Display:
Did you read the Rushkoff piece on Edge? It uses some of the same arguments and it sends up a few people from the Wired/Edge universe, so you should get a kick out of it.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sun Aug 16th, 2009 at 06:48:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No I didn't.

He's using some of the same arguments I was planning to diary soon, which is interesting, I guess, because it suggests the obvious flaws are obvious enough to be significant points of weakness in the theocratic model.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Aug 17th, 2009 at 07:50:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks!

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Mon Aug 17th, 2009 at 08:32:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What Rushkoff is saying is what I have meant when I described "reality" as a social construct.  The underlying physical reality is, of course, not a social construct even though the ways in which we organize our perception of physical reality is the product of the ongoing social construct we call Science.

But the way in which we organize our lives, derive our incomes, and understand our social relationships very definitely is an ongoing social construct and it has been constructed to the benefit of the few who could see what was happening and shape that process.  Shakespear understood this when he wrote: "Nothing is but that thinking makes it so."  Our problem is that we inhabit a reality that has been defined in terms that are invidious to the vast majority of us and most of us have been convinced that this "reality" just is.  The religious would have us believe that this is how God made the world.  We can do better.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Aug 18th, 2009 at 11:57:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series