How Can I Make Myself Smarter?
Ian
RMJon23
attitude; study General Semantics; practice writing with your non-dominant
hand; read a book a week and write a review of it, if only for your own eyes;
join discussion groups about topics that interest you; run stairs or ride a
bicycle regularly; read poetry every day; meditate for 30 minutes a day for 30
days in a row; practice novel methods of perception, as described at length in
books by Robert Anton Wilson, John Lilly, Timothy Leary, Richard Bandler,
Masters and Houston, Aleister Crowley, etc; look at your media habits and try
to find out how they affect your worldviews and moods, then try altering your
use of media for a month; try a form of psychotherapy; listen to new musical
forms and feel them as languages, images, emotions, unique rhetorical
structures; are you smoking pot at least once a month?; get out of your normal
environment for three to seven days and observe how the new environments
affected your sense ratios; make a committment to a long-term study of one of
the bottomless books, like Ulysses or The Cantos or Schrodinger's Cat Trilogy,
or...well, we readers MAKE books bottomless, really; study math and logic; read
Garfinkel's Studies In Ethnomethodology and try your own breaching experiments
to see what you can find out about minute details of everyday social "reality";
keep a dream journal; read and study metaphor intensely, then listen to people
speak; learn as much as you can about the prison system in the US; none of us
can possibly know enough about world mythologies; assume everything you know is
wrong.
Prove to yourself what an ass rmjon23 is by developing something for yourself
that's better than anything I've written above. What sort of "proof" was it?
Emulate any self-respecting taxi driver in the lower left-hand corner of
Arizona and develop your sense of Yuma.
I've tried all these things, and they've worked for me; my IQ jumped 15 points.
I've finally broken 100, folks! (100 seems overrated, truth be told...)
-rmjon23
Joe
in message news:lq707uc012j226ct0...@4ax.com...
> <neuropep...@hotmail.com>
thor
to this newsgroup never ceases to amaze me. Having said that, being
somewhat of a 'reality tunnel traveler' myself, Bibliothearpy has
helped me much as well as all the mentions above in your post.But i
must say Yoga has been the number one and most rewarding. It seems to
trancend something/everything;the body mind spirit connection eh? No
wonder it's been around for some three thousand years.I have somehow
been able to live my life as of late, in a state of total flux ;
meaning i don't believe anything and i believe everything at the same
time,
this alone stops me from preconceived idea's and opens me to
investigate my own meme's.
-mobythor
DER1378
Joe
DER1378 <der...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020218134409...@mb-mc.aol.com...
> Try not to surround yourself with dumb people.
smarter.
DER1378
answers to interesting interesting questions. By having idiots around you, your
intelligence is wasted on answering stupid questions.
Joe
any other uses(misuses) of intelligence, but how to make yourself smarter.
I think that one way to appear to be smarter would be to do what I
mentioned. As for your classification of dumb and smart people, that would
seem to me to be very subjective.
RMJon23
>>Bravo,rmjon23 and thank you. Once again your dedication and exuberance
to this newsgroup never ceases to amaze me.<<
rmjon23:
Glad to contribute. Thanks! And I must add that it's good to see proof that not
everyone has killfiled me.
Thor:
>> Having said that, being
somewhat of a 'reality tunnel traveler' myself, Bibliothearpy has
helped me much as well as all the mentions above in your post.<<
rmjon23:
I've seen/read more than two definitions of "Bibliotherapy". What's your
personal definition or action or approach?
Thor:
>>But i
must say Yoga has been the number one >and most rewarding. It seems to
trancend something/everything;the body >mind spirit connection eh? No
wonder it's been around for some three >thousand years.I have somehow
been able to live my life as of late, in a >state of total flux ;
meaning i don't believe anything and i >believe everything at the same
time,
>this alone stops me from preconceived idea's and opens me to
>investigate my own meme's.<<
rmjon23:
Glad to see a positive testimonial here about the awesome technique of yogic
practice. I've been studying and practicing a few forms of it for three or four
years now, and I now doubt strongly that the Reader of RAW, Crowley, or Lilly
can comprehend some of the things they discuss w/o having undergone at least a
few months of hatha or meditation...And yet: I know my knowledge of yoga is at
best rudimentary. Once one "catches on", one gets the feeling how far this
could go. A dedicated, lifelong adept has practiced with such diligence and
discipline he's equivalent to a musical virtuoso, eh?...After RAW, I now think
of my studies as another form of "union" (Gnana yoga). In one of his books, RAW
notes that the study of mathematics can make a powerful yoga.
