As the meeting was not, in fact, very illuminating or given to thought, I'm not treating it like other meetings. The topic had been discussed before, probably as my own idea. I have my treatment of the previous discussion here. The Leader and the True Philosopher also had their ideas at the time. The discussion continues in public life, although the exact nature of gender is not evident to many people, whether they participate in the discussion or not.
For me, gender is an internal idea, what one imagines oneself to be. It does not depend on physical characteristics or the notions of others, but what one feels inside. This seems to be supported by studies where children were educated to think of themselves as one gender when in fact they believed themselves to be of the other/another. It also shows in the reactions many children have to being told their interests are of the "other" gender. After the kerfluffle of Target removing the gendered signs from their toy department, some studies were brought to light that indicated that children who are given toys for the "opposite sex" are not as interested in them. They might still play with them, but not as much and they ask fewer questions related to the toy and what fields or issues it might be connected with. In the Target scandal, there were a number of people who objected to anything not being explicitly labeled as for boys or girls because it's "natural" that they have different interests. That's fine, of course, but if it's so natural the labels shouldn't be necessary; the natural differences will appear without any outside interference or impositions. Somehow, we know what we are and what group we belong to, even if society tells us differently. The Leader told us an anecdote about his niece, who he was baby-sitting one day. She was then a small child, just a few years old, but that day she was wearing blue overalls and had her hair cut very short, making her look boyish. Some little old ladies came over and said she was a lovely boy, which infuriated the girl. We didn't get to hear if she had chosen her clothing and haircut herself, but even if she had she still felt strongly that she was a girl, goddammit. Even cross-dressers are not always wistful about actually becoming a member of the opposite sex, they just want to enjoy some of the dress and accoutrements. The main topic of conversation ended up being the discrimination attached to gender, rather than the idea of gender itself, and the Leader spent a good bit of time talking it up, as well as the True Philosopher considering it anew. Several people brought up some tired old tropes about differences like women being better with language, but any identified difference was treated as immutable and eternal. It was a frustratingly superficial and fruitless chat. Towards the end, the question was raised about new genders based on sexual orientation, which struck me as frivolous and stupid. Not because there is an iron-clad definition of gender that doesn't allow orientation to be a factor, but because nobody had any definition to begin with and couldn't be bothered to attempt one. If it had been, "I think orientation has something to do with your gender, so maybe gays should be considered something other than male or female," is an understandable comment. But blundering into, "Iz teh gayz no menz n wimminz cuz jenderz?" is thoroughly ridiculous and really, purely time-wasting. There was also some yammering about athletics, defended incomprehensibly with "but you can't deny the differences!" Every human individual has differences from the rest, but the question when it comes to discrimination based on those differences is if it makes sense to discriminate. Dividing people into teams with all the players being of similar abilities makes sense. Saying that the team you get assigned to determines your personhood does not. Furthermore, if there is no question about the differences, than there isn't much reason to bring the goddam point up. No new information, no new perspective, no creative way of viewing reality. Not very philosophical at all. Just blathering. Even more aggravating perhaps was the denial of gender-based discrimination in the workplace, under the old "if it doesn't happen to me it doesn't happen to anybody" trick of worldview. Utter bullshit. Gender is only one of the many axes of discrimination, of course, but since it was supposed to be the focus of discussion, it was what we should have defined plainly and clearly so at least everybody would have had a field to play on instead of crashing through the woods of vagaries and deliberate lack of clarity. Even the Source didn't bother to show up or leave any sort of comment for us, so I'd say this topic was doomed from the start. Thankfully, it probably won't come up again for a while. Or if it does, we'll know better about definitions. It really does get boring when it's obvious nobody knows what anybody else is talking about.
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Saturday, September 26, 2015
on top of the pre-sunday sundae
Another pick from the now defunct Cervezorama, St. Louis Premium Kriek was kind of a challenge for me. I've had bad experiences with lambics in the past, but recently found a couple of good examples.
