techno-hobbies
John McCarthy
I wonder what posters to this group think of what might be called
techno-hobbyists, people spending their spare time on (1) hang
gliding, (2) rebuilding cars and racing them (3) building solar
powered cars and other things, building telescopes, building
electronic equipment, making fancy freeware computer programs.
At a lower level, there are the people who buy expensive camera
equipment, stereos, personal computers, but take few pictures, don't
listen to music much and don't write programs. Some people are just
technology appreciaters. They read the numerous magazines and are
interested in articles about gadgets they have no intention of buying.
These people are the butt of many jokes.
For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbors,
and laugh at them in our turn?"- Jane Austen's Mr. Bennet.
Do you regard such people just as having different tastes than
yours, or as a menace to humanity?
As for me, no trade is alien to me. I enjoyed a half hour wait
in Nordstrom's reading a trade magazine for retailers of men's
clothing. Now I know what "denier" means. Well maybe some
trades bore me, advertising and finance are two, but I don't
regard people who like them as sinners.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Esjeje1
John McCarthy wrote:
>I wonder what posters to this group think of what might be called
>techno-hobbyists, people spending their spare time on (1) hang
>gliding, (2) rebuilding cars and racing them (3) building solar
>powered cars and other things, building telescopes, building
>electronic equipment, making fancy freeware computer programs.
>
>At a lower level, there are the people who buy expensive camera
>equipment, stereos, personal computers, but take few pictures, don't
>listen to music much and don't write programs. Some people are just
>technology appreciaters. They read the numerous magazines and are
>interested in articles about gadgets they have no intention of buying.
>These people are the butt of many jokes.
>
>
> For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbors,
> and laugh at them in our turn?"- Jane Austen's Mr. Bennet.
>
>Do you regard such people just as having different tastes than
>yours, or as a menace to humanity?
>
>As for me, no trade is alien to me. I enjoyed a half hour wait
>in Nordstrom's reading a trade magazine for retailers of men's
>clothing. Now I know what "denier" means. Well maybe some
>trades bore me, advertising and finance are two, but I don't
>regard people who like them as sinners.
>
At the higher level, as in your first paragraph, my feeling is that what brings
joy and no harm is good. This is something that I think even TK admits, when he
talks about surrogate activities - that human beings have the need for both
mental and physical stimulation in their quest for survival and life. I wish
that he would write more on that topic - it is a bit confusing, in light of
other statements he has made in his manifesto. True philosophies have their
subtle points, which may be confusing to or overlooked by some.
At the lower level (second paragrah), I feel sorry for those people, because
they are pursuing something they don't really care about, because it's
fashionable, and are therefore wasting time (i.e., hard earned money) that
could have been spent in more satisfying endeavors. That is probably why, deep
down, they are the butt of those jokes.
I think that such people are not at all a menace to society - the latter group
is but a menace to itself. Different tastes themselves are not threatening, and
are a cause for widening of one's horizons. The sad thing is that as the world
becomes more homogenized, one has less opportunity to experience things that
might bring value to one's life. Two examples - Tibet, whose population was
once happy with its spirituality now has more discos than temples, most of
which have been destroyed. Second example - the Amish country. I read a travel
review of this area of southern Pennsylvania a while back in the Washington
Post, and the writer lamented that the destination did not live up to the
expectations, because of the endless commercial shopping strips. These are
blatant examples, and if you want more details, then I will be happy to do some
research. I think that people can think of more subtle examples in their own
lives.
Imposition of ideas by a strong force is a threat, and the big organizations
are getting bigger and stronger. I contend that many people are dissatisfied
with the conditions of the world today, but don't yet know what to do about it.
TK, in something he said to Danny Wood, (which I will have to drag up) didn't
fault ordinary people for using computers. He also advocated not blaming the
people for the status quo. He was fairly specific about where the blame
resided. In this context, I find it interesting that accountability by senior
managment to the worker bees is becoming the next trend in the corporate
culture.
I am more of a generalist than a specialist (not highly regarded in this
society, but it makes me happy), and therefore am somewhat intrigued by a
variety of things at different times. So, I hear you on your interest in
different matters, and I think that the people on this group also do. Perhaps a
few would regard the above as "sinners", but I would be surprised if most did.
Yakkity yak! (I'll be back!)
-Susan
esj...@aol.com
BTW, thanks for the Jane Austen quote. It's been a while. Rats, more books to
read, and my reading list from this group has already grown quite large. Thank
goodness the pool is opening soon, so I can get away from this computer!