[Switching gears, to probe]
Memes. Neo-Darwinian/sociobiologist Richard Dawkins' coinage. Potent "meme"
itself, it seems. A prominent Third Culture biologist/academic steps over the
disciplinary lines (nothing objectionable there; I personally enjoy it) and
begins to thrust and parry on the humanities side. Just as the gene is the
primary unit of biological transmission of information from generation to
generation, so the "meme" gets posited as the primary unit of ideas/cultural
information from generation to generation.
Does anyone have an objection to this? I do, and the seed of mine comes from
the metaphorical level. I see the "meme" idea as potentially harmful, because
how did/do genes survive and propagate? Admittedly, this requires a complex
answer, but I think the old post-Darwinian saw about "Nature, red in tooth and
claw" gives my clue: One of the primary ways genes survive is through forms of
violence. One might indulge me a little in picturing a roving band of Nazis or
fundamentalist Xtians or muslims or ardent Bush supporters torching a pile of,
oh, say Harry Potter books. Don't laff! It could happen here!
When I see those books in flames, then I most clearly "see" memes. I "see" them
in two places: in the words and intent and cultural ideas of the burners, and
in the ideas of Rowling and those ideas in her books.
I'm sure most of you can think of more vivid (and possibly even "true"?)
examples for my little argument here.
So: rmjon23 thinks the "meme" idea has serious flaws at a metaphorical level. I
welcome those who show me the error of my ways.
Btw, the 100+ yrs old idea of "the sociology of knowledge" seems like a map
that covers the territory of Dawkins' "meme" idea in a way that possibly
encourages less damage to human bodies and their creations, however difficult
it "is" to understand and put into fruitful practice.
-rmjon23
Levi
[Pardon my snippage]
>[Switching gears, to probe]
>Memes. Neo-Darwinian/sociobiologist Richard Dawkins' coinage. Potent "meme"
>itself, it seems. A prominent Third Culture biologist/academic steps over the
>disciplinary lines (nothing objectionable there; I personally enjoy it) and
>begins to thrust and parry on the humanities side. Just as the gene is the
>primary unit of biological transmission of information from generation to
>generation, so the "meme" gets posited as the primary unit of ideas/cultural
>information from generation to generation.
>
>Does anyone have an objection to this? I do, and the seed of mine comes from
>the metaphorical level. I see the "meme" idea as potentially harmful, because
>how did/do genes survive and propagate? Admittedly, this requires a complex
>answer, but I think the old post-Darwinian saw about "Nature, red in tooth and
>claw" gives my clue: One of the primary ways genes survive is through forms of
>violence. One might indulge me a little in picturing a roving band of Nazis or
>fundamentalist Xtians or muslims or ardent Bush supporters torching a pile of,
>oh, say Harry Potter books. Don't laff! It could happen here!
Well, there might be an aspect of violence in the process but I don't
think the genes themselves really think about such things. They are a
bit to preoccupied with snatching up building blocks with which to
replicate themselves. In a sense it may be more about competition in
acquiring resources than what we would consider violence.
Let's move up some levels from genes and think about bacteria.
Bacteria are happy to just go around "eating" every thing they can and
throw off duplicates of themselves every 20 minutes. They'll do this
until they consume all resources availible or introduced to a another
strain which can exploit some weakness and consume them. You see the
problem (if you want to call it that) with bacteria is that they don't
much care about the means, they're hardwired to propogate and that's
exactly what they intend to do. We might observe violence in their
system of acquisition but I doubt bacteria lose much sleep over it.
I find Dawkins' meme metaphor to be an observation on behaviour: Much
like genes, well-built memes will propogate and flourish while
ill-formed memes will fall by the wayside or get blinked out entirely.
I'm quite confident that you are readily able to bring up examples of
memes to counter this argument. I also have problems with this
particular metaphor.
>When I see those books in flames, then I most clearly "see" memes. I "see" them
>in two places: in the words and intent and cultural ideas of the burners, and
>in the ideas of Rowling and those ideas in her books.
Therein lies my problem. Ill-formed memes seem have a level of
tenacity that ill-formed genes don't seem to posess. Or I could just
have too many opinions of what a "proper" meme should be like. Or I
could be missing something... drat, you're going to make me go back
and re-read Dawkins aren't you?
Guess that wouldn't be a bad idea,
Levi
Zoray Tahija
> <neuropep...@hotmail.com>
You may first make such demands on group mind as to what sort of
particular, peculiar advance in intelligence you happen to be after.
(Feel that bubblegum vector ripple yet, guise?)
Zoray Tahija
kai_savage
news:5dac7704.02022...@posting.google.com...
Thought you were taking a hoiliday :)
DER1378
obsticles that distract your purpose. Idiots strike chords when I listen to
them in a bad way. Smart people in a good way. Not insulting anyone's
intelligence but rather ignoring bogus opinions and ask (cry) for help and
cooperations. Audio/Video/Books are limited in to access in some areas because
of certain system beliefs. It makes things dull and conditioned.
Does anybody read this besides me that saw the kickass previews for this movie
"The Brotherhood of the Wolf" since New Year's but it's not released in the
theaters in this city where there's over 150,000 people.
It's probably might offend secret socities.
Levi
I don't get around much to take notice. But if for those of you out
there who can't see this movie you might want to see if your local
video store has a copy of "The Advocate" since it has parallels in
plot to BotW.
The Advocate tends to have wit where BotW has kung fu and special
effects but they are both rather similar in storyline.
Levi
kai_savage
When Brotherhood of the Wolf was released the summer just gone in Cambridge,
it was about four hours long and superb. Now it has had its proper release
it has been slashed in the editing room. Annoyingly most decent films don't
get full release across the country and in this case has had its story
vastly compromised by the editing. This was performed in order to make it a
more accessable film abroad.
kai_savage
I have printed out your little list RMJon23 to act as a daily guide,
although it is not 'new material' as such, I think it is a beautiful summary
of the general principles that those serious contributors to this site
strive towards.
Thor may I just say that you might be interested in the works of Graham
Hancock. His latest book and programme 'Underworld', further explores his
theories on an ancient civilization which predates those currently excepted
as the first civilizations. The reason I bring this up is because there is
compelling evidence to suggest that yoga was actually fully established in
complicated forms six thousand years ago, meaning it would have been
practiced even earlier than that!!
"RMJon23" <rmj...@aol.comcombonwa> wrote in message
news:20020219012857...@mb-md.aol.com...
Zoray Tahija
Perhaps [*^ *^ :*: *^ *^ - - *v *^ * *] has been giving others ideas
when I'm not around<
Zoray
"Discard everything * the demi sapien appears to be coming this way."
DER1378
(Ya'll) make me smarter.
Joe
> Thanks
> (Ya'll) make me smarter.
$tumbo
"RMJon23" <rmj...@aol.comcombonwa> wrote in message
Great list!
> Prove to yourself what an ass rmjon23 is by developing something for
yourself
> that's better than anything I've written above. What sort of "proof" was
it?
>
Tall order . . .
> Emulate any self-respecting taxi driver in the lower left-hand corner of
> Arizona and develop your sense of Yuma.
>
Hey - no trick answers!
$tumped-o
$tumbo
find local suppliers.
Long term strategies: Take your pick from RMjon23's list of excellent
suggestions - as many as you can.