It has a strong cherry smell, not terribly sweet. The beer is noticeably red, and the abundant head is also tinged with ruddiness. The taste is sharp, cidery, not syrupy like many lambics, I'm pleased to find. The aftertaste is exceptionally smooth and mildly sweet, reminding me a little of cherry yogurt rather than soda. A cocktail of fruit develops in the taste after a good amount of the glass is gone, with hints of apple and grape. Sometimes a little risk does have its reward.
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
What's in a Name?
We like to think of ourselves as rational beings, discerning qualities in others based on observation and logical deduction, but quite often we rely on a gut instinct to tell us about another person - a person who we know in name only. Even without the literal meanings being relevant to modern Western names, we associate a set of characteristics with the sounds of personal names, as well as words in general, so that the name we use can actually influence our treatment at the hands of others. The same written work under different names was given different grades by school teachers, notably showing biases against certain social groups as well as children with simply unpopular names. We have often met somebody and thought, "She doesn't look like a Terry." Parents sometimes spend months deciding on the best name for their child - only to change their minds when it is born. Last names also carry weight as they can reveal cultural or ethnic origin, and put people in the right "tribes" when a famous relative is involved. Place names can show the attitudes of the people who founded/named them or their ideas about the people who had been there before. The changes from a European to a native name has caused discomfort and protest from some, who seem to believe that their arbitrary dominion over the land means those before them must be obliterated and forgotten completely. While it is natural to adapt and change some names for places and landmarks, it is also typical that new settlers take on the previous names, for the sake of efficiency. A number of societies, historical and fictional, hide the "real" names of the citizens and other beings because speaking the name gives power. In fact, the act of bestowing a name is also an act of power. We cannot name things we have no authority over, so the act of naming a child, pet, or possession is also a demonstration of ownership over or responsibility for that thing. Names may change, of course. People change their names for a variety of reasons, and in some cultures are even expected and encouraged to use several names at once, in different areas of their lives. Maybe they really are different people in each area.
The Deep Thinker praised the essays and said he quite enjoyed the comparison of shedding a name like a snake shedding its skin. Yet, he also seemed to believe in some deeper connection between self and name, something not so easily shaken off, as he shared a bit of the Rigveda with us, in which the Word speaks to the reader. As an aside, he suggested changing the name of the modern art space Matadero to something more inspiring and less bloody, drawing out the explanations that the name was simply a recognition of its past. Names evoke things, he said later on, and we may find a universe, a whole constellation of meaning in what is evoked. As human beings we seek to find meaning in all things we encounter, names and other words being no exception. Even without a dictionary or official meaning, we attach some idea to a new term, some feeling. The Deep Thinker wondered if it could be an addiction. He also told us of the Ignoble Prize given to the Dutch scientists who found that people of all languages say, "Huh?" Lacking our poet Doctor, the Deep Thinker was the one to insist on the poetry behind words and language, but disagreed with the Biblical description of the Word coming first; in the Beginning, he said, there was Silence. Here, our opinions part ways, as every species on Earth must communicate with its fellows. Not using human words is no reason to say they are silent, or to dismiss their methods of communication as insufficiently evolved, as every system of communication that exists and continues to exist is obviously fit in a natural sense.
The Leader saw the topic from a much broader angle, incorporating concepts used to sway public opinion into the fold of names. His main concern was the manipulation and distortion of the names of these concepts as a means of controlling the populace and achieving the desired results in elections or revolutions, as he briefly stated in his writing. His basis for this extension was the view that proper nouns are no different from any other part of speech, merely a token to spread an idea. The problem is when ideas are deliberately hidden behind hijacked words that make them more dangerous or innocuous than they should be. What he saw most commonly was the misuse of perhaps neutral words to some political end, since they are already commonly known and little effort is required to get people used to using them. We can, of course, invent new words for our ideas, but we must convince the masses to use them. The internet today can be a great tool to this end, with its endless supply of cat pictures.
The Writer began by arguing that words have a feeling and a meaning, but names are only feeling. Some names become concepts, transcending the human condition to be ideals we should emulate as saints or heroes. In fact, rather than words, we should have been considering concepts in her opinion.
