[Dimetrodon]

.

I don't know why this forum doesn't allow post deletion.

[ckaihatsu]

I don't know why this forum doesn't allow post deletion.

I was just, uh, *emphasizing* my previous post with an extra period.


= D

[Dimetrodon]

I was just, uh, *emphasizing* my previous post with an extra period.


= D

Yea yea, sure.

[ckaihatsu]

(Look, just between you and me -- I didn't want to bad-mouth PoFo at all. The walls have ears around here, y'know.)


= D

[RhetoricThug]

You're not being clear -- you're not expressing a full description by just saying 'look where we are today'.

McLuhan was a *hack* because by emphasizing the *medium*, which is really just the *conduit*, we're expected to just ignore *content*, which many do, unfortunately.

I've expressed full descriptions of where we are today for several years. We live in a Technocracy. We've rearranged nature in our image.

Clearly you haven't read McLuhan (or Eric McLuhan), his communication theory isn't an iteration of the Shannon-Weaver model. His model is about transformation not transportation. The tetrad of effects happen simultaneously, not sequentially. Media ecology is a facet of deep ecology. Media environments are invisible and work us over completely. It doesn't matter much what you write on here, on a developmental-evolutionary-biological level, the technology you use continuously reorganizes your synaptic connections (neuroplasticity) and redistributes the whole biological field around you.

There's interplay within resonant intervals, but don't pretend free-will can stop an unannounced natural disaster. Technological environments must be constantly maintained, and there will come a time when the ecological network we abstracted and engineered is unfathomably unmanageable and incompatible with Earth's biosphere. In turn, we'll face natural disasters the likes of which we've never seen. This will give the rest of our human autonomy over to AI in an effort to save ourselves from our own engineered extinction.

I'm not interested in philosophizing, so I won't be continuing over at the 'Unbridled Progress' thread.

Clearly.

[ckaihatsu]

I've expressed full descriptions of where we are today for several years. We live in a Technocracy. We've rearranged nature in our image.

Clearly you haven't read McLuhan (or Eric McLuhan), his communication theory isn't an iteration of the Shannon-Weaver model. His model is about transformation not transportation. The tetrad of effects happen simultaneously, not sequentially. Media ecology is a facet of deep ecology. Media environments are invisible and work us over completely. It doesn't matter much what you write on here, on a developmental-evolutionary-biological level, the technology you're using is continuously reorganizing your synaptic connections (neuroplasticity) and redistributing the whole biological field around you.

I can appreciate a Chomsky-an critique of 'Big Media', but this shit you're spouting just sounds *designed* to be fatalistic and to make the consumer of media sound fully disemboweled.

There's interplay within resonant intervals, but don't pretend free-will can stop an unannounced natural disaster. Technological environments must be constantly maintained, and there will come a time when the ecological network we artificed is unfathomably unmanageable. In turn, we'll face natural disasters the likes of which we've never seen. This will give the rest of our human autonomy over to AI in an effort to save ourselves from our own engineered extinction.

Sounds like you sent in your money to join Qatzel's clubhouse. Welcome to your new Technology-Bad-Neanderthal-Good political franchise. Good luck.

[RhetoricThug]

^Knee-jerk reaction. Also, you fail to realize my commentary is apolitical observation.

Please visit Unbridled Progress when you're ready to face the evolutionary movement of consciousness.

[late]

McLuhan was a *hack*

Hardly, he anticipated the internet.

I imagine he isn't a good fit in your ideology, but stuff that had escaped all of us, he figured out.

[ckaihatsu]

McLuhan was a *hack*

Hardly, he anticipated the internet.

Hmmmm, you're showing that you don't understand -- here's the definition:

1. a person, esp. a professional, who surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward: a political hack.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/hack

---

I imagine he isn't a good fit in your ideology, but stuff that had escaped all of us, he figured out.

So 'style over substance', basically. That's easily done, as shown by McLuhan.


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show

[late]

Hmmmm, you're showing that you don't understand -- here's the definition:

Hippy dippy nonsense.

[ckaihatsu]

Hippy dippy nonsense.

Done discussing now?

Hanging it up?

Name-calling is sufficient, huh?

[RhetoricThug]

Hippy dippy nonsense.

It's a knee-jerk reaction, ckaihatsu hasn't a clue.

