Opinion The Fall of America is here

[Denter]

Putting aside the value of democracy for its own sake, I don't have any confidence that non-democratically selected leaders would be more reasonable, and there would likely be a big conflict of interest. A major cause of unreasonable governance *in our present system* is a misinformed public, but it's certainly not the only conceivable cause of unreasonable governance. Also, we still have an excessively neutral media. We just have a portion of the public that has been convinced not to trust it. The situation might be different if we had symmetrical bullshit (not good, just different).

Maybe. I think maybe this is just technology doing its thing and reshaping truth metastructure.

According to McLuhan, the medium is the message, i.e. technology shapes our understanding of the world and our behavior. We tend not to notice this because we tend to think about the content of the media - the shiny object that distracts the mind.

According to MM the print age operated in visual space - one of detachment, the scientific method, and scholarly erudition. The print age was that of the great man with the orderly mind, the tidy desk and the logical filing system who at the same time had lost touch with "simultaneous modes of awareness or observation.” The work of Bacon, Descartes, Hobbes, and Newton were contingent on the culture of reductionism and specialization made possible by the invention of the printing press. This reaches its peak at the end of the 19th century. Liberalism, IMO, is government by paper, and its fundamentally connected to writing and publishing.

The media of the electronic age, which got up speed in the 20th century, however, operates within 'acoustic space', meaning that information is transmitted instantaneously and simultaneously, setting up “fields of relations which have an auditory character.” According to MM society was in the process of reverting to an acoustic, tribal state; an era of subjectivity, non-linearity, interactivity and free association of speech. Millions of people sitting in front of the television, he claimed, were “absorbing the modern equivalent of shamanistic lore” from designated sources of authority in a manner “analogous to the old tribal relations of tyrannical instruction and control.” Think of how much more interactive this has become since the advent of social media and the internet- it is an atavistic reversion to learning from the village wise man- but now there are multiple sages, each more flattering than the last.

You posted something once about the thought processes of pre-literate societies, and their utility associations vs abstract associations of literate people. I think something similar is happening with government and the new media- the first birthing pains of this were the fascist movements of the early 20th century, which were movements based around radio broadcasting and aesthetics. Even this is far too unitary for what we are seeing now, though.

Ultimately, I think focusing on the content of the media (neutral vs biased) is ignoring the structure of what is occurring- those people who worship facts (which is meaningless without context anyway) will just be ghettoized into their ecosystem by their own media, which will specialize in flattering their own, specific vanity.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Maybe. I think maybe this is just technology doing its thing and reshaping truth metastructure.

According to McLuhan, the medium is the message, i.e. technology shapes our understanding of the world and our behavior. We tend not to notice this because we tend to think about the content of the media - the shiny object that distracts the mind.

According to MM the print age operated in visual space - one of detachment, the scientific method, and scholarly erudition. The print age was that of the great man with the orderly mind, the tidy desk and the logical filing system who at the same time had lost touch with "simultaneous modes of awareness or observation.” The work of Bacon, Descartes, Hobbes, and Newton were contingent on the culture of reductionism and specialization made possible by the invention of the printing press. This reaches its peak at the end of the 19th century. Liberalism, IMO, is government by paper, and its fundamentally connected to writing and publishing.

The media of the electronic age, which got up speed in the 20th century, however, operates within 'acoustic space', meaning that information is transmitted instantaneously and simultaneously, setting up “fields of relations which have an auditory character.” According to MM society was in the process of reverting to an acoustic, tribal state; an era of subjectivity, non-linearity, interactivity and free association of speech. Millions of people sitting in front of the television, he claimed, were “absorbing the modern equivalent of shamanistic lore” from designated sources of authority in a manner “analogous to the old tribal relations of tyrannical instruction and control.” Think of how much more interactive this has become since the advent of social media and the internet- it is an atavistic reversion to learning from the village wise man- but now there are multiple sages, each more flattering than the last.

You posted something once about the thought processes of pre-literate societies, and their utility associations vs abstract associations of literate people. I think something similar is happening with government and the new media- the first birthing pains of this were the fascist movements of the early 20th century, which were movements based around radio broadcasting and aesthetics. Even this is far too unitary for what we are seeing now, though.

Ultimately, I think focusing on the content of the media (neutral vs biased) is ignoring the structure of what is occurring- those people who worship facts (which is meaningless without context anyway) will just be ghettoized into their ecosystem by their own media, which will specialize in flattering their own, specific vanity.

This is very bleak, but I've been led to a similar place, though less pessimistic. I don't think anyone worships facts, but I can see a future in which we have mostly barbarians and a few modern thinkers who are expected to do technical work (inventing stuff, for example) and are indulged for their curiosity but not honored. Like Laputa, but instead of ruling, they are just kept separate. I don't know. I think the initial project of trying to understand the world was closely linked to the project of trying to rule it, and a science that isn't supported by the gov't or the ruling ideology could be very different. It's not too far-fetched to see liberalism as a way for scientists and philosophers to take power that worked for a period (with a spectacular, unprecedented increase in living standards as a result) and is now on the way out. All hope is not lost, but we're in some trouble at the moment.

 

[Bry]

I think America will just survive this, but if we don't take this as a sign we need to improve our infrastructure and somehow bridge our political divide - we will not be so lucky when the next major crisis inevitably presents itself.

Reading this thread it is clear to me that we are not ready for this to happen yet. People need to actually respect each other and listen, vs just argue back and forth. I have felt for some time now that the down fall of America is how the country is being divided. This whole idea of if you don't think like me you are an ignorant, is just plan wrong, and it is both sides.
I see this every day, people arguing but neither side listening to what the other has to say or respecting that it is ok to have a different opinion. It is maddening. It is on par with how I believe the 60s and 70s must have been.

Cheers

Bry

 

[all caps]

Apparently i posted somewhere in this thread. I dont even remember this thread
Hope it was in good-faith