CAN WE CONSIDER THIS FORUM AS A GLOBAL VILLAGE?

[attofishpi]

Ya know, people although at different times of the day when posting...we all know each other to some extent, most of us would\should consider each other as friends. It's not too bad on the whole.

[BuzzCap7]

What an amazing statement. Yes! I agree.........

There is a LOT to be said about this matter.

Here is just 1 thing. Have you ever been among a lot of people like at a grocery store or a concert or any type of gathering and then get a "feel" off of someone, a "knowing", a "sense", or something that you know that person?

Like......if you line up 10 people and just look at them. Do not think, just feel. You get different impressions from each person without even talking with them.

Now the 10 you selected may not be enough people. You may line up 20 or more. But the point is, some people you get a "feeling" you know them. And you do! Souls journey in groups. You likely "know" that person from a prior life.

We are all here on earth from the spirit world (another dimension) and some of us you will recognize in a feeling you have.

Heck, look at the person you married. (If you are married.) Look closer to why you dated "x" number of gals but decided to marry "y". Why did you marry that one? It is bcs of the deeper feeling you have for that person we call love.

Anyway....... GREAT subject matter attofishpi. We are a global village; if you would like to put it in those terms.

Mark

[Immanuel Can]

No, we're not a "global village." That's a very misleading metaphor, if taken too far.

In a "village," people meet each other in embodied form. They learn to live together. They have to compromise with each other. They negotiate their identities, in large part, in the context of a shared society with a monoculture. They have to treat each other with respect, or hostilities break out and the society fractures. They are accountable if they do evil, and can't escape consequences. And they have to work together toward common social goals...or die. They cannot leave, or they end up in the wilds, alone. They have to sacrifice for the common good.

We're none of that.

[Gary Childress]

No, we're not a "global village." That's a very misleading metaphor, if taken too far.

In a "village," people meet each other in embodied form. They learn to live together. They have to compromise with each other. They negotiate their identities, in large part, in the context of a shared society with a monoculture. They have to treat each other with respect, or hostilities break out and the society fractures. They are accountable if they do evil, and can't escape consequences. And they have to work together toward common social goals...or die. They cannot leave, or they end up in the wilds, alone. They have to sacrifice for the common good.

We're none of that.

OK, 'Debbie downer'.

[Gary Childress]

Ya know, people although at different times of the day when posting...we all know each other to some extent, most of us would\should consider each other as friends. It's not too bad on the whole.

I think "village" (in the 'virtual' sense) is a fair metaphor.

[Immanuel Can]

No, we're not a "global village." That's a very misleading metaphor, if taken too far.

In a "village," people meet each other in embodied form. They learn to live together. They have to compromise with each other. They negotiate their identities, in large part, in the context of a shared society with a monoculture. They have to treat each other with respect, or hostilities break out and the society fractures. They are accountable if they do evil, and can't escape consequences. And they have to work together toward common social goals...or die. They cannot leave, or they end up in the wilds, alone. They have to sacrifice for the common good.

We're none of that.

OK, 'Debbie downer'.

I'm just being honest. But I could go on, and be much more of a "downer."

I could point out, for example, that there is inevitably an inverse ratio between the size of the polity and the amount of that polity's senstitivity to individuals and locales within it. If the needs of one citizen or one county can be overwhelmed by the contrary demands of a city or a whole state, just imagine how completely unimportant the wishes of an Australia or a USA can become if we ever get world government. All decisions would favour the majority denizens of "the global village," which means places like China would get every policy decision, and other places, smaller ones, would have no more importance to the global government than a dying gnat.

We've already seen this play out at the EU, where, say, the needs of fishermen of Newcastle are completely shut down, because Portugal demands advantages for its fishing fleet. Or, if the EU decides, then one country can become a dumping ground for every economic migrant that wants to get into the EU, while others, and their social safety nets, remain largely unencumbered by the influx of large masses of angry, militant young men from cultures with no history of human rights.

Now imagine that on a world scale. And just imagine how completely voiceless and powerless a Gary would be, in the midst of all that.

[Immanuel Can]

Ya know, people although at different times of the day when posting...we all know each other to some extent, most of us would\should consider each other as friends. It's not too bad on the whole.

I think "village" (in the 'virtual' sense) is a fair metaphor.

Only in a "virtual" way.

When the term was first coined, I think it was by McLuhan; and he was using the term as an oxymoron -- that is, as a word laced inherently with contradictions. "Global" is huge; "village" is small. He was emphasizing that new communications technologies have a tendency to "shrink" space. But he was not saying everybody would become friends, and peace and love would rule the world. In fact, he suspected the opposite would happen. As more and more people are squeezed mentally into less and less space, but without any of the natural counterbalances afforded by real-world "village" life, such as actually sociability, embodied experience of each other, and so forth, people would become more commercialized, more antisocial, more fractious and difficult, and more vicious in competition for resources, as well as more susceptible to control from the commercial and selfish interests that run the communication technologies.

And so it is turning out to be.

[attofishpi]

Anyway....... GREAT subject matter attofishpi. We are a global village; if you would like to put it in those terms.

Mark

Yes, thanks. I love to chat to people in the shops that I have never met! It's amazing how our humour can be so similar about silly quirks, like self serving checkouts or the reason I tend to queue for a human to serve etc..

I'm changing the thread title, since I meant in relation to the FORUM - maybe IC will alter his 'downer' approach!

[Gary Childress]

But he was not saying everybody would become friends, and peace and love would rule the world.

Yes, I know. As a Christian you don't believe in peace and forgiveness. I generally try to. But maybe me not being a Christian helps in that regard, I don't know. I've met some very angry and pompous Christians in my life. Must be something in the religion.

[Immanuel Can]

But he was not saying everybody would become friends, and peace and love would rule the world.

Yes, I know. As a Christian you don't believe in peace and forgiveness.

I have no idea where you're coming from on that. I was just telling you what McLuhan knew, and about his idea of "the global village". If you don't like it, I guess you can tell him...or his estate, anyway.

[Age]

But he was not saying everybody would become friends, and peace and love would rule the world.

Yes, I know. As a Christian you don't believe in peace and forgiveness. I generally try to. But maybe me not being a Christian helps in that regard, I don't know. I've met some very angry and pompous Christians in my life. Must be something in the religion.

Well said "gary childress".

[Immanuel Can]

I'm changing the thread title, since I meant in relation to the FORUM - maybe IC will alter his 'downer' approach!

You could. But if you mean anything like McLuhan's "global village," then the same will apply, of course. I'm just saying what he knew.

Funny...I think people don't understand how careful McLuhan was in explaining that concept. He wasn't all sunshine and roses, some polyanna who thought the world was going to "sing" and "have a coke" about it. He knew it came with serious problems and challenges. His concerns were quite prescient, actually. He was a smart man.

[Gary Childress]

But he was not saying everybody would become friends, and peace and love would rule the world.

Yes, I know. As a Christian you don't believe in peace and forgiveness.

I have no idea where you're coming from on that. I was just telling you what McLuhan knew, and about his idea of "the global village". If you don't like it, I guess you can tell him...or his estate, anyway.

Do you ever have your own opinion on anything? Do you believe in peace and forgiveness or do you not?

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, I know. As a Christian you don't believe in peace and forgiveness.

I have no idea where you're coming from on that. I was just telling you what McLuhan knew, and about his idea of "the global village". If you don't like it, I guess you can tell him...or his estate, anyway.

Do you ever have your own opinion on anything?

Gary, Gary, Gary...how long have you known me?

Do you believe in peace and forgiveness or do you not?

Of course.

[Gary Childress]

Do you believe in peace and forgiveness or do you not?

Of course.

In that case, I forgive you for dissing our village.