I can appreciate a Chomsky-an critique of 'Big Media', but this shit you're spouting just sounds *designed* to be fatalistic and to make the consumer of media sound fully disemboweled.

You don't have to consume media to be affected by how it transforms milieu. 'Big media' is about soft-power and propaganda techniques, and is throughly recognizable and cognizant for an educated person. Learned peoples trained in marketing or PR can manage content and context and influence group dynamics, but it has little to do with how the tools employed to write narratives reconfigure all channels of communication.

I'm trying to unveil the present technological environments, most of which remain invisible because they're pervasive and blend in or augment nature's ecological ground. Again, we can produce different forms of content, curtail political context, but all participants on this forum are conditioned by the technology they use to engage in discussion. Therefore, technology assimilates and reshapes how we communicate. This is about the transformation of a user, not just the transportation of information. Similar to how chemical substrates affect an organism's development, an enveloping whirlpool or maelström of technological effects constitute media environments.

@late Agreed, I'm not keen on the hot-cool metaphor. McLuhan was a literary professor and he certainly had fun with poetics. His son, Eric, continued work on his theory and placed emphasis on media ecology (or how the noosphere reorganizes casual information loops). I'm more focused on deep ecology (critical mass and substance) and how technology affects developmental evolutionary biology. It's obvious that the extensions of man produce field effects and cybernetically change physical information environments/systems. Anthropocentric networks contain all human knowledge as prerequisites for its construction, so it's a multidisciplinary approach to pattern recognition.

School house education has to place an emphasis on the training of our perception of reality, so we can teach people how to recognize new media environments and anticipate their consequences. A difficult task, especially for this technocratic culture that favors a math and engineering education program that obsesses with where the action is in a resonate interval of the physical interplay of our mind/matter interface. It'd rather replace the horse with the cart than contemplate how the cart affected the horse. Hence the thread title: Technology as the latest solution to technology. It's the metaphysical pickling of human concentration.



Disclaimer: I'm not going to lead you to the promise land.

[ckaihatsu]

Hippy dippy nonsense.

It's a knee-jerk reaction, he hasn't a clue.

Yup -- it's *projection*, and I think he's wearing a tie-dye t-shirt as we speak. (grin)

You don't have to consume media to be affected by how it transforms milieu. 'Big media' is about soft-power and propaganda techniques, and is throughly recognizable and cognizant for an educated person. Learned peoples trained in marketing or PR can manage content and context and influence group dynamics, but it has little to do with how the tools employed to write narratives reconfigure all channels of communication.

I'm trying to unveil the present technological environments, most of which remain invisible because they're pervasive and blend in or augment nature's ecological ground. Again, we can produce different forms of content, curtail political context, but all participants on this forum are conditioned by the technology they use to engage in discussion. Therefore, technology assimilates and reshapes how we communicate. This is about the transformation of a user, not just the transportation of information. Similar to how chemical substrates affect an organism's development, an enveloping whirlpool or maelström of technological effects constitute media environments.

Being a philosophical-*materialist*, can I just propose that we look at the *material* factors of mass communication in all of its various forms -- there's the past broadcast television *one-to-many* type of distribution, while conventional phone calls are *one-to-one*, while *Internet* technologies, like PoFo, are *many-to-many*. And now we're done.

[RhetoricThug]

Being a philosophical-*materialist*, can I just propose that we look at the *material* factors of mass communication in all of its various forms -- there's the past broadcast television *one-to-many* type of distribution, while conventional phone calls are *one-to-one*, while *Internet* technologies, like PoFo, are *many-to-many*. And now we're done.

By reducing the discussion to the efficient cause of a telecommunications network, you conveniently ignore the far-reaching effects of technological environments. If we didn't discover the electromagnetic spectrum, we wouldn't be able to manipulate frequencies and propagate waves to transmit telecommunications. When non-ionizing radiation fields proliferate, biochemical mechanisms are affected, and there's more to media ecology than promulgated content and context.

My guess is that you're either confused or baffled by a theory of communication that isn't linear and sequential. This would explain your specialist (aka fragmented) and hyper-political approach to the apolitical and multiplex signals technologies use to reorganize the ecology of Earth's biosphere. The species' socialization differs from the species' acclimatization and adaption. And it's the latter that occurs at a deeper level than mass communication, and this is why we need to train our perceptive faculties in order to tune into the elusive meta-evolutionary patterns of hierarchical-biological organization which lies beyond the vanishing point of linguistic reality. The unexamined life isn't worth living. We must think about thinking and integrate meta-cognitive analysis. Another way of phrasing the thread's title- Thought as latest solution to thought.