The True Philosopher rather solemnly invoked Wittgenstein and the opinion that the meaning of a word lies in its use, not in any dictionary definition. We may search name dictionaries for etymological meanings, but they are actually meaningless. Our purpose is not to invent words. Still, we do it, maybe out of habit. The True Philosopher was first to mention the reluctance of some cultures to say the "real" name of their deity, and in fact some do not even write out the complete name even today. He also spoke of the changing, or reclaiming, of place names, saying that in his country feelings of nationalism and agitation by certain groups were what brought the changes about, not any sort of concession to a minority or aboriginal society.
In line with the multiple names of some cultures, a Newcomer pointed out the tendency for celebrities to have changed their names in order to achieve success. There are many methods used, some of them more esoteric than others, but many people certainly believe that a change of name is necessary in order to reach the pinnacle that they have in their sights. Besides the name itself, could other factors influence a personality? What is the blended effect of name and astrology?
A Wavering Participant saw the connection between sound and feeling as more important than other factors when it comes to names, going so far to say as the etymology is simply lost. In the West, there is little to dispute the claim. She also mused over a name change, saying that it can change one's future in ways that cannot be foreseen. Beyond personal names, she agreed that some terms were used in ways that convey fear and aggression when these feelings are not necessary. "Immigrant" is an example of such a word, being used by politicians to rally nativist support by inspiring fear of an "other" that comes with the intent to do us harm. The Leader brushed off such fears, insisting that there have always been immigrants, while another thought was that immigration had some comparison to be made with murder and other crimes, simply because these are actions humans have performed for all of human history. Somebody is gunning for a spot on the Trump campaign, I think.
The Deep Thinker praised the essays and said he quite enjoyed the comparison of shedding a name like a snake shedding its skin. Yet, he also seemed to believe in some deeper connection between self and name, something not so easily shaken off, as he shared a bit of the Rigveda with us, in which the Word speaks to the reader. As an aside, he suggested changing the name of the modern art space Matadero to something more inspiring and less bloody, drawing out the explanations that the name was simply a recognition of its past. Names evoke things, he said later on, and we may find a universe, a whole constellation of meaning in what is evoked. As human beings we seek to find meaning in all things we encounter, names and other words being no exception. Even without a dictionary or official meaning, we attach some idea to a new term, some feeling. The Deep Thinker wondered if it could be an addiction. He also told us of the Ignoble Prize given to the Dutch scientists who found that people of all languages say, "Huh?" Lacking our poet Doctor, the Deep Thinker was the one to insist on the poetry behind words and language, but disagreed with the Biblical description of the Word coming first; in the Beginning, he said, there was Silence. Here, our opinions part ways, as every species on Earth must communicate with its fellows. Not using human words is no reason to say they are silent, or to dismiss their methods of communication as insufficiently evolved, as every system of communication that exists and continues to exist is obviously fit in a natural sense.
The Leader saw the topic from a much broader angle, incorporating concepts used to sway public opinion into the fold of names. His main concern was the manipulation and distortion of the names of these concepts as a means of controlling the populace and achieving the desired results in elections or revolutions, as he briefly stated in his writing. His basis for this extension was the view that proper nouns are no different from any other part of speech, merely a token to spread an idea. The problem is when ideas are deliberately hidden behind hijacked words that make them more dangerous or innocuous than they should be. What he saw most commonly was the misuse of perhaps neutral words to some political end, since they are already commonly known and little effort is required to get people used to using them. We can, of course, invent new words for our ideas, but we must convince the masses to use them. The internet today can be a great tool to this end, with its endless supply of cat pictures.
The Writer began by arguing that words have a feeling and a meaning, but names are only feeling. Some names become concepts, transcending the human condition to be ideals we should emulate as saints or heroes. In fact, rather than words, we should have been considering concepts in her opinion.