$tumbo
RMJon23
>[Switching gears, to probe]
>Memes. Neo-Darwinian/sociobiologist Richard Dawkins' coinage. Potent "meme"
>itself, it seems. A prominent Third Culture biologist/academic steps over the
>disciplinary lines (nothing objectionable there; I personally enjoy it) and
>begins to thrust and parry on the humanities side. Just as the gene is the
>primary unit of biological transmission of information from generation to
>generation, so the "meme" gets posited as the primary unit of ideas/cultural
>information from generation to generation.
>
>Does anyone have an objection to this? I do, and the seed of mine comes from
>the metaphorical level. I see the "meme" idea as potentially harmful, because
>how did/do genes survive and propagate? Admittedly, this requires a complex
>answer, but I think the old post-Darwinian saw about "Nature, red in tooth and
>claw" gives my clue: One of the primary ways genes survive is through forms of
>violence. One might indulge me a little in picturing a roving band of Nazis or
>fundamentalist Xtians or muslims or ardent Bush supporters torching a pile of,
>oh, say Harry Potter books. Don't laff! It could happen here!
Levi:
>Well, there might be an aspect of violence in the process but I don't
think the genes themselves really think about such things. They are a
bit to preoccupied with snatching up building blocks with which to
replicate themselves. In a sense it may be more about competition in
acquiring resources than what we would consider violence. <
rmjon23:
I agree. I don't think the genes are "thinking". In non-homo sapiens, how can
we fault the booming, buzzing complex of Darwinian evolution? Doin what comes
naturally. Picture the old National Geographic films that show the lion chase
and eventually catch an antelope or zebra, jump cut to a langorous feast on
crimson very rare meat by Big Kitty: who objects to this on any sane ground?
(Let's leave PETA out of this.)
Levi:
>>Let's move up some levels from genes and think about bacteria.
Bacteria are happy to just go around "eating" every thing they can and
throw off duplicates of themselves every 20 minutes. They'll do this
until they consume all resources availible or introduced to a another
strain which can exploit some weakness and consume them. You see the
problem (if you want to call it that) with bacteria is that they don't
much care about the means, they're hardwired to propogate and that's
exactly what they intend to do. We might observe violence in their
system of acquisition but I doubt bacteria lose much sleep over it.<<
rmjon23:
Still with yas, Levi.
Levi:
>>I find Dawkins' meme metaphor to be an observation on behaviour: Much
like genes, well-built memes will propogate and flourish while
ill-formed memes will fall by the wayside or get blinked out entirely.<<
rmjon23:
Well said...I'm guessing it's fairly safe to assume that for every "meme"
that's fairly "present" or "visible" or "inevitably encountered if one has
their eyes open to any appreciable degree" (those quotes are from my own
thoughts, just now, about which see below ["I often quote myself. It adds spice
to the conversation."- Shaw]...), there are ideas or potential memes that
remain (or even momentarily "flit through") in individual brains...So anyway
dig this cat Giordano Bruno: in the yr.1600 AD of our Lord the Inquisition
burned him for, among other things, puting forth the meme that our sun is but
one of a possible infinitude of stars, and any one of those stars might have
"worlds" like our own orbiting them. Fairly safe to say that the idea of other
worlds had occured on a silent, imaginative,
shut-your-mouth-or-you-could-get-fried level on orders of magnitude much higher
than the, say WRITTEN or "gossipy" level, both far before and then for another
150 years or so after Bruno's barbecue.
Levi:
>>I'm quite confident that you are readily able to bring up examples of
memes to counter this argument. I also have problems with this
particular metaphor. <<
rmjon23:
For those who have missed out on the "meme" meme (okay, I'll play), before you
go to the popularizations by Aaron Lynch, Susan Blackmore, and a few others,
check out _The Selfish Gene_, by Richard Dawkins, first pub. 1976. Chapter 11
(in my ed., at least...hey doesn't "Chapter 11" mean "bankrupt" in samland?),
"Memes: The New Replicators" runs about 13 pages.
Btw, if Dawkins' "meme" qualifies as a meme, we must consider Thomas Kuhn's
"paradigm" a paradigm, right?
