• Caldwell
    163
    The problem is having no choice.
    Back to your point about the reduction..more technology producers why?
    schopenhauer1
    First off, what causes the no-choice world?

    Second, according to the State Department of Thread Title, you should remove the word "Phenomonology" from your title. It doesn't fit your topic. A socio-ecopolitical observation of our civilization does not need such word to be understood.

    Third, have you ever considered, I mean stopping even for a brief moment to ponder, whether humans actually enjoy conforming to the same thing? Have you ever thought that doing similar things and following similar path are actually happiness-inducing endeavour?
  • schopenhauer1
    2.1k
    First off, what causes the no-choice world?Caldwell

    No choice- we need minutia mongerers.

    Second, according to the State Department of Thread Title, you should remove the word "Phenomonology" from your title. It doesn't fit your topic. A socio-ecopolitical observation of our civilization does not need such word to be understood.Caldwell

    Besides the bad spelling, the phenomenology is fine in the title I think. It is there to indicate the POV of the technologist. What is it like to be the person who needs to be an expert in the necessary minutia to originate and further technology? I am willing to have an example of a how a phenomenological account might go- the kind that is lacking to be worthy of the title.. If you think my more general commentary is not sufficient, please provide an example of how a proper phenomenological account would go to make the title worthy.

    Third, have you ever considered, I mean stopping even for a brief moment to ponder, whether humans actually enjoy conforming to the same thing? Have you ever thought that doing similar things and following similar path are actually happiness-inducing endeavour?Caldwell

    Can you explain this? Do you mean that engineers/mathematicians like what they are doing, ergo I am wrong for bringing up the minutia-mongering of technological expertise?

    The heart of the topic was stated to Bitter Crank here:
    What does this mean as a lived human? Where does that put the person who DOESN'T do these complex, focused, processes based in the minute understanding of the expert? What is the VALUE of the mind of a person who CAN do these things..that MOVE technology and that the cultural-economic fabric relies upon. What implication does this mean in terms of taxonomy of USEFULNESS.. What does this mean for consumers vs. producers.. What does this mean as a theory of value? What does this mean as a theory metaphysically in terms of WHAT the phenomenon is?
  • schopenhauer1
    2.1k

    Here's a more concrete question for you, BC:

    What would incline one person to be a monkish ascetic and meditate for 12 hours a day, focusing on "nothing" and "everything" (or their breath, or a mantra, or a paradox, etc.) and what would incline another person to learn about the intricacies involved in creating better electronic components and programming languages and maths that support it all?

    The meditator represents a sort of detachment and removal from the world of minutia..trying to achieve the most generalized state of mind. The engineer, on the other hand represents the other side of the spectrum- someone involved heavily in the intricacies and minutia of the world. This seems the opposite of generalized; it is someone mired in the details. What are the similarities of these types? What are the differences? Which is called for? When is it called for?
  • Bitter Crank
    6.3k
    What are the differences? Which is called for? When is it called forschopenhauer1

    Both the ascetic and the engineer are extremely dedicated to the work and discipline. They both are probably somewhat indifferent about social niceties. Of course, their goals are as different as can possibly be. One is attempting to tunnel away from the world, the other is digging a tunnel into the heart of the commercial world. The number of meditators in the world, compared to the number of people screwing around with printed circuits and codes would resoundingly validate the life of the nerd over the life of the monk.

    Arthur Clark wrote a short story about a monastery of monks who operated a powerful computer. They were trying to compile a list of all of the names of God. When all of the names of God had been written, the universe would end.

    One night they left the monastery and walked away. Overhead the stars were going out.
  • schopenhauer1
    2.1k
    Both the ascetic and the engineer are extremely dedicated to the work and discipline. They both are probably somewhat indifferent about social niceties. Of course, their goals are as different as can possibly be. One is attempting to tunnel away from the world, the other is digging a tunnel into the heart of the commercial world. The number of meditators in the world, compared to the number of people screwing around with printed circuits and codes would resoundingly validate the life of the nerd over the life of the monk.Bitter Crank

    Yes, this turning away from the world is valueless for society though, no? They are navel-gazers. Their very existence is due to someone else's intricate understanding of technologies. The minutia mongers allow the meditators to tunnel away from the world. Or so the narrative might go. Look at the thread of Marx Theory of Value.. It is about highly modelled mathematical frameworks to understand the quantitative measure of value from a commodity through labor and resources. I am not knocking it.. I rather like the rigor that that thread exemplifies.. but I am just giving examples of the minutia we deem necessary to really understand the world. Is more "minutia-knowledge" better? Are people who gravitate to more minutia-knowledge (experts?) better? If you say "NO, that's absurd".. you de facto rely on their expertise for your technology (or output as you rather call it). The mintutia-experts are the ones who give you your things, allows society to run.

    I guess a bigger point I am trying to uncover here is the tediousness of living in general. I can't help but think the surface of "Yahooo!!!" skiers, extreme sportsers, vacationers, leisurely readers, tv watchers, world travellers, and especially consumers are just skimming on a shallow sheet of ice that is undergirded and bolstered by an immense amount of minutia and tediousness. Thoughts?
  • Bitter Crank
    6.3k
    There are "big picture" and "close-up" thinkers. You are a big picture thinker. I am a big picture thinker. Big picture thinkers are "a" (not "the") critical part of society. We concern ourselves with trends, patterns, contradictions, long-term consequences, and such like. "and such like" is a big picture generalization.

