Raising the level of discourse.
Sep. 20th, 2007 11:05 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wolven7The goal, you see, is not to find the lowest common denominator, and then appeal to it, or rather it ought not be the goal. The goal ought to be to find the highest conglomerate bar, and seek to raise everyone to it.
As I discussed, yesterday, alternately defending and attacking, shielding and enfolding the arguments of two other people (because I'm a badass, like that), if what we have, as a society, is a Line of Best Fit model, with various social outliers and extremes, then there will be a very few people for whom the line is perfect, and the rest of the populace will, in fact, make due. It seems that the change that comes to this model will necessarily be a slow change, in that the individual ideal must have time to propagate, disperse into the societal ideal, and then bounce around and bounce back. As we watch the line, we see a lot of people Slowly shuffling in a new direction, the line changing, but it's as a result of everyone constantly looking around to make sure they aren't the new outliers.
When the line changes, at all, it's because everyone is reasonably sure that they're not going to be the "weird" one" or the "wrong" one or the one who looked at something verbotten. It has also been posited that the time it takes is a necessary function of the level of connectivity and the economic pressures that entails. Meaning that people have to work, juggle jobs, home, family, friends, etc, and that all of that comes with a certain amount of processing power used up. But the solution to both of these requires one specific, unbearably slow shift in the line: Value sets. If we change the value sets of people to focus less on monetary advancement and the "stuff" that they want that they feel are registered signs of abstracts like "success," or "wealth," or "happiness," or "freedom," then we can focus on what those things actually are and mean.
If we have a system where the advancement is based not on work, but on truly doing what you love, what you can, not for survival, not for pay, but to contribute something to the growth of a society, then our model of economics would change, drastically. It would have to. Value has a whole new meaning. But, in order to do it, we must use the economic pressures, as they currently exist, and bring about a value change. Use the values to change the values. Bootstrapping.
People like "American Idol," for whatever reason? Fine. Give them competition-based shows for things like Music Composition, classical piano, painting, poetry, anything other than pop music, being a fashion model, and choreographed dancing. Top Chef, while I don't watch it, is an example of this expanded discourse. We slowly move the line, so that we can achieve, eventually, the ability to take in new information, and adjust the line to the input on a faster scale. This input ratio will, itself, require the use of the very technology that keeps us connected to each other, in the first place, that keeps us connected to our jobs so that he boss can say "I need you to work, this Saturday," or "Oh goodness, it's 4 am and the server hath exploded, could you please come in and fix it?" It will need this because it will be that connectivity that allows the constant input.
There are problems. Won't this just be one big argument? Debate and discernment are what we have now, and will continue to have for as long as people have different ideas (so, hopefully, forever), all I'm proposing is that it happen faster, relative to the rest of our endeavours.
What about privacy? When people are that connected such that their new ideas are transmitted on a near instantaneous basis, won't there be a fundamental lack of individual privacy? I propose a set amount of things held "private;" these things are yours, and can be shared with as many or as few people as you choose, and when a threshold limit is reached (say, you've told 15 or 20 people), your information is no longer private, anyway, so it is removed from the cache. New things get to go in.
That's obviously an imperfect solution, and I would actually like to read more about how the Ghost in the Shell universe handles this, before going any further.
Thirdly, what about people who don't want to come in? Do we force them? Is the negation of choice, in the interest of making all choice more free, a valid or acceptable move? If I were to reprogram your brain in only one respect, against your will, and that respect was to want this thing, would that make it okay to give you this thing? What about if it was your choice, all along, and I merely allowed you to see the benefits of it on a compressed timescale? Things to think about, certainly.
These are only three questions that arise, but I think they are major ones. Responses, questions, etc are all welcome.
I need to go eat breakfast.
