Is there a viable space between the extremes of luddites and those who are looking forward to the future synthesis of human and machines?
Should one withhold ideas and inventions from public at large? (Time-capsule it, etc.)
(aside: throughout human history, many schools of thought sought refuge in esoterica and clothed their outward appearance in misdirecting, e.g. occult, symbolism both to (a) filter membership (as in spot the bozo) and (b) to permit a pseudo-public discourse that resisted penetration by the uninitiated.)
Are these concerns too much to burden the creative technologists? Should we just go with the flow and trust and hope that the actors that utilize our mind-products are responsible, humane, and thoughtful?
[i](aside: throughout human history, many schools of thought sought refuge in esoterica and clothed their outward appearance in misdirecting, e.g. occult, symbolism both to (a) filter membership (as in spot the bozo) and (b) to permit a pseudo-public discourse that resisted penetration by the uninitiated.)[/i] The premise for this assertion is a bit baseless unless we alter 'throughout human history' to 'for the last two-hundred years or so'. Esoterica was primarily esoteric as a means of sustaining one's life rather than filtering membership and permitting a secret discourse (I disagree with the idea of 'pseudo-public', as it was as public as any highly educated discourse; a great deal of the finest esoteric thought was printed and in public circulation). When one uses the term 'occult symbolism' in this psychologized New Age era, one usually does so without the rather granular nature of the usage and 'purpose' of symbols in esoterica. For example, Giordano Bruno's 'occult symbols' were prime examples of his mastery of the Ars Memoria. They served as mnemonic devices to focus his mind and encapsulate his thoughts in a time when paper was not so readily available. In this case, his symbols were for himself and no other. Furthermore, those seals of the oft-reviled Lemegeton Clavicula Salomonis were earnestly not intended at its inception to be used as a secret decoder ring, but to quite honestly communicate with daemons for purposes of divine enlightenment (not of a Christian or of a necessarily benign nature). With the Occult Revival of the 1800s, the Spiritualist movement, Theosophy, Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, etc. all established the elitist, politically charged clubs often injected into conspiracy theories with secret handshakes and ostentatious symbolism (in both rites and writing). That said, esoterica (properly a product of the Medieval and Renaissance era) promotes refuge in much the same manner as any focused higher level of education. For more information, I suggest a visit to http://www.esotericarchives.com. Joseph Peterson has provided authoritative translations of texts that have received ill treatment and inept scholarship in the hands of the above-mentioned clubs. I strongly suggest you take a look.
> The premise for this assertion is a bit baseless unless we alter 'throughout human history' to 'for the last two-hundred years or so'. I suppose that depends on your definition of human. Either we have miscommunicated or you have a very strong civilizational/ethnocentric world view. The latter is too unkind, so I will choose to believe we have miscommunicated. (The only thing that has been published in the past 200 years has been facile, and perhaps willful, misunderstanding.) > I disagree with the idea of 'pseudo-public', as it was as public as any highly educated discourse; a great deal of the finest esoteric thought was printed and in public circulation). I was referring to matters well before Guttenberg's wonder machine. But yes, 'scribes' did write, and master architects did write in stone, and various groups even sang their discourse under the very nose of the local heterodoxy. So that's the "public" part. But it was in fact 'pseudo-' public as the content was esoteric and generally misunderstood (as it was intended to be) by various intelligent fools. I mean, really, how many people understood (back then) what that "subtle point"/"pole" currently in vogue in the West as "Rumi" intended by his Masnavi (much less now)? The filter remains functional.
1) In response to my viewpoint, I am a student of the University of Exeter's Master's programme for Western Esotericism and an administrator on Esoteric Archives. I assure you there is no miscommunication concerning the flow of human history and the role of esoterica within that flow, and if there is a strong civilizational/ethnocentric view, it is of the influence and participation of esoterica in the history of the Western world from Pre-Socratic thought to the current day. Please inform me of your definition of 'human'. To the comment of the whole of Romantic to Modern publications consisting of solely 'facile misunderstanding' invalidates the very basis of the initial primary question that sparked this discussion. Why discuss this modern publication if it is naught but 'facile misunderstanding'? Please illustrate an example of enlightened understanding to allow a comparison. 2) The Picatrix, Hermes Trismegistus' Asclepius, the Orphic Hymns, the writings of Jabbar ibn Hayyan, etc. were all available before the Gutenberg was a factor, and in fact contributed to the Renaissance of the 12th century. Only education provided a barrier of access to these works, and certainly nothing directly attributed to an inner circle or cabal of esotericists. Furthermore, the assertion that esoteric content was meant to be misunderstood is fallacious. The purpose was for it to be rather clearly communicated to those who had carefully educated themselves (such is the case with Alchemical art and the traditions of allegories reaching back to Zosimos of Panoplis). It was devastatingly unsafe to have literature connected to the secrets of immortality and the creation of gold, and, again, the secrecy ensured safety. I reaffirm that mere education provides the barrier, not some conspiratorial cabal purposed with disinformation to create and ensure a 'pseudo-public' discourse. Even your example of the Masnavi is merely limited by education (though I'm curious what you'd define as 'really' understanding). Is there a filter in esotericism? Absolutely. Is that filter intentionally created to ensure the idea presented is communicated to a specific group? Yes. Can this same filter be ascribed to any language, science, art form, culture, etc. in existence? Yes. Ascribing your filter to occult symbology only functions if you choose to define different forms of language, mathematical expressions, and infra-red radiation as occult symbols.
