The history of humankind records periods of time when openness to multicultural interactions and beneficial trade opportunities sped the development of civilization. Intellectual exchange produced new ideas that led to economic stability that freed up time for the revelation of personal skill sets that provided a more functional society. Cities grew; living standards improved.
History informs us of other periods of time, of isolationism, when strong leaders were unwilling to participate in open exchange, were content in their belief that autonomous existence was safer, superior to competition imposed by multicultural exchange. Such a mindset, though, was unprepared to flex when the need for innovation to overcome extended drought, for instance, are fend off enemy incursions when alliances weren’t available for support.
The old trope that ignoring history means repeating mistakes of the past seems to be happening again.
A Pragmatist is someone who sees true reality and works with it, within the limitations of what is at hand. An Idealist sees the reality of what is, finds it lacking and seeks to change things for the better. In either case, these are all people of action, seeking positive outcomes, though the results they seek may differ, one being of a personal nature the other altruistic.
There are, however, those pragmatists who choose a life path of least resistance as they seek the easiest means of finding a comfortable existence, which might mean overstepping legal and moral imperatives, taking advantage of an open society. And there are those idealists, who, finding society resistant to change, are unable to reach their goals, give up, living out their lives amorally on the social fringes.
Human nature determines the path taken, but success and well-being will require a moral commitment.
It used to be the case, as I remember it, an ambitious artist, seeking recognition, would attempt to stretch the envelope. As an artist in the 60’s and 70’s there was great impetus to go beyond what had been done in the arts, to expand the notion of what art is. Not simply to seek ‘the new’ in itself but to find ways to make meaning unavailable to traditional means of artmaking.
Mid-20th century, recognition in an increasingly competitive art world depended on reaching beyond, developing new techniques, challenge tradition aesthetic values. Success in such endeavor would depend on receiving hostile reviews and negative responses from the art establishment. Whether such art offered meaningful content or was simply exploitive, recognition was the key to success, which was likely to be short-lived, undermined by the eventual critical recognition and acceptance, the critics themselves seeking acknowledgement of their depths of understanding.
It being understood, then, that nothing is truly new even as convoluted explanation fought the inevitable decline of the Avant-Guarde.
The increasing use of chatbots these days has me wondering if my modest blog might be thought of as AI produced. Careful as I am-using spell-check and avoiding redundancies, not delving into contexts I know nothing about-it seems my short musings ought to be seen as human produce.
To underscore the obvious, the absence of intricate nuance must make it clear, dear reader, this writer is receiving no help from artificial sources. But, maybe, to be certain no doubt exists as to the origin of my modest posts, a convoluted sentence or two ought to verify these texts human touch.
VI’ve been reading about the concerns educators are having regarding technology in the classroom. While the distraction of smart phones can be reasonably curtailed, a more insidious issue is the use of AI to manage homework. Chat GPT, for instance, can produce assigned essays without the need for students to hardly think about the topic. In a test study, students who used the AI app were unable to answer questions about what exactly the produced document said.
Apparently, the problem isn’t restricted to the classroom. The business world, too, is in danger of AI relieving businessmen and women of having to think. Executives may use Chat GPT to produce reasoned argument/policies acceptable in the moment but potentially damaging to corporate goals.
So, it appears, using AI bypasses the need for contextual understanding opening the door to belief in conspiracy theory and the acceptance of disinformation for the multitude of users who find in it justification for their chosen narrative.
It would appear that artificial intelligence may be turning us into a stupidogenic society.
I’ve been reading, lately about the vast numbers of American preparing for the Apocalypse. Some sources estimate as many as 10% of the US population harbors deep survivalist instincts informing them civilization is teetering, nearing collapse, and preparation need be made for surviving the end times.
Well maybe all these folks don’t foresee ‘End Times’ exactly, maybe the extravagant preparations being made: building bunkers that include gyms, pools, libraries and shooting ranges complete with moats skimmed with flammable liquid, is just a use of expendable income for an insurance policy that will ease the fear our tumultuous times are imposing. But, considering the political craziness that perpetuates an Us vs Them mentality, it’s not hard to imagine ‘The Four Horseman’ ushering in the demise of civilization and there’s plenty of literature that adds believable detail to what an apocalypse will look like.