John McCarthy
Esjejel includes:
At the lower level (second paragrah), I feel sorry for those
people, because they are pursuing something they don't
really care about, because it's fashionable, and are
therefore wasting time (i.e., hard earned money) that could
have been spent in more satisfying endeavors. That is
probably why, deep down, they are the butt of those jokes.
Let me defend the lower level a little. Some of it is following
fashion, but there is a certain amount of art appreciation in it.
One takes pleasure in the features of (say) the Maxxum camera.
At least I did for a while. Eventually I gave my camera to my
daughter, who really does take a lot of excellent photographs. I
bought a GPS receiver, mainly in admiration of the technology,
and I have got real benefit out of it only occasionally,
e.g. when I remember to get it to remember the location of my car
in some monstrous parking lot.
Shadow
> >At a lower level, there are the people who buy expensive camera
> >equipment, stereos, personal computers, but take few pictures, don't
> >listen to music much and don't write programs. Some people are just
> >technology appreciaters. They read the numerous magazines and are
> >interested in articles about gadgets they have no intention of buying.
> >These people are the butt of many jokes.
I don't have a huge problem with them unless their hobby is harmful to
the environment. Such as off-road vehicles or huge yachts. I could think
of a lot more examples.
But as for techno-gadgetry, who am I to talk? I'm using this computer
:).
> At the lower level (second paragrah), I feel sorry for those people, because
> they are pursuing something they don't really care about, because it's
> fashionable, and are therefore wasting time (i.e., hard earned money) that
> could have been spent in more satisfying endeavors. That is probably why, deep
> down, they are the butt of those jokes.
This is also true. People who live to shop are simply pathetic. But what
I do have a problem with is that society/the commercial establishment
caters to these people, and in doing so, destroy the environment to
build endless malls (not to mention other myriad ecological depredations
merely in the creation of these consumer products.) So yes, in that
sense I DO have a problem with the "consumer culture" and those who
vapidly swallow it up. I wish more people would wise up & consume less.
But as for those surrogate activities: I used to belong to SCA, the
society for creative anachronism. a Medieval re-creation group. It was
lots of fun, but it WAS escapist & I'll admit it. It was more fun to
pretend I lived in medieval times (the good parts, of course) than to be
aware of living in the 20th century. We used to have a week-long campout
which was like a huge medieval village of some 10,000 people. We walked
everywhere, met everyone, spent time "hanging out". Definitely unlike
anything one experiences in "reality".
Hoover, J. E.
John McCarthy wrote:
>
> I wonder what posters to this group think of what might be called
> techno-hobbyists, people spending their spare time on (1) hang
> gliding, (2) rebuilding cars and racing them (3) building solar
> powered cars and other things, building telescopes, building
> electronic equipment, making fancy freeware computer programs.
Without such people there would be no useful technology and no true
advancement. I count myself among such people. I often build small
electronic equipment such as sensors, as well as things like solar ovens
and computer software.
> At a lower level, there are the people who buy expensive camera
> equipment, stereos, personal computers, but take few pictures, don't
> listen to music much and don't write programs. Some people are just
> technology appreciaters. They read the numerous magazines and are
> interested in articles about gadgets they have no intention of buying.
> These people are the butt of many jokes.
I have catalogs of scientific and technological equipment I will never
buy or use, which I read for entertainment. I also own many books about
how to build photoelectric devices, antennas, different types of
sensors. No, no bombs. For some reason, I never had an interest in
incendiaries. I have always been fascinated with sensors, such as for
measuring haze, pollution, different types of light and emf radiation,
detecting animals in the wild, etc.
To me, the smaller it is, the more appealing it is. A device that works
off a solar cell, or one that uses no electricity at all, is the most
impressive to me. I once visited the Louvre and there I saw a painting
by Delacroix. It was a fabulous, giant painting of a sea-wreck or some
such. It took up an entire long wall of the museum. However, to me it
was not as appealing as many smaller paintings. The Mona Lisa, in fact,
is very small.
Thus, I am not particularly impressed by massive technology such as
ocean-going vessels that sink, massive transportation systems that
inevitably result in collisions, and tall buildings, the point of which
eludes me. Nor am I impressed by aggressive "dare-devil types" who
waste energy endangering themselves as well as others. I think it is my
lifelong love of technology, as well as an appreciation of the artistic
aspect of technology, that causes me to be unimpressed by the waste and
misguided themes of much modern technology. Not only is much of it
deadly, it is bad art as well.