The True Philosopher rather solemnly invoked Wittgenstein and the opinion that the meaning of a word lies in its use, not in any dictionary definition. We may search name dictionaries for etymological meanings, but they are actually meaningless. Our purpose is not to invent words. Still, we do it, maybe out of habit. The True Philosopher was first to mention the reluctance of some cultures to say the "real" name of their deity, and in fact some do not even write out the complete name even today. He also spoke of the changing, or reclaiming, of place names, saying that in his country feelings of nationalism and agitation by certain groups were what brought the changes about, not any sort of concession to a minority or aboriginal society.
In line with the multiple names of some cultures, a Newcomer pointed out the tendency for celebrities to have changed their names in order to achieve success. There are many methods used, some of them more esoteric than others, but many people certainly believe that a change of name is necessary in order to reach the pinnacle that they have in their sights. Besides the name itself, could other factors influence a personality? What is the blended effect of name and astrology?
A Wavering Participant saw the connection between sound and feeling as more important than other factors when it comes to names, going so far to say as the etymology is simply lost. In the West, there is little to dispute the claim. She also mused over a name change, saying that it can change one's future in ways that cannot be foreseen. Beyond personal names, she agreed that some terms were used in ways that convey fear and aggression when these feelings are not necessary. "Immigrant" is an example of such a word, being used by politicians to rally nativist support by inspiring fear of an "other" that comes with the intent to do us harm. The Leader brushed off such fears, insisting that there have always been immigrants, while another thought was that immigration had some comparison to be made with murder and other crimes, simply because these are actions humans have performed for all of human history. Somebody is gunning for a spot on the Trump campaign, I think.
Saturday, September 19, 2015
not before the studio
Cervezorama, one of the first beer stores in the city, has left us. It closed up last week and I took the opportunity to splurge a little bit as the last bits of stock were leaving the shelves. Mikkeller has filled my glass before, but this is one big, bad looking bottle. 750ml of Black Ink and Blood Imperial Raspberry Stout. Brandy is also on the label.
Gooey, chocolaty in appearance when filling the glass, with a thick dark beige head. It's a little sweeter smelling than a typical stout, but given the raspberry and brandy that's not surprising or ominous. There's definitely a fruitiness in the scent, although I probably wouldn't identify raspberry without a little hint. The taste is heavy on the smokiness, with a little dark chocolate bitter that hangs around in the back of the mouth. The raspberries figure strongly in the first few seconds of the sip. A woodiness builds after a time, perhaps an influence of liquor. There's also a certain heaviness that sets in after a full glass down, which can probably be put down to the rather high alcohol content (17%). Not a beer to chug down on an empty stomach, although it's a taste worth sampling.
Supplier: Cervezorama (RIP)
Price: €13.80
 |
| Who needs a handprint tattooed? |
Supplier: Cervezorama (RIP)
Price: €13.80
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
The Effect of Global English
As an EFL teacher and linguist, this is one of my main concerns. For the first time in history, there is one language that, while not universally used, is recognized as one of the most dominant methods of communication, especially in the fields of business and entertainment. It is the official language of aviation. The number of learners surpasses the number of native speakers by a significant amount, and it is probably the most learned language in the world at the moment. When the effect of a language on others is spoken of, it is typically to complain. The addition of vocabulary is seen as threatening, as diluting the pristine beauty of the recipient language. However, English itself was the recipient of an enormous number of loan words in its past, and in the present it continues to incorporate new terms when it sees fit. Due to the lack of case limitations, grammatical gender, and a fairly broad selection of phonemes, English takes in new, foreign terms easily, making them its own without much difficulty, whereas some other languages have to do some modifications before new terms are usable. Complaints about the repression of lexical richness and nuance in recipient languages was mentioned, but we did agree in the end that these problems are not actually due to English being a means of international communication, but a symptom of laziness or incompetence in the educational system of the put-upon country. As English has grown in importance, we have seen a retreat of other languages, in business where it is a question of efficiency, and in culture, where it might be easier to point to cultural-linguistic hegemony. In past decades, for example, top pop songs were not necessarily in English. Today, even native speakers of English accents other than American affect this accent when singing, because "it's just the way you make music." One might worry about the stagnation of pop culture, but for the ascendance of other languages in English speaking countries' own markets, not to mention the on-going evolution of the English language, which is undergoing several shifts of pronunciation in locations around the world. The effect of English on other languages, in short, in to provide lexical elements in an expedient way, to give an option to speakers that they may feel is "elegant", or at least more streamlined than the solutions created in their own languages thus far. Words are not, for the most part, imposed upon a populace; rather, they are adopted as needed. Loan words are taken on because they serve a purpose. Whether in Middle English or Modern Spanish, borrowing is not done out of disrespect for the past, but as a strategy for paving the way to the future of linguistic expression and relevance.