    Close-up thinkers are also "a" (not "the") critical part of society. They are minders, mongers, managers, and manufacturers of minutia. We've needed both kind of thinkers all the way back into the stone ages. Someone in a band of Homo sapiens sapiens had to decide when it time to move on. Someone had to pay attention to the whole band, not just 1 person. On the other hand, when it came to stone tools, close-up thinkers needed to focus on the stones that were available, and how--exactly--to use them. Close-up thinkers figured out how to get pitch out of birch bark (it's great glue). Both close-up Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens figured this out, separately.

    You are a big picture thinker and you are able to question the grand scheme of things that we are taught. Close-up thinkers aren't interested in that sort of questioning. They want to make the machine 7% better; you wonder whether the machine should even exist.

    Big picture thinkers, like close-up thinkers, make positive contributions. Ancient traders made a big picture decision when they set out on the sea to find other people to buy from and sell to. Even haggling over the price (in very small units of value) is a big picture activity. One needs to know not just whether a given piece of cloth has enough threads per inch, but they need to think about how much they can sell the cloth for elsewhere in exchange for what, and who can they sell that stuff to...

    Big picture thinkers deal with real problems, and find real solutions, just like close-up thinkers do -- just on a different scale.

    I guess a bigger point I am trying to uncover here is the tediousness of living in general.schopenhauer1

    Classic big picture project. Is it a positive or a negative picture?
  • schopenhauer1
    2.1k
    There are "big picture" and "close-up" thinkers. You are a big picture thinker. I am a big picture thinker. Big picture thinkers are "a" (not "the") critical part of society. We concern ourselves with trends, patterns, contradictions, long-term consequences, and such like. "and such like" is a big picture generalization.Bitter Crank

    I like this framework.. makes sense.

    Classic big picture project. Is it a positive or a negative picture?Bitter Crank

    Interesting point. And I tend to agree with your analysis here about those who tend towards the big-thinking and those who tend towards the close-up thinking. I have to think more about this and get back to you.
  • Caldwell
    163
    No choice- we need minutia mongerers.schopenhauer1
    What are minutia mongerers? Sorry, I saw this in one of your posts, but still didn't quite absorb it.

    If you think my more general commentary is not sufficient, please provide an example of how a proper phenomenological account would go to make the title worthy.schopenhauer1
    You got it backwards. In my opinion, you do not need a phenomenological method to make a claim about something that could be measured sociologically and psychologically -- and yes (!), with all their interpretive instruments. You are, in fact, if you haven't noticed, performing hermeneutical analysis of what you yourself see around you. You are interpreting the condition of our society as
    Happiness is really a front for the child’s ability to consume and produce technology by way of outright consumption (passive) or by way of originating or furthering technology. The child is de facto a means to this end.schopenhauer1
    ..and
    But this is why I specifically called out technology- it is not the output aspect or the economic indicator that represents output. It is the technology that is the basis for the output.schopenhauer1
    Why not use sociological analysis instead? Of course, a cynical observer could reduce any human action to technology. But is this reasonable?
  • schopenhauer1
    2.1k
    What are minutia mongerers? Sorry, I saw this in one of your posts, but still didn't quite absorb it.Caldwell
    It is the ability to specialize in extremely minute points of math/science/engineering. Further, I claimed those who are most valued and de facto "needed" are ones that have mastery over minutia in these fields. As they increase the basis for how our society works- that is the technological foundation.

    You got it backwards. In my opinion, you do not need a phenomenological method to make a claim about something that could be measured sociologically and psychologically -- and yes (!), with all their interpretive instruments. You are, in fact, if you haven't noticed, performing hermeneutical analysis of what you yourself see around you. You are interpreting the condition of our society asCaldwell

    Fair enough. I can change it to the hemeneutics of technological expertise. For my own learning's sake, How would it have to look in order to hit the threshold of a phenomenological thread? I know of Husserl and his bracketing approach, but I was using the term loosely, not strictly Husselerian. How would the methodology look to be officially phenomenological?

    Why not use sociological analysis instead? Of course, a cynical observer could reduce any human action to technology. But is this reasonable?Caldwell

    Well, it is about the amount of expertise in the minutia.. the type of concentration on a very narrow set of understandings to increase technology. The kind of knowledge we need to know to increase, maintain, and reproduce technology. That was when I brought up minutia mongering. It would be what Bitter Crank called "close-up" thinkers.
  • Caldwell
    163
    For my own learning's sake, How would it have to look in order to hit the threshold of a phenomenological thread? I know of Husserl and his bracketing approach, but I was using the term loosely, not strictly Husselerian. How would the methodology look to be officially phenomenological?schopenhauer1
    I don't know, Schop. You are bracketing, that could not be avoided.
    Pin point what the experts in the past had focused on when talking about human actions. Be honest on this as this is your starting point. Is it towards conformity and uniformity or plurality? Then state where they made a mistake. Why would they say such a thing?
    Then, how do we lead ourselves to uniformity -- through creativity and creation (or building) of things and stuff that take the shape of one thing -- technology? You can illuminate how creativity itself is an instrument towards greater conformity, not the other way around. Develop your semantics on "technology". Develop your ontology around technology. Even language is technology itself.
    You could incorporate what @Akanthinos had said.
123Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.