If I paid more attention to what other people think of me, I'm sure I
would find I am a source of amusement to them. I understand a few
regard me as a potential serial killer, mainly because I read true-crime
and am something of (lock up your women and children) a "loner."
> For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbors,
> and laugh at them in our turn?"- Jane Austen's Mr. Bennet.
>
> Do you regard such people just as having different tastes than
> yours, or as a menace to humanity?
No, these people are quite similar to me. They are not menaces unless
they actively participate in the imposition of their industrial
lifestyle on other people and on the wilderness. There are newsgroups
about people who avoid the techno-industrial system, and of course they
rely on small, individual technologies. I believe the best one used to
be about "off-gridders" as they call themselves. All I can remember
about the newsgroup name was the word "grid" in it. There are several
devoted to solar energy and frugal living.
> As for me, no trade is alien to me. I enjoyed a half hour wait
> in Nordstrom's reading a trade magazine for retailers of men's
> clothing. Now I know what "denier" means. Well maybe some
> trades bore me, advertising and finance are two, but I don't
> regard people who like them as sinners.
Trades are vastly more interesting than publications aimed at the
general public. Trades have lots of useful information in them.
Likewise, women's magazines contain much useful information -- recipes,
psychological advice, interior decoration. Men's magazines have become
obsessed with fashion, appearance and pathetic relationship tales. Being
male and poring over Redbook and Good Housekeeping in the supermarket
also engenders strange looks, but again, I don't much care.
Advertising trades exemplify how deranged ideas can be inculcated into
the minds of people who are reduced to cog-status. To the ad
industryite, embracing such ideas as "what is the effective frequency
for controlling top-of-mind awareness?" is necessary to their own career
success within the advertising industry. The bad effects of their
zealous imposition of these ideas on the rest of the system is
irrelevant to them because they are forced to be mere cogs in the
machine. The system is designed to breed cogs. No, I do not think they
are sinners for reading business trades. I have read many such trades
and even if I believed in such ideas I would not be a sinner. If I were
to aggressively advocate such ideas and compel other people against
their will to act on these ideas, or impose them myself on others, I
would be a sinner.
RossG12345
I have John's same techno-hobbies, but I'm a century behind the
times. I like going back and seeing the books and magazines from
100 years, including those from the various world fairs. It's
amazing just a few generations make -- by looking back you can
appreciate the accelerating rate of technology. We're in the last
second of the last minute of the last hour of the last day. (At
least in terms of humankind, if not in technology).
And we need to be aware of the changes occurring. Antiquing and
collectibles (just browsing) is a lot of fun.
I have some quack medical devices. They used to think
electricity, including static electricity, was a cure-all. As
recently as 1920. My girlfriend now works in a cardiac
electrophysiology lab. Hmmm..
The history of technology is as fun as its cutting edge. I went
through my Sharper Image phase and wasn't impressed. I'd
buy the things (for big bucks) and then use them once. This
past month I bought an 8-Track stereo console (for $10), from
the local church rectory, and use it every weekend. (Zillions of
albums and 8-Tracks included.) It plays from the basement and
there's something about its sound that I like more than the more
pure CD sound. Tom Jones will get you mowing the lawn. And
I have a Victrola for Sunday brunch.
So, unlike Ted, I think gadgets are a lot of fun. But old gadgets
and old technology are as neat as new technology.
One last unrelated example: some pirates (probably) buried a
treasure on Oak Island off Nova Scotia sometime prior to 1750
-- they built a water trap so that when the treasure hunters
dug toward the treasure, the tunnel would fill with ocean water
(through another set of tunnels). It may have taken as many as
200 men as long as 2 years to dig. Treasure seekers have been
digging for 200 years and still haven't been able to solve the puzzle (avoiding
the water trap).
John, if you learn of a gold finder that works at 200 feet (finding something
as small as treasure chests), get back to me.
Scott Corey & Mary Foley
John McCarthy wrote:
>
> I wonder what posters to this group think of what might be called
> techno-hobbyists, people spending their spare time on (1) hang
> gliding, (2) rebuilding cars and racing them (3) building solar
> powered cars and other things, building telescopes, building
> electronic equipment, making fancy freeware computer programs.