The Writer was very concerned with the psychology of language use and learning, reminding us of the idea that each language describes a different reality. One thing that worried her was the possible distortion caused by attempts to plaster a more prestigious language, in this case English, over the native one. The prestige of English, and other languages as well, is based on colonialism and colonial ideals, to the detriment of the language of the colonized, often having exterminating power over it. However, the prevalence of a language does not make it impossible to use another, especially when that other has more importance culturally, so the problem of poor usage cannot be blamed solely on the presence of a foreign language. The people must support and care for their linguistic heritage if it is to survive.
The Leader rejected the formative quality of language on thought, saying thought is developed before language is in the brain. The problems of any language, English included, are produced by the willful abuses placed on it by those in power, with an eye to manipulate. He expressed his disgust with the common ideas of foreign language learning, saying that less formula and more necessity was key, as people really in need find ways to incorporate information that helps them. As for the preference for recording and disseminating information in English, it is merely because the language has shown itself to be the most efficient means of doing so. For the most part, colonization was political and value-based, not language based; a knowledge of English was a plus, but not an absolute requirement, while correct public behavior or an expression of loyalty to King or God was an important component of the "assimilated" colonial. He said also that the blending of languages and cultures is a benefit to the society that allows and promotes it, giving a mix of perspectives and worldviews that can aid the discovery of new solutions and developments. His final thoughts were on the natural pragmatism of human beings, that which leads us to do the necessary - but only as far as absolutely necessary. In this case, it means that people learn a few basic principles of a language, but never spend time among natives or learn how the language is used to any reasonable extent.
A Newcomer felt that the benefits of our world language were clouded with a certain amount of pure fashion. She also saw a closer connection of language and attitude than the Leader, stating that the Anglo attitude for business is part of the success of the language as well as the general success of majority English language countries. Still, she was secure in the belief that Spanish, her own native language, had a certain amount of power in the world, perhaps due to the number of native speakers. She also pointed out the increasing number of bilingual schools as markers of recognition of importance for a language, although this comment was directed mostly to Spain and the teaching of the English language.
A small but dedicated group came, with the goal of taming and taking as a tool a language not their own, for the most part. Those of us to whom it belongs can only nod and make small suggestions. Otherwise would appear presumptuous.
The Writer was very concerned with the psychology of language use and learning, reminding us of the idea that each language describes a different reality. One thing that worried her was the possible distortion caused by attempts to plaster a more prestigious language, in this case English, over the native one. The prestige of English, and other languages as well, is based on colonialism and colonial ideals, to the detriment of the language of the colonized, often having exterminating power over it. However, the prevalence of a language does not make it impossible to use another, especially when that other has more importance culturally, so the problem of poor usage cannot be blamed solely on the presence of a foreign language. The people must support and care for their linguistic heritage if it is to survive.
