Interview - Naomi Wolf - Give Me Liberty

[reggie]

Re: Interview - Naomi Wolf - Give Me Liberty

Please read System of Objects by Jean Baudrillard. I think this will help.

On second thought, try these...

Powers, W. (1973), Behavior: the Control of Perception. New York: Aldine Publishing.
http://www.amazon.com/Behavior-Perce.../dp/0964712172

Rosenblueth, A., N. Wiener, and J. Bigelow. (1943), “Behavior, Purpose and Teleology.” Philosophy of Science, 10, pp. 18-24. Reprinted in W. Buckley (ed.) Modern Systems Research for the Behavioral Scientist. Chicago: Aldine, 1968, pp. 221-225.

Shannon, C. and W. Weaver. (1949), The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

[LargoWinch]

Re: Interview - Naomi Wolf - Give Me Liberty

Please read System of Objects by Jean Baudrillard. I think this will help.

On second thought, try these...

Powers, W. (1973), Behavior: the Control of Perception. New York: Aldine Publishing.
http://www.amazon.com/Behavior-Perce.../dp/0964712172

Rosenblueth, A., N. Wiener, and J. Bigelow. (1943), “Behavior, Purpose and Teleology.” Philosophy of Science, 10, pp. 18-24. Reprinted in W. Buckley (ed.) Modern Systems Research for the Behavioral Scientist. Chicago: Aldine, 1968, pp. 221-225.

Shannon, C. and W. Weaver. (1949), The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Reggie, this is the kind of childish and condescending argumentation I don't need.

If you cannot form an argument without hiding behind books for me to read, then this discussion ends here.

[astonas]

Re: Interview - Naomi Wolf - Give Me Liberty

Reggie, this is the kind of childish and condescending argumentation I don't need.

If you cannot form an argument without hiding behind books for me to read, then this discussion ends here.

Agreed. Merely citing references, no matter how strong, has no value in a discussion if one does not simply and clearly summarize the point one is making. It is only with such a summation that the actual merits of the point can be properly evaluated.

I am reminded of a quote from a great movie, "A Fish Called Wanda".

Wanda: But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
Otto West: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up.

If Otto had not tried to make clear points while citing his favorite books, his monumental ignorance might not have been revealed immediately. But he would have still been ignorant, and a poseur, just a (momentarily) undetected one.

[reggie]

Re: Interview - Naomi Wolf - Give Me Liberty

Reggie, this is the kind of childish and condescending argumentation I don't need.

If you cannot form an argument without hiding behind books for me to read, then this discussion ends here.

Agreed. Merely citing references, no matter how strong, has no value in a discussion if one does not simply and clearly summarize the point one is making. It is only with such a summation that the actual merits of the point can be properly evaluated.

I am reminded of a quote from a great movie, "A Fish Called Wanda".



If Otto had not tried to make clear points while citing his favorite books, his monumental ignorance might not have been revealed immediately. But he would have still been ignorant, and a poseur, just a (momentarily) undetected one.

There is just way too much for you to understand. I simply don't now how to summarize the material in nice neat little posts on a public forum. For me, it would like trying to teach you orbital mechanics or rocket re-entry aerodynamics when all you have is a literary degree. I don't really want to be condescending, but if you're unwilling to do any research at all on your own, especially when I'm pointing you in the right direction, saving you all the time of trying to figure out what direction to pursue, then I guess you deserve to continue to be a pawn in the game and to chase system outputs that are being designed to confuse you into submission.

As my last ditch effort I will refer you to a single reference that will help send you down a relevant path. It scratches the surface, but at least it starts to demonstrate the level of thinking and planning that has gone into our future society (ie. the "System Change" that I continue to refer to and which the "protestors" are helping to bring about).


http://www.amazon.com/Out-Control-Bi.../dp/0201483408


From Publishers Weekly

In this mind-expanding exploration of the synergistic intersection of computer science, biology, systems theory, cybernetics and artificial intelligence, Kelly investigates what he calls "vivisystems"--lifelike, complex, engineered systems capable of growing in complexity. Among the objects and ideas that he scrutinizes are computer models that simulate ecosystems; the "group mind" of bee hives and ant colonies; virtual-reality worlds; robot prototypes; and Arizona's Biosphere 2. Former publisher and editor of Whole Earth Review , now executive editor of Wired , Kelly distills the unifying principles governing self-improving systems, which he labels "the nine laws of god." Leaping from Antonio Gaudi's futuristic buildings in Barcelona to computerized "smart" houses to computer simulations that challenge Darwinian evolutionary theory, this sprawling odyssey will provoke and reward readers across many disciplines.