>
I think that "Industrial Society and Its Future" is wrong about
curiosity and fascination. It may be that people absorbed in the
struggle to survive do not spend a lot of time wondering about other
things, but that is why it is traditional to refer to this as the realm
of necessity. Losing touch with that realm may be debilitating, but
being confined to it is a form of suffering. To be curious or
fascinated by something is an exercise of freedom over and above the
mere necessity of survival.
> At a lower level, there are the people who buy expensive camera
> equipment, stereos, personal computers, but take few pictures, don't
> listen to music much and don't write programs. Some people are just
> technology appreciaters. They read the numerous magazines and are
> interested in articles about gadgets they have no intention of buying.
> These people are the butt of many jokes.
>
Shopping for status or fad is largely a pacifier. Some people do it
for the social interaction of talking with others about purchases, the
latest thing, or getting a bargain. That is more healthy, I suppose,
even though I do not share the interest.
Consumer pacification is not especially positive in itself, but it is
not very frightening in itself, either. The dependence of the economy
on this is a little worrisome, implying that we all should keep buying
things we do not especially want.
When I worry about consumerism at all it is usually because of the side
effects. The person who persues a fascination gets to understand what
they are learning about. The person who just buys is habituated to
accepting that something is valuable without understanding or caring
anything about it.
Scott
RossG12345
Scott writes:
"I think that "Industrial Society and Its Future" is wrong about
curiosity and fascination".
George Orwell would agree.
___________
"It would not do... to smash every machine invented after a certain
date; we should also have to smash the habit of mind that would,
almost involuntarily, devise fresh machines as soon as the old
ones were smashed. And in all of us there is at least a tinge of
that habit of mind."
He also more bluntly wrote:
"Many, perhaps a majority, of thinking people are not in love
with machine-civilization, but everyone who is not a fool
knows that it is nonsense to talk at this moment about
scrapping the machine."
Orwell, The Road To Wigan Pier (1937)
Milton, if you haven't, you should read Orwell's nonfiction to
gauge his views on technology. You place an undue reliance
on Orwell's "1984" in your understanding of his views on
technology.
Who controls the past controls the future.
Who controls the present controls the past.
George Orwell (Eric Blair), Nineteen eighty four, (1949)
Shadow
> I think that "Industrial Society and Its Future" is wrong about
> struggle to survive do not spend a lot of time wondering about other
> things, but that is why it is traditional to refer to this as the realm
> of necessity. Losing touch with that realm may be debilitating, but
> being confined to it is a form of suffering. To be curious or
> fascinated by something is an exercise of freedom over and above the
> mere necessity of survival.
the primitive Cro-Magnons, who were quite concerned about survival,
crafted many lovely carvings & art objects.
> Shopping for status or fad is largely a pacifier. Some people do it
> for the social interaction of talking with others about purchases, the
> latest thing, or getting a bargain. That is more healthy, I suppose,
> even though I do not share the interest.
Going to the mall may be today's pathetic equivalent of the former
tribal interaction of primitive humans, who got together to exchange
goods & assistance & barter.
> Consumer pacification is not especially positive in itself, but it is
> not very frightening in itself, either.
It is when we are scientifically manipulated by world-dominating
corporations.
Shadow
> So, unlike Ted, I think gadgets are a lot of fun. But old gadgets
> and old technology are as neat as new technology.
Obviously Ted loved gadgetry & tinkering as much as you guys do, as you
can tell by reading the descriptions of his bombs. And what was with the
elaborate wood carving? Obviously there was another level to his
"constructions". Did he subconsciously believe he was working some kind
of "sympathetic magic" by making boxes out of 4 kinds of wood? That was
how I always interpreted it.
Esjeje1
John McCarthy writes:
>Let me defend the lower level a little. Some of it is following
>fashion, but there is a certain amount of art appreciation in it.
>One takes pleasure in the features of (say) the Maxxum camera.
>At least I did for a while. Eventually I gave my camera to my
>daughter, who really does take a lot of excellent photographs. I
>bought a GPS receiver, mainly in admiration of the technology,
>and I have got real benefit out of it only occasionally,
>e.g. when I remember to get it to remember the location of my car
>in some monstrous parking lot.
>
I think the key word here is appreciation. I'm glad you gave your camera to
your daughter since her appreciation of this object is higher than yours was.
What I really meant is that I felt sorry for the people who appreciated their
new whatchamahoozie for about 10 minutes after they got it home and ended up
putting the daggone thing in a closet. "Trophies" are much more fun if you've
earned them, in a figurative sense, by a true appreciation.
