term algothrythmic, in an age where algorithms are applied to describing any and everything is subject to equivocation. I can stare at a clod of dirt, and I am not saying this mockingly, and claim I am develop a logical or algebraic formula for localized chaotic particle distribution.

The problem in today's world is that with all the gadgets and toys for adults to play with, they have lost sight of what they should be giving their attention to and what is a waste of time. As a result, they fill their brains with mostly distractions.

Isn't the purpose of automating ourselves exactly the opposite though? Give the mundane, quantitative, mechanical tasks to the machines so that we, humans can focus on the important, non-mechanical, qualitative side of things.

That is a fallacy, if you are focusing on automating phenomena then you are focusing on automating them. There is no set standard for what is and is not "fully" automated thus we are left with a rabbit hole.

One could argue: "I am automating things so I can spend time with my father or son".
Or you can just go out and chop wood with your father or son.

Automatation, as grounded in probabilistic problem solving share a paradox in the respect the same statistical evidence it relies upon to justify its claims also points that excessive automation results in mental illness.

Machines can save time or they can waste time - it's how we use them.

And when one uses them all the time, the time is focused on the machine.

And now that you understand the notion of context sensitivity see if you can grasp the notion that we can control the context.

The usual name given to the attempt of humanity to control the context in which we exist is called "Society"

[Eodnhoj7]

The reality isn't virtual - only the information is. And if that's not to your liking - the libraries are still there. Is just the latency of retrieving information from libraries is a few orders of magnitude higher than The Internet.

And yet reality exists through information.


So lets unpack the distinction then? What's the difference between a deep thinker about physics and an expert in physics?

"Deep thinker" is not subject strictly to group agreed interpretations where an expert (as "expert" is a given title) is subject strictly to the say so of others as it is a title. One is a dynamic process (deep "thinker") and the other is a static interpretation of how others perceive the individual's awareness.





Are you suggesting that the the answer to the "why?" question is deep? I can tell you why I solve Rubik's cubes.

It amuses me. It's algorithmic. I am a computer scientist. Solving Rubik's cubes with mechanical devices adds an extra dimension to the fun - computer vision, robotics etc.

The term algothrythmic, in an age where algorithms are applied to describing any and everything is subject to equivocation. I can stare at a clod of dirt, and I am not saying this mockingly, and claim I am develop a logical or algebraic formula for localized chaotic particle distribution.


Isn't the purpose of automating ourselves exactly the opposite though? Give the mundane, quantitative, mechanical tasks to the machines so that we, humans can focus on the important, non-mechanical, qualitative side of things.

That is a fallacy, if you are focusing on automating phenomena then you are focusing on automating them. There is no set standard for what is and is not "fully" automated thus we are left with a rabbit hole.

One could argue: "I am automating things so I can spend time with my father or son".
Or you can just go out and chop wood with your father or son.

Automatation, as grounded in probabilistic problem solving share a paradox in the respect the same statistical evidence it relies upon to justify its claims also points that excessive automation results in mental illness.

Machines can save time or they can waste time - it's how we use them.

And when one uses them all the time, the time is focused on the machine.

And now that you understand the notion of context sensitivity see if you can grasp the notion that we can control the context.

The usual name given to the attempt of humanity to control the context in which we exist is called "Society"

And now I understand context sensitivity? Lol, I have been stating context for awhile.


"Attempt to control" is the key word, and yet even that control is subject to merely context repitition.

Take the standard input output box, a basic cycle that creates a tautology, it is a replication of natural cycles. It is strictly taking one set of cycles and fragmenting them.

[Skepdick]

And now I understand context sensitivity? Lol, I have been stating context for awhile.

Not as long as I've been telling you to read about Type 1 Grammars ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_h ... 1_grammars ).

They are also known as context-sensitive grammars.

Contexts are well studied and understood in Computer Science ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_(computing) )
Python has things called context managers ( https://docs.python.org/3/library/conte ... t-managers ).

Here is an example of how contexts work in practice: https://repl.it/repls/TerribleEnchantedParser

"Attempt to control" is the key word, and yet even that control is subject to merely context repitition.

Take the standard input output box, a basic cycle that creates a tautology, it is a replication of natural cycles. It is strictly taking one set of cycles and fragmenting them.

You are missing the critical question: why do humans need contexts? Why do humans fragment/categorize things?

And the trivial answer is "You can't fit The Single Context we call The Universe into your tiny brain"

Contextualisation/categorisation are coping mechanism for complexity. If you can't context-switch - you can't multitask.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_switch

[Eodnhoj7]

And now I understand context sensitivity? Lol, I have been stating context for awhile.

Not as long as I've been telling you to read about Type 1 Grammars ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_h ... 1_grammars ).

They are also known as context-sensitive grammars.

All grammars are context sensitive.

Contexts are well studied and understood in Computer Science ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_(computing) )
Python has things called context managers ( https://docs.python.org/3/library/conte ... t-managers ).



Here is an example of how contexts work in practice: https://repl.it/repls/TerribleEnchantedParser

"Attempt to control" is the key word, and yet even that control is subject to merely context repitition.

Take the standard input output box, a basic cycle that creates a tautology, it is a replication of natural cycles. It is strictly taking one set of cycles and fragmenting them.

You are missing the critical question: why do humans need contexts? Why do humans fragment/categorize things?

Who said we need them when the human condition, specifically its reasoning, is subject to form? We cannot escape loops as loops form us. Each context is a loop and each loop exists through multiple loops.

And the trivial answer is "You can't fit The Single Context we call The Universe into your tiny brain"

Actually if it is all loops we actually can bot fit the universe in the brain and not fit it in as the brain exists through the universe.

Contextualisation/categorisation are coping mechanism for complexity. If you can't context-switch - you can't multitask.

You can superposition where each movement is layered with meaning.

Simple practical example:

I go out to chop wood with "x" person.

In that context I have multiple meanings in one phenomenon:


I gather resources.

I get exercise.

I spend time with the person and get to know them.

In the basic swinging motion, I am practicing simple fundamentals of self defense.

I clear my mind of thoughts and it acts as meditative as I focus on the moment.

I harvest only the resources I need and not more (ie not wasting wood).

I am dependent on less tools.

Etc...the contexts go on.




Instead of taking each activity and fragmenting it into further activities I take one activity and derive "meaning" from it. With meaning being balance and balance being unity.


Automation fragments the human condition by negating it for a false sense of leisure which can never real be enjoyed as it is meaningless.





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_switch