Re: [ox-en] Re-Modelling Perceptual Positioning and Processing
- From: "Niall Douglas" <s_fsfeurope2 nedprod.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 02:31:07 -0000
On 25 Feb 2004 at 0:37, Adam Moran wrote:
You're right that I believe that I know how we shall all think in a
century's time and I get the feeling that on this list at least
there is a higher concentration of people of a similar belief.
I'm not to sure whether it will take 100 years before we could witness
a real change in everyones life. The sooner the better has far as I'm
concerned. I will go away and think about this one and try and model.
I should have phrased what I said as "I have had a glimpse of how we
shall all think ...". While thinkers of a hundred years ago could be
remarkably prescient, they weren't totally correct. Invariably the
ones who get it right are not popularly known eg; Heisenburg's
spiritual writings about the existential meaning of his discoveries
in quantum mechanics are barely known. Somehow it's considered
"unscientific" despite that the real discovery of quantum mechanics
is that we are part of any experiment and the resulting requirements
of how we must change how we perceive things necessarily introduce
Martin wrote a few days ago that software development lists keep
politics off list. And I agree, they do. However, is that really
wise? If anything should be learned from the scientific advances of
the last fifty and especially last twenty years is that science,
engineering, politics, religion, culture and society are all
different ways of looking at precisely the same thing. Therefore to
narrowly restrict how the development of something is to necessarily
introduce fundamental limitations of what and how well it can be
To make a (rare) on-topic point :), free software development happens
only because the underlying society is diverse enough to "enable" it.
However similarly, it only happens because society is still in many
ways trying to fight it (ie; not ready for it). If software had solid
legal support which everyone agreed was as good as can be made, there
no longer would be free software as we know it.
However this is the identical argument to western financial hegemony
whereby we continue to have financial systems which suck all wealth
to the west - such complex systems of trade are only possible because
the diversity of underlying society enables it, but the fact is that
the disparity of wealth between rich and poor is reaching
unsustainable proportions and something is going to have to give.
However until we have dug ourselves a really deep hole, society (in
that our masters) will fight this inevitability.
Yep - You've got me pegged. When you wrote about having an off-list
dialogue about the universe, and mentioned that you quite like talking
to anybody about their believes, I thought I'd test out mine with you.
I don't remember you doing this. Did you?
It's interesting that the more unconventional you get, the more fear
and hate you attract from others, especially those considered
I didn't know this was the case; the bit about the 'fear' and the
'hate' concerns me. My mates tell me my sense of humour can offend at
first, but when folks get to know me better they just take me with a
pinch of salt.
Same here. However when debating in public and I open up full bore, I
can lose the crowd by not using conventional ways of seeing things.
In general, even if you can prove you're right, there is an innate
public distrust of anything not commonly held. This is probably on
the whole a good thing, but it is frustrating.
I'm used to these working hours from a 2-shift rota; these hours are
crazy though and no good for our general health. Well, you only live
once and there's far worse habits I suppose [grin].
Well, I've indulged in far worse behaviour for one's health in the
past but it has to be said, I get sick more often when doing these
hours - been down with a stomach illness this week and my nose is
dripping constantly tonight. However, no matter, I must be finished
by the summer!
However, the realist in me knows that it will be too radical for
many - - how I think software should be structured is fundamentally
at odds with current convention. People will use my system and
dislike it intensely just because it's different even if it does
increase their productivity vastly. And I will take it personally,
because this work coming from the heart as it does is existentially
Snap. On this I think we all agree ?
Well, some people can lead a policy initiative and it's water off a
duck's back when someone else torpedos it. I just can't do that
myself, so I'll someday need someone who can.
All I can hope is that perhaps by *doing* people can see that my
views are not as half-baked as they appear on first glance and do
have merit. I pray that when they actually use it, they find
themselves enjoying it so much that they stay and bring my views in
from the cold.
Also, psychology shows us that people remember 85% of something after
doing it whereas it's no more than 15% through having it explained to
So theoretically, if people use my strangely designed software and
find themselves taking to it, they've just learned "Niall's strange
way of seeing things (TM)" :)
I believe that software is uniquely powerful, more so than any other
form of information or societal motivational force. Not only can it
inspire, teach, engender new ways of thinking and solve problems, I
think that somewhere hidden inside it is the key to solving the
universe. That's a real metaphysical thing to say I know, and no I
can't prove it. It's just a gut feeling which others have also had
though they probably didn't realise it.
Organization: projekt oekonux.de