I have several books on simplifying one's life that are meant to be read a few
pages every day - like meditations. I'm happy that this type of volume is
becoming increasing popular. Something I've learned is don't get it if you
don't need it. Human need goes beyond physical survival, of course. Need
includes such abstracts as appreciation. Which is why I wish TK would elaborate
more on the mental stimulation that he thinks is so necessary in the Surrogate
Activities section.
BTW - can you think of any specific jokes about the "lower level" as we are
calling it? I like jokes :-)
-Susan
obiwan
Esjeje1 wrote:
> I have several books on simplifying one's life that are meant to be read a few
> pages every day - like meditations. I'm happy that this type of volume is
> becoming increasing popular.
If you come across some interesting ideas, would be interested to hear.
> Something I've learned is don't get it if you
> don't need it.
But also, do don't realize how little you need it until you are
forced to go without it (as was mentioned regarding cars)
In my own case I was forced to go without eating much meat for
about six months, and found I didn't miss it one bit.
obiwan
Scott Corey & Mary Foley
Shadow wrote:
>
> the primitive Cro-Magnons, who were quite concerned about survival,
> crafted many lovely carvings & art objects.
And to the extent that they did, they were rising above mere necessity
to pursue beauty.
Scott
Scott Corey & Mary Foley
Perhaps surprisingly, that may be exactly right.
We know that TK had a very extensive interest in L. Spargue de Camp's
fiction, and ISAIF cites one of his non-fiction books. In de Camp's
early classics, Einsteinian physics turns out to be congruent with
certain general principles of magic. This is one of the earliest uses
of the new physics in fiction and one of the first "fantasy" sci-fi
series. It may also be that TK knew of de Camp's status as one of the
most prominent subjects of the Terman long term "gifted child" study.
He also championed independent inventers over large, organizational
innovation.
All of that is merely to underline how reasonable it is to take
seriously the possibility that TK put a lot of store in de Camp. The
point, however, is that one of de Camp's fantasy "principles of magic"
is the "law of similarity." Using it one can draw similar thing
together across time, space, and different from a universe. Using wood
and including twigs in bombs and then sending them to people and places
that have "wood" themes in their names can be construed as attempts to
invoke the magic of the law of similarity.
Obviously, though, the journal entry claiming not to believe in
anything, including naturalistic religion, weakens this possibility.
Still, the wood theme did not come forward until long after those
passage were written. I believe (this only hits me as I am writing
here) that there was no wood theme target in the first bomb.
Scott
RossG12345
"I believe (this only hits me as I am writing
here) that there was no wood theme target in the first bomb."
Sender - Crist
Recipient - Smith
You're right I don't recall a wood theme offhand. But I think that given that
smith is one who fashions a tool, and "Crist" suggests a messianic
figure, I think that established the pattern of games that TK would play
in his addresses. The FBI always took the names seriously (and the clues
they might provide). I can't remember which of the early bombs
had wooden initiators (though security concerns alone could explain his
use of wood). Given that he was a tireless punster, once the FBI
developed the theory, maybe he just went with it to poke fun.
______
"Does anyone else find something messianic about Ted Kaczynski,
the alleged Unabomber? His asceticism, his intelligence, his acumen,
his demeanor.
***
Christ, too, was a rabble rouser, a revolutionary, a man
who cut against the grain of society, a man with controversial
ideas at odds with society. Christ was caught up in the police state
of a "New World Order," a republic that had recently found itself
to be the sole superpower. He challenged that authority, was
condemned by that authority, and was executed by that authority.
The parallels are there."
Daniel Swan
in alt.fan.unabomber
Shadow
> Obviously, though, the journal entry claiming not to believe in
> anything, including naturalistic religion, weakens this possibility.
I am starting to take less store in this quote. Ted could have felt this
way at one point & quite differently at another. Besides, note that I
said "subconsciously".
> Still, the wood theme did not come forward until long after those
> passage were written. I believe (this only hits me as I am writing
> here) that there was no wood theme target in the first bomb.
Being a naturalistic tree lover myself, the presence of wood & twigs in
bombs jumped out at me right away. It's like a slogan advertising his
beliefs, like if I sent a snail mail with a picture of a tree & the
words "Montani Semper Liberi" scrawled on the outside. (BTW, anyone want
to comment on Ted's carving with the above slogan?)