As I discussed, yesterday, alternately defending and attacking, shielding and enfolding the arguments of two other people (because I'm a badass, like that), if what we have, as a society, is a Line of Best Fit model, with various social outliers and extremes, then there will be a very few people for whom the line is perfect, and the rest of the populace will, in fact, make due. It seems that the change that comes to this model will necessarily be a slow change, in that the individual ideal must have time to propagate, disperse into the societal ideal, and then bounce around and bounce back. As we watch the line, we see a lot of people Slowly shuffling in a new direction, the line changing, but it's as a result of everyone constantly looking around to make sure they aren't the new outliers.
When the line changes, at all, it's because everyone is reasonably sure that they're not going to be the "weird" one" or the "wrong" one or the one who looked at something verbotten. It has also been posited that the time it takes is a necessary function of the level of connectivity and the economic pressures that entails. Meaning that people have to work, juggle jobs, home, family, friends, etc, and that all of that comes with a certain amount of processing power used up. But the solution to both of these requires one specific, unbearably slow shift in the line: Value sets. If we change the value sets of people to focus less on monetary advancement and the "stuff" that they want that they feel are registered signs of abstracts like "success," or "wealth," or "happiness," or "freedom," then we can focus on what those things actually are and mean.
If we have a system where the advancement is based not on work, but on truly doing what you love, what you can, not for survival, not for pay, but to contribute something to the growth of a society, then our model of economics would change, drastically. It would have to. Value has a whole new meaning. But, in order to do it, we must use the economic pressures, as they currently exist, and bring about a value change. Use the values to change the values. Bootstrapping.
People like "American Idol," for whatever reason? Fine. Give them competition-based shows for things like Music Composition, classical piano, painting, poetry, anything other than pop music, being a fashion model, and choreographed dancing. Top Chef, while I don't watch it, is an example of this expanded discourse. We slowly move the line, so that we can achieve, eventually, the ability to take in new information, and adjust the line to the input on a faster scale. This input ratio will, itself, require the use of the very technology that keeps us connected to each other, in the first place, that keeps us connected to our jobs so that he boss can say "I need you to work, this Saturday," or "Oh goodness, it's 4 am and the server hath exploded, could you please come in and fix it?" It will need this because it will be that connectivity that allows the constant input.
There are problems. Won't this just be one big argument? Debate and discernment are what we have now, and will continue to have for as long as people have different ideas (so, hopefully, forever), all I'm proposing is that it happen faster, relative to the rest of our endeavours.
What about privacy? When people are that connected such that their new ideas are transmitted on a near instantaneous basis, won't there be a fundamental lack of individual privacy? I propose a set amount of things held "private;" these things are yours, and can be shared with as many or as few people as you choose, and when a threshold limit is reached (say, you've told 15 or 20 people), your information is no longer private, anyway, so it is removed from the cache. New things get to go in.
That's obviously an imperfect solution, and I would actually like to read more about how the Ghost in the Shell universe handles this, before going any further.
Thirdly, what about people who don't want to come in? Do we force them? Is the negation of choice, in the interest of making all choice more free, a valid or acceptable move? If I were to reprogram your brain in only one respect, against your will, and that respect was to want this thing, would that make it okay to give you this thing? What about if it was your choice, all along, and I merely allowed you to see the benefits of it on a compressed timescale? Things to think about, certainly.
These are only three questions that arise, but I think they are major ones. Responses, questions, etc are all welcome.
I need to go eat breakfast.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-09-22 04:54 am (UTC)...apathy is the problem I see being the biggest obstacle to any enormous reformation. Raising the bar is all well and good, rerouting these fads to more productive ends is great, and trying to eclipse money is even better, but people are a) comfortable with how things are, even if they aren't happy, and b)loath to move out of that comfort zone without great impetus, usually money.
I don't see change this good happening without a Teind, to shrink the levels of stupid and apathetic, but I am a pessimist when it comes to society and other people.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-22 02:15 pm (UTC)I figure, if people want to watch TV, and drink beer, it can at least be Really Good TV and Really Great Beer.