If you're a philosophical materialist, the study of technology as extensions of the human sensorium should appeal to your conscience. Furthermore, all material expressions or externalization of the human sensorium begin as immaterial images or patterns in the human mind. Technology is a mosaic or tapestry of anthropocentric imagination.

I recommend this thread: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=171871

[ckaihatsu]

By reducing the discussion to the efficient cause of a telecommunications network, you conveniently ignore the far-reaching effects of technological environments. If we didn't discover the electromagnetic spectrum, we wouldn't be able to manipulate frequencies and propagate waves to transmit telecommunications. When non-ionizing radiation fields proliferate, biochemical mechanisms are affected, and there's more to media ecology than promulgated content and context.

No, there isn't, and you're not *specifying* it, either.

There's *form*, and there's *function* -- I specified 'form', in terms of participants' *topologies* (one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-many), and the *functions* will vary depending on those various communication-network topologies, or form-factors.

My guess is that you're either confused or baffled by a theory of communication that isn't linear and sequential. This would explain your specialist (aka fragmented) and hyper-political approach to the apolitical and multiplex signals technologies use to reorganize the ecology of Earth's biosphere. The species' socialization differs from the species' acclimatization and adaption. And it's the latter that occurs at a deeper level than mass communication, and this is why we need to train our perceptive faculties in order to tune into the elusive meta-evolutionary patterns of hierarchical-biological organization which lies beyond the vanishing point of linguistic reality.

Yeah, I think I'll *pass* -- this sounds *lower-level* than what we've achieved as a modern species, with socialization and our technological communicative *tools* of socialization.

Here's regarding *scale*, or lower-level-to-higher-level:


‭History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

Spoiler: show

History, Macro-Micro -- Political (Cognitive) Dissonance

Spoiler: show

---

The unexamined life isn't worth living. We must think about thinking and integrate meta-cognitive analysis. Another way of phrasing the thread's title- Thought as latest solution to thought.

Okay, this is unobjectionable.

If you're a philosophical materialist, the study of technology as extensions of the human sensorium should appeal to your conscience. Furthermore, all material expressions or externalization of the human sensorium begin as immaterial images or patterns in the human mind. Technology is a mosaic or tapestry of anthropocentric imagination.

I recommend this thread: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=171871

Ehhhh, my criticism is that once you get past the corpus of the embodied mind itself, you (the expounder) tend to get into *fanciful*, subjective, arbitrary lines of positing, as with this technology-is-human-imagination line of yours. Technology is a *tool*, and it mostly addresses the physical configuration of the *outside world*, such as how to communicate over vast distances, etc.


[14] Bloom's Taxonomy, Illustrated

Spoiler: show

[QatzelOk]

... technology assimilates and reshapes how we communicate. This is about the transformation of a user, not just the transportation of information.

And in the same way that media changes the way we communicate and thus what we say, other technologies change the way we use our bodies, the number of people we come into contact every day, etc.

Each one has "costs" that are never calculated in the initial "sales job" that is the result of a profit-motivated competitive system. The long-term costs are the LAST thing that shareholders think about during a product launch. If their product ends life as we know it, it will probably be long after they are deceased, so who cares.

That these new technologies all CHANGE THE NATURAL WAY HUMANS LIVE is suicidal because the web of life is very delicate.

Technological change isn't *bad* - it's *dangerous.* Living dangerously is what tech-man does.

And we learn, through our obsession with specialization (part of technology's mandate), to ignore the whole. That's what we risk losing each time - the whole.

[RhetoricThug]

@QatzelOk Thank you for your time and attention.

Technology is a *tool*, and it mostly addresses the physical configuration of the *outside world*, such as how to communicate over vast distances, etc.

Your perspective is an incorrect way of perceiving man as a tool making animal. A perspective flawed mostly by inept clinging to old political narratives and dogmatic methodology. We contain multitudes, and the classical interpretation of dialectical causation lost favor in the book of nature when we discovered general relativity (field theory/biochemical resonance/spacetime continium) and quantum mechanics. You demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of tekhnologia by compartmentalizing inside from outside. I've given you a thorough summary of how media ecology affects a field of phenomena and how it's relative to anthropocentric thinking.