The Leader rejected the formative quality of language on thought, saying thought is developed before language is in the brain. The problems of any language, English included, are produced by the willful abuses placed on it by those in power, with an eye to manipulate. He expressed his disgust with the common ideas of foreign language learning, saying that less formula and more necessity was key, as people really in need find ways to incorporate information that helps them. As for the preference for recording and disseminating information in English, it is merely because the language has shown itself to be the most efficient means of doing so. For the most part, colonization was political and value-based, not language based; a knowledge of English was a plus, but not an absolute requirement, while correct public behavior or an expression of loyalty to King or God was an important component of the "assimilated" colonial. He said also that the blending of languages and cultures is a benefit to the society that allows and promotes it, giving a mix of perspectives and worldviews that can aid the discovery of new solutions and developments. His final thoughts were on the natural pragmatism of human beings, that which leads us to do the necessary - but only as far as absolutely necessary. In this case, it means that people learn a few basic principles of a language, but never spend time among natives or learn how the language is used to any reasonable extent.
A Newcomer felt that the benefits of our world language were clouded with a certain amount of pure fashion. She also saw a closer connection of language and attitude than the Leader, stating that the Anglo attitude for business is part of the success of the language as well as the general success of majority English language countries. Still, she was secure in the belief that Spanish, her own native language, had a certain amount of power in the world, perhaps due to the number of native speakers. She also pointed out the increasing number of bilingual schools as markers of recognition of importance for a language, although this comment was directed mostly to Spain and the teaching of the English language.
A small but dedicated group came, with the goal of taming and taking as a tool a language not their own, for the most part. Those of us to whom it belongs can only nod and make small suggestions. Otherwise would appear presumptuous.
Saturday, September 12, 2015
spice up your day
The Beer Garden is a little more "gourmet" than other beer stores have made themselves, with chocolate, jellies, and normally a selection of ciders or other alcoholic drinks besides the beer. They also host a good variety of northern beers. Pfefferkørner looks like it should be Danish, but the brewer is actually German, and not even especially northern German. Who could turn down a German beer though?
There's a nice whiff of pepper from the bottle, spicy, hot and enticing. The beer is unassuming and regular in appearance, gold and whitely headed. While the chili pepper beer did not have any particular flavor of chili, just heat mostly, we'll see how this one comes out. It's not sharp or unpleasant at all, although the tickle of pepper does build up on the tongue from the first sip. The spiciness is almost sweet, definitely playful. The pepper is the star of the show, without any other flavor or odor providing a back-up distraction. This is a fairly simple tasting beer, in that the one spice is dominant, but it's something different and fun.
Supplier: The Beer Garden
Price: €3.50
 |
| Oh, hello |
Supplier: The Beer Garden
Price: €3.50
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
New Ways of Communication
I found myself irked by the title of the topic, but it is a nitpicky irksomeness. We do not actually have any way to communicate that is not through graphics or sound. While email and telephones are fast, the way we communicate when using them is not new at all. Still, we all understand what is being really being referred to - the technology that is used in most modern communication, especially internet technology in various forms. It might have been more precise to say something like "Advances in Communication Technology" or "The Impact of Modern Technology on Communication", but that is not how the topic was presented. We just have to deal with what we have. In most cases, people bring up this idea in order to complain about the changes wrought by new technologies, arguing that they stamp out the humanity and the closeness of our links to each other and encourage isolation in spite of their intended use of sharing information. These arguments have been made for every new technology that takes root in human society throughout history. This fear of the consequences leads to communities like the Amish or homesteaders/back-to-the-land movements, or more dangerously, anti-vaxxers. While there is quite often no harm in a person rejecting new technologies for herself, it is also true that there is little real reason to do so. Humanity has always adapted to new technologies, in spite of some social problems that come up because of them, and the difficulties posed by WhatsApp and emojis are little more than blips on the radar compared to the advantages they offer most. During the discussion, the issue of internet anonymity and its negative effect on behavior came up, and I did have to admit that this is danger that we face if we do not pay attention to our communication online. Whereas in the past, in my past even, problems with classmates or coworkers were easy to leave behind once that school/workday was over, now everyone is on social media, and tormentors can find their targets on Facebook, Twitter, any blog or message board they frequent, and continue the harassment. In some cases, particularly among young people, the constant bombardment can result in suicide. Still, this is a danger that reflects the testing of boundaries in our new freedom of expression. It is bad, and should be pointed out as improper and sometimes even unethical and illegal, but I maintain that the advantages of our new communication options still outweigh the downsides.