I guess what bugs me a bit about Dawkins (besides that he strikes me as another
arrogant, albeit brilliant "nothing-but" asshole, we can chalk that up to our
different temperaments) is that he never even mentions the idea of cultural
transmission of info/knowledge/ideas as Lamarckian, not even to take the
opportunity to debunk Lamarck. It seems he pretends we won't notice? Nay, for
Dawkins it's neo-Darwinism uber alles. By joe, he's out-Darwined Darwin!
Okay, weren't we supposed to be the species that could learn how to use our
humongous cerebral cortexes? Aren't we the only biological species that - using
Korzybski's terms now - could "bind" not only ENERGY (like plants) and SPACE
(like other animals), but TIME (we have writing and other elaborate symbol
systems)? Why allow this meme metaphor to subtly drag us back into the caves?
(No offense, Osama.) As part of the set "homo sapiens", I've felt enough insult
over the past six months.
Perhaps I'm taking this "meme" thing a little personally. I betcha a mess of
politicians, advertising copy writers, and church leaders find the idea very
innaresting, indeed...
rmjon23, from earlier post, quoted by Levi:
>When I see those books in flames, then I most clearly "see" memes. I "see"
them
>in two places: in the words and intent and cultural ideas of the burners, and
>in the ideas of Rowling and those ideas in her books.
Levi:
>>Therein lies my problem. Ill-formed memes seem have a level of
tenacity that ill-formed genes don't seem to posess. Or I could just
have too many opinions of what a "proper" meme should be like. Or I
could be missing something... drat, you're going to make me go back
and re-read Dawkins aren't you? Guess that wouldn't be a bad idea<<
rmjon23:
What a thoughtful person, this Levi!...Now I must confess I LIKE the "meme"
meme as a tool for thinking in the realms of ideologies, class warfare,
propaganda, etc. I kid not when I say I think it's kind of a cool idea. To an
EXTENT! I recall an interview in which Robert Anton Wilson says he's seen
himself in the role of "meme propagator". Rather than get all extreme about it
(too late?), I'd now argue that a good portion of RAW's books can be modeled as
"extremely potent memes that cause fairly open-minded people to re-think why
the memes in these books have been drowned out by various interests, interests
that use other memes..." ..."If ya use drugs, you're supporting the
terrorists." -shall we just accept this as a neo-Darwinian fact of life? (Never
mind that few of us own a radio or TV station, or even a printing press with
the Will to Distribute and Refute.) Or do we not have the potential to make of
our culture something we actually want to live in? More than a Fascism vs.
Libertarian-Anarcho-Socialism issue, perhaps this "is" the olde free
will/determinism debate? I said "potential."
In the end, I simply assert culture is Lamarckian, and We the People can change
it, an argument I wouldn't make for bacteria.
Now, again, quick probe: McLuhan had some bigtime wiggy ideas about different
forms of media and how they create ENVIRONMENTS that were exceedingly difficult
to detect, like the fish ain't aware she's in water kinda thang...Here's a
tasty little blurb from MM on this:
"While environments as such have a strange power to elude perception, the
preceding ones acquire an almost nostalgic fascination when surrounded by the
new. This is nowhere more evident than in the art of photography with its power
to invest all human artifacts with the quality of art."
-found on p.276 of _The Essential McLuhan_
Re: RAW's inexhaustible demonstrations and arguments about human perception and
"reality tunnels", ETC. What a historical disaster the "I've got the One True
Reality!" game has been. Yea, verily, the idea is so rotten it now acts as a
virus that has the potential to end the human experiment now.
PO (An idea from Edward DeBono, "po" acts as a conjunctive to aid in creative
thought.)
The 'Net and hypertext, foreign reality tunnels and ideas streaming
everywhere...
...Maybe this data/info/knowledge/wisdom-saturated new media environment will
act as midwife to idea that our ideas/"memes" are socially constructed? That
"Believing this stuff makes me feel good and makes sense and helps me get
through life better but I see it's really something I picked up from a social
reality we made it up so I'm not gonna get so worked up about being 'right'
that I wanna KILL those who think differently?"