Time to reread ‘A Canticle for Liebowitz’ offering, as it does, a light at the end of the civilization terminating tunnel in the person of a young child, maybe she’s a GenAlpha who will be able to correct some of our mistakes.
What to believe? It appears many of us (more than 50% of the U. S. population some sources estimate) get our news through social media, a source of information through which anyone can post thoughts of their own, ideas that may or may not be consistent with reality.
Expecting, as we do, our daily consumption of news to be based on fact, social media offers instead biases of opinion sometimes meant to deceive or to shock. Motivated by self-interest, unedited, the scroll of ideas repeated over and over will take hold, algorhythms feeding intuitions, reinforcing what the individual consumer believes to be true, bad enough in itself but made many times worse by exacerbating societal divisiveness.
We owe it to ourselves to dig deeper into the news of the day, to seek the facts beyond our intuitive inclinations, as uncomfortable as that may be. Moral truth is out there to be found.
Sigmund Freud determined all human motivations contain a sexual component. The oral, then anal fixations of children and later phallic interests, beginning at a very early age, were focused on satisfying bodily needs. Many psychological problems, neuroses, occur because sexual impulses are repressed. Through psychoanalysis S.F. guided his repressed patients to realize the healthy need for normal active sexual behavior.
Freud, though, cautioned that excessive sexual activity interferes with the development of healthy social relationships, that strong friendships and sound decision making, adulthood essentially, depends on tempering sexual behaviors.
This could explain, I guess, while some of our politicians behave like adolescents.
In the winter of his eighteenth year this young man fell madly in love (well, it was a serious crush anyway). The object of his unrequited affection was a demure sweet young lady who turned the young man, usually easygoing and affable, into a tongue-tied moron (or so he thought and was in fact true).
The episode was simply reflective of the young man’s nature. He conjured imaginings of romantic scenarios; of heroic stances he might take. He lived in a world of fictional narratives reinforced by the heroic storylines he regularly indulged: good triumphs, tragedy is overcome.
It would seem in retrospect such an imaginative reality would soon be repressed but it was maintained far longer than it might have been by avoiding unpleasant confrontation, keeping a distance from uncertain challenges and living in an (overly) protective home environment. As a college student our young dreamer immersed himself in studies of an impersonal nature, solitary endeavors not requiring excessive personal connections. He had friends of course. College life teems with unassuming young people of an accepting nature, all thriving in an essentially responsibility free environment.
Eventually, over time, even an impractical dreamer will have to face harsh realities. The awakening for our young man came with the threat posed by the draft lottery and the likelihood of involuntary military service. Basic training was eye opening. The young man found himself verbally assaulted. Name calling the likes of which he had never previously encountered (but guessed often referred to perverse sexual acts) was common.
Military service didn’t cure the young man, didn’t redirect him toward a more functional pragmatism. Even now as he passes middle age the man finds himself entertaining flights of fancy. He has somehow been able to navigate through life being sufficiently useful as not to be a particular burden on society, you know, has basically paid his own way.
It’s good to know, I guess, that sometimes life provides a path for those who need to live in an alternative reality.
I’ve been thinking lately about the multitudes of good and sincere people in the world who have arrived at dramatically conflicting views as to the nature of reality.
Most all of us rely on what we consider to be unimpeachable support sources for our views and usually a contingent of like-minded others that reinforce our beliefs. The evangelical Christian, the Qanon conspiracy buff and the liberal mainstreamer will tend to approach daily occurrences with sets of premises and then conclusions that are quite different. Such conflicting perspectives are the stuff of the social divisiveness manifesting itself these days; the dilemma of free thought in a free society free from coercive oversight, I guess.
I have no answers other than responding with patient tolerance in the knowledge that most everyone deserves respectful acknowledgement of their usually carefully considered views. The hope is that we can all spot disinformation when it presents itself. Hopefully, we can think past the response of the recently interviewed lady asked why she embraces her position on a current controversial idea. ‘I know it’s not true’, she said, ‘but it’s consistent with my beliefs.’
deideismusings 