The Source was very concerned with the losses inherent in modern communication technology, focusing on the loss of physical contact and sophistication of language at first. She also mentioned the lack of identification of the communicator that leaves recipients open to email scams and fake accounts phishing for information. The discussion drifted into less personal communication to spend some time with news and information transmission, where a number of us agreed that our sources were much more limited in the past. In this arena, the Source was fully in support of modern technology, calling it heavenly, and saying social media is perfect for sharing opinions and data that is not present in "official" reports. However, in the end she backtracked a little, and wondered if the addiction to social media should be considered a genuine mental illness and reminded us of the dangers of not protecting our privacy online.
The True Philosopher also had some qualms about the wording of the title, and clarified that the new thing we have is a scenario rather than any new way of communicating. One of the problems he sees caused by new technology is the deterioration of hand-writing, leaving us dependent on keyboards to create legible notes to each other. Another change is the sense of time we have in sending and receiving information, since in the past days, weeks, or longer could pass before a reply was received, while today we expect everything to happen immediately. In response to the charge of impersonal modern communication, he pointed out that Skype allows people to see as well as hear each other, which is almost as good as being in the same room face to face. The news focus was also addressed, as he himself had been a reporter and seen first hand how information can be manipulated to prop up some and cut down others. The good thing today is that information is available to be checked and compared with official versions, although not all of it is easy to find. One must develop some google-fu. We can also communicate with the providers of information to ask for more details or some clarifying statement, which is much different from the way things were in the past. The thing to remember is that we cannot return to the past, at least not in a meaningful way. We can only adapt to our present and prepare as best we can for the future.
The Leader wrote a bit about the presentation of information and what we expect to find today versus what we accept in other times. He spoke of the possibilities we have today of double-checking the information we are fed, and emphasized the change in mindset that has come about. We are not happy with news stories that do not contain photos or other images, and demand everything be presented in ways that jolt the emotions. He also made reference to the information overload mentioned by others, but preferred to focus on the availability of information at our fingertips. Authority can make it difficult to find information, but the speed with which the comment that there is something being hidden can circle the world makes it more difficult for this tactic to work today. His final point was that the education we give to our citizens is inadequate for the world we have created, leaving people with no idea of how to behave in the new spaces of the internet, or while using other forms of technology in public places. While there are dangers and people who choose to behave badly, such as trolls, this is not enough to support a reduction in the use of modern technology, but to insist on an overhaul of education so that people learn what is expected of them and know how to avoid modern dangers.
A Newcomer stated that an important part of the attraction to modern technology is the feeling of belonging we can derive by using it. On one hand, we meet people who share our opinions and interests, even if only over the internet, and on the other hand, the gadgets themselves mark people as belonging to different groups. Our opportunities to find friends and colleagues are greatly increased; nevertheless, the connection tends to be shallow and superficial. We do enjoy images as transmitters of information, but often they are only cheap means of emotional manipulation. They can blind us from the truth rather than shed light on the situation. Even having the facts available does not mean that we have the time to search for and analyze them. It becomes much easier to accept the information we are fed, despite knowing that not all of it is true. The reporters are not completely at fault, nor are the news providers, as the public demands news seconds after the event, giving no time for facts to be checked and corroborated. The story must break immediately and everyone wants to get the scoop. Errors can be corrected, of course, but by then we are all reading and listening to the next story.
The Deep Thinker also remarked on the impossibility of going back in time. One of the most important aspects of technological advancement in the field of communications is the transparency it offers. In fact, having less privacy could lead us to a safer, nicer world. Being aware of the darkness that exists, we should be careful about what we share, of course, but the important thing is that we have the power over what we make public and what we keep to ourselves.
In spite of the topic, we were treated to no bellowing this time. Indeed, it was made clear before the start that while hollering to to combat bad acoustics may be acceptable, hollering at is frowned upon. Sometimes information does not reach the most appropriate target.