“Your skin doesn’t separate you from the world; it’s a bridge through which the external world flows into you, and you flow into it.”

"All technologies are extensions of our physical and nervous systems to increase power and speed”

“Any extension, whether of skin, hand, or foot, affects the whole psychic and social complex."

“With the arrival of electric technology, man has extended, or set outside himself, a live model of the central nervous system itself."

For example (Proteus unbound), molecular programming eliminates your notion of technology as a solitary tool. We can program the language in the book of nature, ergo the essence of the observable material world becomes a transparent tapestry of information, and a quantifiable-qualifiable system of energy. This is precisly why I propound a communications philosophy that illuminates the transformative power of the extensions of man.

[ckaihatsu]

Technology is a *tool*, and it mostly addresses the physical configuration of the *outside world*, such as how to communicate over vast distances, etc.

Your perspective is an incorrect way of perceiving man as a tool making animal. A perspective flawed mostly by inept clinging to old political narratives and dogmatic methodology.

This is infantile *name-calling* -- you're making *characterizations* and *accusations*, without referencing any content from what I've said.

We contain multitudes, and the classical interpretation of dialectical causation lost favor in the book of nature when we discovered general relativity (field theory/biochemical resonance/spacetime continium) and quantum mechanics. You demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of tekhnologia by compartmentalizing inside from outside.

Are you *denying* that there is an 'inside' and an 'outside' to any given biological entity?

'Internal' and 'external' are *valid* terms to describe surrounding space in terms of the *subject* / entity / locus.

I've given you a thorough summary of how media ecology affects a field of phenomena and how it's relative to anthropocentric thinking.

“Your skin doesn’t separate you from the world; it’s a bridge through which the external world flows into you, and you flow into it.”

"All technologies are extensions of our physical and nervous systems to increase power and speed”

“Any extension, whether of skin, hand, or foot, affects the whole psychic and social complex."

“With the arrival of electric technology, man has extended, or set outside himself, a live model of the central nervous system itself."

Ironically you're now *describing* internal-and-external, inside-and-outside, after just denouncing the delineation of such.

For example (Proteus unbound), molecular programming eliminates your notion of technology as a solitary tool.

I never *said* that technology is 'a solitary tool' -- you're making shit up.

We can program the language in the book of nature, ergo the essence of the observable material world becomes a transparent tapestry of information, and a quantifiable-qualifiable system of energy. This is precisly why I propound a communications philosophy that illuminates the transformative power of the extensions of man.

Okay, I'll listen -- what's the 'communications philosophy' that you propose?

[QatzelOk]

Are you *denying* that there is an 'inside' and an 'outside' to any given biological entity?

'Internal' and 'external' are *valid* terms to describe surrounding space in terms of the *subject* / entity / locus.

I am glad to see the word "subject" appearing in your ode to the inside-outside (ingroup and outgroup, believers and pagans, auspicious feng shui and inauspicious feng shui) dichotomy.

In a novel, it's important to have a "subject" in order to give the book an "inside-outside" structure to allow the reader to identify with certain characters more closely than others.

Narrative structure is not reality structure.

Books might have lots of exciting development leading to a climax or a sequel. Reality has lots of exciting development killing food and water sources for all species.

Many of those species and landscape features have been considered "outside" human needs or desires or survival for many centuries, and yet, here we are, our lives flashing before our lives as we stare at smartphones alone with a mask on our face.

[ckaihatsu]

I am glad to see the word "subject" appearing in your ode to the inside-outside (ingroup and outgroup, believers and pagans, auspicious feng shui and inauspicious feng shui) dichotomy.

In a novel, it's important to have a "subject" in order to give the book an "inside-outside" structure to allow the reader to identify with certain characters more closely than others.

Narrative structure is not reality structure.

Books might have lots of exciting development leading to a climax or a sequel. Reality has lots of exciting development killing food and water sources for all species.

Many of those species and landscape features have been considered "outside" human needs or desires or survival for many centuries, and yet, here we are, our lives flashing before our lives as we stare at smartphones alone with a mask on our face.

Here's my standing treatment for reality:


Worldview Diagram

Spoiler: show