Turn over world governance, and all the weapons, and all the arbitration of all international conflict to the UN.
Would Neutral Language prevent Muses from falling Silent for ever?
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Would Neutral Language prevent Muses from falling Silent for ever?
- Ivan
- Posts: 16
- Joined: June 14th, 2017, 5:35 am
Re: Would Neutral Language prevent Muses from falling Silent for ever?
We seem to be carried by some centrifugal force, as if we all were objects, not subjects.
To be more specific, I really do not know what we all are doing in Syria. Those are 100% not ‘values’ that brought us there. Neither of us is able to explain this. Do we really care? Is it worth risking direct confrontation? We seem to have no idea what we are going to die for. That is weird.
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Would Neutral Language prevent Muses from falling Silent for ever?
It's just, people used to take their own pawnhood for granted. Since they've started to question that - to challenge the legitimacy of their leaders and the plausibility of the leaders' agendas, thee has been even more bloodshed.
But there are lots more people, as well.
- Ivan
- Posts: 16
- Joined: June 14th, 2017, 5:35 am
Re: Would Neutral Language prevent Muses from falling Silent for ever?
I think it was Yaneer Bar-Yam (mathematician) who was the first to predict this qualitative leap in the mid 90-s: https://www.systematics.org/files/ComplexityRising.pdf
He thought when a certain level of social complexity had been reached (individual complexity = group complexity), the whole societies would undergo unprecedented changes. Hierarchical structures would be supplanted by network-based. The latter would be more viable and adaptable to the ever-rising complexity of the ‘environment’.
Thus, he predicted the rise of social networks, media and many other things. What he could not foresee was in what extent this transition itself would be controllable at all. Or if the ‘networked’ societies would really be an adequate answer to the higher level of environmental complexity. Or, again, if those ‘networked’ societies would themselves be controllable in any way.
What I can see now is a kind of a chain reaction in this rise of complexity. Networks do not mitigate it in any way. Just the opposite: they make it much more unpredictable.
You may think of Russia as an ‘old-school’ vertical-based hierarchical society, but it would be a mistake. I really do not know why we still maintain this image (to be more ‘acceptable’ for Asian cultures?), but it is just the same here: quite a complex, mostly horizontal-based unity with numerous checks and balances. We do not have ideologies as such. The only ‘ideology’ we share with the whole modern world is postmodernism. And this latter is not compatible with our common conception of ideology.
So I do not think, that ‘It's never been otherwise’. You may see it for yourself, if you take into account all those latest discussions of the so-called ‘post-truth era’. I just tried to explain my vision of this qualitative leap. Though I still think it is becoming a matter of our survival…
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023