The Source was very concerned with the losses inherent in modern communication technology, focusing on the loss of physical contact and sophistication of language at first. She also mentioned the lack of identification of the communicator that leaves recipients open to email scams and fake accounts phishing for information. The discussion drifted into less personal communication to spend some time with news and information transmission, where a number of us agreed that our sources were much more limited in the past. In this arena, the Source was fully in support of modern technology, calling it heavenly, and saying social media is perfect for sharing opinions and data that is not present in "official" reports. However, in the end she backtracked a little, and wondered if the addiction to social media should be considered a genuine mental illness and reminded us of the dangers of not protecting our privacy online.
The True Philosopher also had some qualms about the wording of the title, and clarified that the new thing we have is a scenario rather than any new way of communicating. One of the problems he sees caused by new technology is the deterioration of hand-writing, leaving us dependent on keyboards to create legible notes to each other. Another change is the sense of time we have in sending and receiving information, since in the past days, weeks, or longer could pass before a reply was received, while today we expect everything to happen immediately. In response to the charge of impersonal modern communication, he pointed out that Skype allows people to see as well as hear each other, which is almost as good as being in the same room face to face. The news focus was also addressed, as he himself had been a reporter and seen first hand how information can be manipulated to prop up some and cut down others. The good thing today is that information is available to be checked and compared with official versions, although not all of it is easy to find. One must develop some google-fu. We can also communicate with the providers of information to ask for more details or some clarifying statement, which is much different from the way things were in the past. The thing to remember is that we cannot return to the past, at least not in a meaningful way. We can only adapt to our present and prepare as best we can for the future.
The Leader wrote a bit about the presentation of information and what we expect to find today versus what we accept in other times. He spoke of the possibilities we have today of double-checking the information we are fed, and emphasized the change in mindset that has come about. We are not happy with news stories that do not contain photos or other images, and demand everything be presented in ways that jolt the emotions. He also made reference to the information overload mentioned by others, but preferred to focus on the availability of information at our fingertips. Authority can make it difficult to find information, but the speed with which the comment that there is something being hidden can circle the world makes it more difficult for this tactic to work today. His final point was that the education we give to our citizens is inadequate for the world we have created, leaving people with no idea of how to behave in the new spaces of the internet, or while using other forms of technology in public places. While there are dangers and people who choose to behave badly, such as trolls, this is not enough to support a reduction in the use of modern technology, but to insist on an overhaul of education so that people learn what is expected of them and know how to avoid modern dangers.
A Newcomer stated that an important part of the attraction to modern technology is the feeling of belonging we can derive by using it. On one hand, we meet people who share our opinions and interests, even if only over the internet, and on the other hand, the gadgets themselves mark people as belonging to different groups. Our opportunities to find friends and colleagues are greatly increased; nevertheless, the connection tends to be shallow and superficial. We do enjoy images as transmitters of information, but often they are only cheap means of emotional manipulation. They can blind us from the truth rather than shed light on the situation. Even having the facts available does not mean that we have the time to search for and analyze them. It becomes much easier to accept the information we are fed, despite knowing that not all of it is true. The reporters are not completely at fault, nor are the news providers, as the public demands news seconds after the event, giving no time for facts to be checked and corroborated. The story must break immediately and everyone wants to get the scoop. Errors can be corrected, of course, but by then we are all reading and listening to the next story.
The Deep Thinker also remarked on the impossibility of going back in time. One of the most important aspects of technological advancement in the field of communications is the transparency it offers. In fact, having less privacy could lead us to a safer, nicer world. Being aware of the darkness that exists, we should be careful about what we share, of course, but the important thing is that we have the power over what we make public and what we keep to ourselves.
In spite of the topic, we were treated to no bellowing this time. Indeed, it was made clear before the start that while hollering to to combat bad acoustics may be acceptable, hollering at is frowned upon. Sometimes information does not reach the most appropriate target.
Saturday, September 5, 2015
breakfast in a bottle
 |
| You can ask how many sips to the bottom of the glass, but he won't tell you |
Supplier: The Beer Garden
Price: €4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)