Here is my "diploma":
http://i.imgur.com/6BXQx.png > Please illustrate an example of enlightened understanding to allow a comparison see above.
Note 'cognition' and 'understanding' playing key roles, a telling sign of post-Occult Revival symbolism. Psychological jargon is the hallmark of modern esoteric practice and thought.
> [elsewhere here] "Why discuss this modern publication" and earlier "I have not read the book" [after fred's post]. I wrote: "The link is intended as an evocative input". Did I ever in any way indicate that I have read this book, or, that it was to be discussed?
Is this indicative of your attentiveness in such matters? 2: "Note 'cognition' and 'understanding' playing key roles, a telling sign of post-Occult Revival symbolism. Psychological jargon is the hallmark of modern esoteric practice and thought." (Long live the filter ;) Communicating clearly is a personal goal. Modern usage is recommended, towards that goal, given the audience is the modern man. Would you prefer if I used 10th century Farsi? (Btw, If in your world, cognition and understanding are "jargon", then you (really) need to get that out of that archive and get some fresh air.) 3: You mention (2) the "playing key roles". http://i.imgur.com/6BXQx.png Every pixel on that 'power point' slide has been precisely placed. To assert of "playing key roles" pretends to an understanding of the whole. (From another pov, they are the most accessible. For example, you could have said LahM plays a key role, but then you would have had to explain what that is all about...) http://www.ancient-egypt.co.uk/metropolitan/pages/obolisk.ht...
[That said, the diagram is directly addressing your unanswered question in another thread, if that 'helps' )).] But to rescue this thread and get back to the main question: Is it really acceptable for a scientist, such as yourself, that indiscriminate use may be made of your findings? As an illustrative example, consider the very trivial matter of the horseless carriage, and its profound impact on every aspect of society (+ or -). http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&...
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/drl/animals_robots/cow_herding/c... http://www.sri.com/ << does not convey a warm fuzzy feeling...
>Is it really acceptable for a scientist, such as yourself, that indiscriminate use may be made of your findings? Typically, all use must fall within the accepted norms of current law, or can only escape those bounds for a short time before legal action. Currently, as I see it, the biggest danger relates to who is writing the laws, and who is lobbying for them. Let's call these "laws of acceptable use" (LAU). I believe the the messy process of a democratic-based LAU is much preferable to a LAU that represents a group or consolidated power. Whether initially benevolent or not, I have yet to see a group with unchallenged oversight not become perverse and centered upon it's own interests after a couple of decades. We might not like all of the consequences of the internal combustion engine, but consider how that development might be quashed if it were determined early on that it was undesirable? What would that type of policy look like in action? -I think the 'cure' would be worse than the 'disease'. Once again, excellent links! And yes, the SRI worries me a bit, as I think it has a LAU agenda.
