Monday, 8 May 2017

Technology & Control


Question: do we control technology or is it not rather the case that we are controlled by technology?

Does it even matter?

It seems to me that Martin Heidegger's point about technology was that we have no control over having to control it and that control would inevitably lead to a greater need for control.

In other words, technological conditions condition existence that lives under them and might even become a condition for existence itself should we irretrievably lose our last bond with Gaia, including natural procreation, when all natural conditions have been fatally compromised not to say destroyed, whether through capitalistic resource exploitation, the harm caused by technology itself such as roads that destroy natural habitats or even through conspiracies to depopulate and enslave the planet by making the earth unliveable for the majority. 

And yet I realise the irony that it is technology that enables me to share these concerns about technology.

Modern Politics is for Children


My opinion is that modern politics is for children. Only children need a presidential/prime ministerial father or mother figurehead. 

Only children need to have their views re-presented and enforced on others.

Talk about being stunted. These stunted human beings profoundly lack in self-knowledge and understanding of natural law principles.

You can't keep doing the same thing, e.g. vote someone in, and expect different results. 

Also a bit of critical in-formation as to what is really going on in the world and solutions that can be personally employed outside the infantility of typical media coverage should be of some benefit for those who are fed up with the current state of things but don't know how to move on from the child nursery of modern politics.

Addendum - I am using the word children knowingly in that Left-wing and Right-wing can be seen as Mother (caregiver, Welfare State) and Father (disciplinarian, Police State) archetypes respectively. 

Definitions of Consciousness


Contemporary thinker Mark Passio defines consciousness as
"the ability of a being to recognise patterns and meaning with respect to events taking place, both within oneself and in the external realm in which the self exists and operates."
My girlfriend interpreted this definition as being one more of intelligence than consciousness per se.

That being said, Mark Passio's definition of consciousness seems to me to presuppose a more originary and radical phenomenon that underlies conscious awareness: what I, perhaps wrongly, termed conscience in my first blog post and expanded in my Brief Anatomy of Perception: the perception of your perception.

It is the fact that we are able to perceive our immediate perception, i.e. filter and interpret sense-based data, that enables the recognition of patterns and events taking place, both within and without. 

As Kant pointed out in his Critique of Pure Reason, the senses in themselves do not make judgements - that is the preserve of our critical faculty. Put differently, consciousness, as the phenomenon which enables us to perceive our own perception, is behind the faculties of reason, judgement and understanding. 

A higher level of consciousness perceives more of its perception than a lower level of consciousness which is more lost in immediate, i.e. unmediated and uncritical, perception.

Intelligence, which I defined a while ago as an individual's ability to intelligise, i.e. process information so as to understand it, obviously requires consciousness, the perception of perception, to manifest at all. 

I am not saying Mark Passio's definition of consciousness is wrong - it is in fact remarkably eloquent and sophisticated - but perhaps it nonetheless remains a definition more as to how consciousness can manifest since I might be conscious and therefore perceive my own perception but still largely fail to recognise patterns and events within and without me due to an inability to adequately process, understand and interpret perceptual data as received through consciousness. 

It seems apposite to refer to a previous, very short, post of mine which states that data (from the Latin datum itself stemming from the verb dare, to give, i.e. data as what is given) becomes information, i.e. something that forms you from within, when technically interpreted - which is what our senses as linked to our brains do all the time in the sense that we do not perceive reality as it is, i.e. we cannot perceive the world outside the conditions of our perceptual apparatus which biologically (technically) interprets what is given to us - and knowledge, i.e. lifetime learning, once critically evaluated. 

Thus without consciousness we would not be able to be in-formed, since data would fail to be interpreted by our mind-body complex if we failed to perceive our own perception, and without intelligence knowledge would also be compromised due to the inability to critically evaluate information since lacking the ability even to understand it. 

Being Impressed by Others


Being impressed by others is no bad thing, especially when this acts as a spur for self-development, creative exertion and general enlightenment.

However my argument in this post just to say that often we might be impressed by things that come easier to others than to ourselves and are otherwise something these others get energy from which might not be the case for us. 

In other words, when it is the case that being impressed by others is symptomatic of a sense of self-inadequacy then I do not think this usually positive, since if often fails to see areas in which, unbeknownst to us, we have real talent and a valid sensibility unique to our own being. 

Taking myself as an example, my drawings or piano works are far from virtuosic or from reaching a professional standard but they are valid as statements proper to me, just as I happened to be at the time of their creation including in terms of my technical ability and the effort I put in. 

I have also found that many of us are impressed by others who have specialised and learnt skills in areas foreign to us; for example, as someone who doesn't have a job or drive, the fact that someone I know can drive and holds a job down successfully has, particularly in the past, caused me to admire them.

There are of course people - such as on YouTube - who are never impressed by others, at least explicitly, even when they should be, content as they are perhaps with a smug sense of their natural superiority not to mention their current and fixed state of being, even when an outsider would see that these individuals have a great deal of room for improvement and genuine reasons to be more humble and admiring of others than they are willing to admit to themselves. 

In other words, it is perhaps the case that being impressed by others is a sign of a growing as opposed to a fixed understanding of oneself, a sign of humility for the things others can do better than ourselves and for the work they have put in to bring about their achievements and in these senses is a sign of empathetic as opposed to narcissistic intelligence - we find in ourselves what it took for these others to achieve what they did, with the proviso stated above that being impressed can sometimes be fruit of an injustice we commit to ourselves in our self-perception, neglecting as it is easy to do what we ourselves have achieved and can continue to offer the world.