Maybe.
-rmjon23
Levi
>Levi:
>>>I find Dawkins' meme metaphor to be an observation on behaviour: Much
>like genes, well-built memes will propogate and flourish while
>ill-formed memes will fall by the wayside or get blinked out entirely.<<
>
>rmjon23:
>Well said...I'm guessing it's fairly safe to assume that for every "meme"
>that's fairly "present" or "visible" or "inevitably encountered if one has
>their eyes open to any appreciable degree" (those quotes are from my own
>thoughts, just now, about which see below ["I often quote myself. It adds spice
>to the conversation."- Shaw]...), there are ideas or potential memes that
>remain (or even momentarily "flit through") in individual brains...So anyway
>dig this cat Giordano Bruno: in the yr.1600 AD of our Lord the Inquisition
>burned him for, among other things, puting forth the meme that our sun is but
>one of a possible infinitude of stars, and any one of those stars might have
>"worlds" like our own orbiting them. Fairly safe to say that the idea of other
>worlds had occured on a silent, imaginative,
>shut-your-mouth-or-you-could-get-fried level on orders of magnitude much higher
>than the, say WRITTEN or "gossipy" level, both far before and then for another
>150 years or so after Bruno's barbecue.
Quite so! If you can find a copy check out Michael Gillespie's
"Nihilism Before Nietzsche". Gillespie take the stance that nihilism
as a meme had been cooking for a very long time in western thought
(and in Gillespie's opinion Nietzsche had it wrong!). He was able to
piece together passages of Descartes which seem to indicate that
Descartes was dancing around defining a characteristic of omnipotence
without stating it specifically. With good reason! Descartes wasn't
anybody's fool, he saw what the church did to Galileo and decided to
lay low and let other people figure the full implications out on their
own.
>Levi:
>>>I'm quite confident that you are readily able to bring up examples of
>memes to counter this argument. I also have problems with this
>particular metaphor. <<
>
>rmjon23:
>For those who have missed out on the "meme" meme (okay, I'll play), before you
>go to the popularizations by Aaron Lynch, Susan Blackmore, and a few others,
>check out _The Selfish Gene_, by Richard Dawkins, first pub. 1976. Chapter 11
>(in my ed., at least...hey doesn't "Chapter 11" mean "bankrupt" in samland?),
>"Memes: The New Replicators" runs about 13 pages.
>
>Btw, if Dawkins' "meme" qualifies as a meme, we must consider Thomas Kuhn's
>"paradigm" a paradigm, right?
Actually I think Kuhn's paradigm might be more of an archetype. Just
kidding, but as far as memes go if Dawkins made a thought which was
itself on the way thoughts are transmitted, then yes I see no problem
in applying his metaphor to his thought. It's free and out in the wild
now, just have to see if it survives.
Paradigms, at least in my opinion, seem to denote a class or subset
within a set of objects whereas Meme seems to denote a characteristic
of all thoughts within the set of all thoughts. More of a blanket
statement than denoting a subset.
That said, Kuhn paradigm might very well be a paradigm. We'll just
have to see how it performs as a meme!
>
>Levi:
>>>Therein lies my problem. Ill-formed memes seem have a level of
>tenacity that ill-formed genes don't seem to posess. Or I could just
>have too many opinions of what a "proper" meme should be like. Or I
>could be missing something... drat, you're going to make me go back
>and re-read Dawkins aren't you? Guess that wouldn't be a bad idea<<
>
>rmjon23:
>What a thoughtful person, this Levi!...Now I must confess I LIKE the "meme"
>meme as a tool for thinking in the realms of ideologies, class warfare,
>propaganda, etc. I kid not when I say I think it's kind of a cool idea. To an
>EXTENT! I recall an interview in which Robert Anton Wilson says he's seen
>himself in the role of "meme propagator". Rather than get all extreme about it
>(too late?), I'd now argue that a good portion of RAW's books can be modeled as
>"extremely potent memes that cause fairly open-minded people to re-think why
>the memes in these books have been drowned out by various interests, interests
>that use other memes..." ..."If ya use drugs, you're supporting the
>terrorists." -shall we just accept this as a neo-Darwinian fact of life? (Never
>mind that few of us own a radio or TV station, or even a printing press with
>the Will to Distribute and Refute.) Or do we not have the potential to make of
>our culture something we actually want to live in? More than a Fascism vs.
