Re: Very interesting, but not funny.....

In article <4864d262$0$6022$88260bb3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Jon <jonmein@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Campbell is about story telling.
Yeah yeah, the mythos thing.
And some things about human nature. Perspective.
Well some argue our nature is locked and cyclic.

Constrained, certainly. Pre-destined to repeat itself?

Naw, I would not say that cycles are pre-destined.

Constraints allow the problem to be understood. Conservation laws and
trade-offs are poweful in that way. A linear trade-off like:

^
|.
| .
| .
| .
|--------.>

has finite consequence (the vertical variable and the horizontal
variable) don't go spirally out of control in some positive feedback loop.

I think that you have to first separate "inform" vs. "direct."
We direct certainly by our ideals

For many, belief masks perception. Narrow interpretation
colors that which informs. Consider how poorly people
judge risk.

The comparison of car risk, flight risk, and nuclear risk show the
irrationality of people. However in the US and much of the 1st world
democracy is merely a decision making mechanism. It doesn't have to be
rational, you only have to agree on the mechanism. That's independent
complexities like compiracy theories.


science and math
Are they about improving our model of the universe?

model improvements: Kepler [...]
As Pat pointed out, you could put Earth at the
center of the universe.

Or put humans at the "top" of evolution. It's not progress (Gould).

As Gould and others pointed out, the "top" of the evolutionary pyramid
is a fallacy. That doesn't hold if you are particularly religious. A
lot of people think they would be happiest acknowledging the Earth,
people, them were the center of the universe, their world, their
families. To look at it in a different way, worked for millenia, why
not now? Well, the world is changing.

Adams would look a little cross eyed at what Campbell
was doing (not knowing either well enough)

Adams -- Samuel, Ansel, Douglas, Scott, ...%^)

Doug in this case, who used the mechanisms of seasons to tell
whether a literate person knew the nature of the world.

The Campbell aspects I find predominant and interesting are not
particularly specifically religious. It's about patterns and perception,
metaphor,-- not "eating the menu".

Are you veggie?
How about eating one's own dog food?


just as Dawkins looks at some Americans on the evolution question.

Hmmm, watchmaking as cultural influence, an enabling
technology,-- it has science, math, craftmaship, invention,
creativity, ...

Watches are an interesting model, but not every thing is a watch by
nature. Many things are watch-like (you can get time, count, tally,
....from them but they are not watches). I've seen Harrison's work at
Greenwich and the Science Museum in London (Harrison is somewhat of a PR job)
and Swiss watch firms.

"Do", "could," "should."
Well life's work is to figure out the "should."
I think discussing this (thinking about action) is an action itself.
You just don't want to get wrapped up in it while the world burns around
you.

Yes, and Campbell is quoted saying as much.

So does he say when to stop discussing and take action? Does he offer
prescriptions which can be debated or acted upon?

I hope math and science can give us and our children a "last
chance to see" the natural world,

Well why should it be last? Last, might or might not be good.

There will be a last look,-- just a matter of how soon and how.
Earth will be "star dust", again.

Well species last shorter than planets. How about something shorter
than star dust?

Yes, technology may allow us to preserve, protect, and enjoy
more natural areas, or not. I'm just not too optimistic that the
wild and special places I've enjoyed will still be as wild and
special in 50 years.

Technology won't be the main driver to preservation. We have to want
and to know why we want to preserve. We might actually be wasting our
efforting trying to preserve areas, too small.

6.6B of us have an effect. Even fewer have. There will be
more dodo moments.

We're 7B now.
Oh lots of dodo moments.

I've only heard of, not read the recent book about what the
earth might look like if humans suddenly vanished. Interesting
thought experiment... How soon would wildness take over
again?

Oh I heard about that. Have not thumbed it.
It's mostly urban artifacts.

We're not completely out of the dark ages.
Yeah, we are still in the Dark Ages.

Sometimes there are moments of enlightenment:

"If she weighs the same as a duck..."

Ilana only occasionally lurks.

Or humor. %^)

I'm off to hear Paul Ehlrich.
This will be entertaining.

Tahoe.

--
.

Relevant Pages
Loading