In my mind, this shifts the context from the purely scientific to (broadly) a social one; specifically, economic and political. Which is disquieting, for various reasons. While I think it naive to hold the romantic notion that all knowledge workers are men and women dedicated to the pursuit of truth, surely a substantial sub-set are as such; or at least that is how they begin their life journey. But outside of certain fields -- notably software/computer science -- it is simply not possible to pursue one's interests without recourse to resources that (to date) can (and have) only be(en) furnished by interests managing concentration of power e.g. state or capital. And the utility of these resources entail bondage (in the sense of curtailment of choice or perhaps more critically, voice) in one form or another. I further believe (and may be wrong) that the certain boldness (or recklessness, as you prefer) that seems to be the prerequisite of figuratively sticking one's neck out in these matters is somewhat at odds with the character of the personality types that pursue sciences. (One tragic case to the contrary that comes to mind is Galois -- and that is hardly a comforting precedent for those who came after him.) This leaves the stage to the marginalized, or perhaps the unhinged, individuals which in effect have 'nothing to lose'. Hardly a comforting thought. You mentioned LUA. A possibly viable (?) critique that can be directed at the scientific community in this regard by the outsiders is that such formulations, while logically rigorous, beg a social context that is hardly in evidence -- see above -- and are merely self serving formulations that provide the proverbial fig leaf for the scientific and technical community. Such a critique was violently expressed in our own time: http://th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de/~jr/gif/phys/kaczynski.jpg Earlier I had posted a thoughtful article by a very thoughtful, intelligent, talented, and sensitive individual: David Gelernter. That posting was certainly not by design, but I could hardly continue in this posting without introducing these two individuals in this conversation. (Believe me, I hesitated and still wonder if it is reckless of me to do so.) Let us assume as given that Kaczynski is in fact an unhinged personality. Clearly he was (and apparently remains) criminally minded. Do you believe him to be an exceptional instance? (Apparently to date he has a devout following who correspond with him and the man continues to publish.) Are we to leave the stage empty for such as him? That seems hardly responsible. Outside of these human considerations, the other aspect of this issue which is deeply troubling is a purely scientific one: we are now, most definitely, at the cusp of having the technology to enable inescapable bondage. LUA is of little comfort when the very minds that can (and would) object to gross violations may themselves be held captive. Perhaps the above paragraph is overly alarming (for today) but surely not by mid century? Looking back at the amazing trajectory of technology in the last 100+ years, I am fully expecting wonders bordering on magic in the coming decades. That we are fully surveilled today is nearly a given. At some point action with follow observation. I do not wish such a future for mine and your children. We currently have organizations such as UCS (http://www.ucsusa.org/). I believe we need more such organizations to counter the above mentioned concentrations and afford the current and future generations of scientists and technologist the social and institutional protection so that formulations such as LUA have factual basis are not left to the devices of "democratic" and "lawful" institutions and norms (which may in fact be merely theatrical productions) http://www.jimmywinokur.com/ImagesFromAgora/Jewish/Oppenheim... http://www.sfgate.com/blogs/images/sfgate/goldberg/2009/04/1...
There's little doubt about that. Science needs money, and the system that distributes it needs improvement. It is not an easy time to be a early career scientist in the US. Science funding is at a low-point. For better or worse, US science funding has lost its ride on nationalism's back. Now it's fixed to the pariah of 'big government' taxation. >I further believe (and may be wrong) that the certain boldness (or recklessness, as you prefer) that seems to be the prerequisite of figuratively sticking one's neck out in these matters is somewhat at odds with the character of the personality types that pursue sciences. Not sure there. I know some good bold scientists. But when compared to a field like finance, you might be right. >We currently have organizations such as UCS (http://www.ucsusa.org/). I believe we need more such organizations to counter the above mentioned concentrations and afford the current and future generations of scientists and technologist the social and institutional protection so that formulations such as LUA have factual basis are not left to the devices of "democratic" and "lawful" institutions and norms (which may in fact be merely theatrical productions) Amen to that. But, I think the real solution is finding a new blood-boiling partner for science. Space exploration is the least-destructive and most inspiring I can think of.
What I meant specifically was that science (non-profit basic science) needs to become the champion of a (perceived) noble cause if it is to be welcomed again to the table. The advancement of human knowledge and understanding unlocks our potential, and at its root, science is human. But like all things that depend upon a general consensus and shared value, scientists could do much to publicly pursue and share knowledge about that which inspires us most. Personally, I'd prefer the shared discovery of space to nationalistic fervor.
To the OP's questions: I am more for open debate and discourse. Many self-select themselves out of these conversations anyway. We need parties to feel like they can enter it though, as interests cross. Otherwise, it seems to end in pitchforks. :)
Naturally, one can argue that only the nobility had the means with which to educate themselves to a degree that could possibly contribute to such a lofty field of philosophical discourse as Renaissance esoterica, but I present the case of the peasant and cobbler Jacob Boehme in retort.
Is there a viable space between the extremes of luddites and those who are looking forward to the future synthesis of human and machines? I hope so. Although I would wager that entertainment will bring the two groups together. People will plug themselves in and cast aside much for the sake of being entertained. Should one withhold ideas and inventions from public at large? I don't think they should. I am not comfortable granting intellectual authority or technological authority any more than moral authority. No mind or group can be deserving of that trust, because there is no measure for what it would require. (aside: throughout human history, many schools of thought sought refuge in esoterica and clothed their outward appearance in misdirecting, e.g. occult, symbolism both to (a) filter membership (as in spot the bozo) and (b) to permit a pseudo-public discourse that resisted penetration by the uninitiated.) I believe those most interested in these groups are usually standing on the shoulders of a greater person. I also feel that intellectual cowardice and self-deception is typically involved. Are these concerns too much to burden the creative technologists? Should we just go with the flow and trust and hope that the actors that utilize our mind-products are responsible, humane, and thoughtful? Yes, we must go with the flow, but no, we should not trust. We should shine light on what is made, and actively debate its use and value. In short, we should put energy into the process, rather than in a grand design that will inevitably fail to match actual developments. Those are my opinions, at any rate.