>Libertarian-Anarcho-Socialism issue, perhaps this "is" the olde free
>will/determinism debate? I said "potential."
>
>In the end, I simply assert culture is Lamarckian, and We the People can change
>it, an argument I wouldn't make for bacteria.
I hope so too.
>Now, again, quick probe: McLuhan had some bigtime wiggy ideas about different
>forms of media and how they create ENVIRONMENTS that were exceedingly difficult
>to detect, like the fish ain't aware she's in water kinda thang...Here's a
>tasty little blurb from MM on this:
>
>"While environments as such have a strange power to elude perception, the
>preceding ones acquire an almost nostalgic fascination when surrounded by the
>new. This is nowhere more evident than in the art of photography with its power
>to invest all human artifacts with the quality of art."
>-found on p.276 of _The Essential McLuhan_
McLuhan was very concerned about how media creates one's environment.
I'll trade ya a tasty blurb for a tasty blurb. You'll pardon my
paraphrasing, but I lent out my copy of "Understanding Media". There
was one bit in it where McLuhan mentioned Archimedes and his famous
quote, "Give me a lever and a place to to stand and I could move the
world." McLuhan mused that if we were able to bring Archimedes into
the present, show him our radios and our tevelvisions, he was was
confident that Archimedes would proclaim:
"I will stand on your eyes, I will stand on your ears and I'll make
the world dance to whatever tempo I choose!"
I've always had a spot of that line. To me, it's one of those things
that jostles me everytime.
>Re: RAW's inexhaustible demonstrations and arguments about human perception and
>"reality tunnels", ETC. What a historical disaster the "I've got the One True
>Reality!" game has been. Yea, verily, the idea is so rotten it now acts as a
>virus that has the potential to end the human experiment now.
>
>PO (An idea from Edward DeBono, "po" acts as a conjunctive to aid in creative
>thought.)
>
>The 'Net and hypertext, foreign reality tunnels and ideas streaming
>everywhere...
>
>...Maybe this data/info/knowledge/wisdom-saturated new media environment will
>act as midwife to idea that our ideas/"memes" are socially constructed? That
>"Believing this stuff makes me feel good and makes sense and helps me get
>through life better but I see it's really something I picked up from a social
>reality we made it up so I'm not gonna get so worked up about being 'right'
>that I wanna KILL those who think differently?"
Love the thinker and hate the thought?
DER1378
Just make me an astronaut and I'd showhouldn't take too kindly to aliens
rustlerin up some a my herd.
What?
Bring on out them there spaceships.
What?
Yea, now what?
Peter Gunn
pg
kai_savage
news:a5gt1p$lg3$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
> Maybe the question should be "How can I make EVERYONE smarter?"
>
> pg
Yes that is certainly a major part of the struggle, as Thor has mentioned in
relation to this post:
Thor:
In earlier posts we of this group i.e. "how can I make myself smarter"
talked of ways to upgrade our brains well, I contend that it doesn't matter
how smart you are if the rest of the masses or domestic primates are
hoodwinked.
So perhaps this should be our next discussion point. How do we make
everyone else smarter?
- Kai
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
And as if by magic the
Shopkeeper appeared.
Mr Benn
Mike
>
> pg
>
>
By convincing them they are ignorant. Yup, that's as elitist and
condescending as it comes, but sometimes its the truth. Joe Yuppie and Joe
Sixpack are sure of so much, its not like they're monkeys hanging from that
branches but what they know to be the unquestionable truth is very
questionable and may not have much to do with reality as we know it at all.