Put in the direct "either/or" language of the "causal" that Martha
uses in her comment
> Certainly, we can make wonderful use of all sorts of aids, technology
> included, in the quest for creating what we at IBSAIL call a "union of
> differences" - synthesis. But "things" do not create ways of being.
> Things can create ways of doing. People create ways of being - and create
> the things that can create ways of doing.
I roughly misquote (I'm travelling and don't have my references) Best
& Kellner in Postmodernism who say from Lyotard "[contemporary]
society is the society of science, information, computers,
teachnology and the rapid advance of science and technology." This
particular position is saying that it is the interplay between the
social, individual and technological that are changing things - and
that none of these things (and none of us) live in isolation from the
others.
A wonderful foundation for this thinking can be found in Hiedegger
(beautifully interpreted by W. Bartley lll in "Being-in-action")
where he describes the way that we "arise" from a social culture
which is comprised of others, of language and of "tools". This book
spends some time on the importance of our tools for shaping us
culturally and individually. It extends the idea of "tools" far
beyond what we think of to the place of tools and that we notice them
(almost) only when they don't work or aren't handy (at hand) for use.
This finally extends to the way that we naturally use organisations,
communities, and each other "for tools" when we are unconscious of
such a way of being.
> The language of the future speaks to use from afar, bringing us impulses,
> energies and intuitions which we translate, through language, as best we
> can. We mistakenly think that using the language of the future will,
> somehow, create that future. And we use future-oriented technology to
> shore up our collective myth that using language aimed at the future,
> along with future-oriented technology will, somehow, create the future we
> say we want. It won't. We must become that future, embody it, walk it,
> not just talk it. Until we choose to do the necessary digging to operate
> at a causal level, we, as a culture, will continue to "talk" the future -
> not walk it.
This separation of "walking" and "talking" is, I think leading down a
path of exhortation but not effective action. Have ever heard the
complaint "He/she doesn't talk their walk?" (Not in that way - but
it's a description of a liar or someone asleep.) There's a much
older saying, "Actions speak louder than words." To which a good
response is, "Yes, but with much more ambiguity."
The distinction between speaking and action has been made far too
distant. Speaking *is* action. We tend to be weak at speach acts
partly because we've failed to make this distinction. Action *is*
speaking in that all action communicates.
My point is a paradox. First, if speaking about the future won't
create it, what else will its source be? Second, the future will be
created from speaking and action combined and we have less to say
about both than we like to think. Third, the future may be totally
independent of our *intentional* speaking about the future while
nevertheless being largely determined by the speach acts and action
communications of our everyday lives.
> The human specie has far more power and knowledge than we have wisdom. We
> can create incredible things - but I fear the consequences of our
> immaturity. And as we do create our future will all our actions today, our
> adolescent blindness is dangerous and misleading.
I suggest that as human beings, we will not gain much in wisdom
until our institutions (organisations, communities, etc) gain in
wisdom. And this will not be so much a matter of individuals gaining
in wisdom first as it will be in generating a new understanding of
human institutions and their capacities and possibilities. When our
institutions have transformed or become "designed for wisdom" then we
as a community and as individuals will also gain dramatically in
wisdom.
> Technology can be a useful tool
> to aid us in our evolution but it cannot do it for us.
No, but it might do it *to* us in irrestistable ways. I think the
major issue here is the amount of pain and suffering it will take.
If we engage as you suggest (barring the cause/effect stuff), then
there is little pain and a large increase in velocity. If we fail to
engage ourselves in responsibility and awareness, then we will have
to wait until the pain is greater. The pain becomes greater as
others make the changes that we decline and these changes become our
social world.
The pain will be even greater - unto death of the race - if we fail
to take the steps and instead resist and fight while the "raw
technology" continues.
> All this is our choice. It is not easy, but it is much more simple than
> we think. Our future will be created from our intentions, whether we are
> conscious of them or not. And our intentions determine our actions.
All of this may not be out choice. It may be that we the only choice
we have, individually and as a community, is our individual
relationship to it and the actions we take from our own awareness.
But "all of it" is probably the choice of none of us. (And that's
probably good.)
-- Michael McMaster Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk