All of us have a measure of idealism whether it be a simple good or an optimal cosmological relationship; even fauna and flora seem to have their measure. But like most things in life ideals go through their own process. At some point the measure is nice, appropriate to where we are and the ideal is enhanced and updated making it more effective as a personal component. Then there are those times when the individual will be asking questions about their own or others' ideals and idealism in general and the answers are less than optimistic. These past couple of decades have certainly been a time for many asking important questions whether privately or in public but in tandem with this there has also been an increasing change in the manner information is perceived. That has provided some interesting hybrids but also some platforms that even Thor Heyerdahl would have rejected outright.I suppose I just still have some idealism about the potential for, and desire to participate in the sincere, patient, somewhat rational and respectful conversations about complex things and what lies underneath. — Distortion
In your first email you asked: "Can we protect against information?" We can protect against information the same way a sturdy cabin that we build will protect against the weather. But whether cabin, castle or cathedral, the weather will always be there. And if we look at the overview, we are information. That should be enough for most to understand the limits of conclusiveness but nowadays there are many who are adamant that their ontological slapstick be recognized as 'truth'. Example? Millions of Americans just elected an incontinent vaudevillian with a log rap sheet of offenses to the highest office in the land.
So how did the 'Information Superhighway' get us to this point? Simple, it allowed any and all information to travel on it. That's not a bad thing as long as you understand the rules of the road for the benefit of all travelers. Of course, some don't care about rules - sometimes even those who made the rules - and so you have confusion inevitably leading to a separation on different levels. Just the other day I saw an article on people taking a break from social media because of exhaustion and another article noting that social media was creating brain rot. 'Where have all the synapses gone . . . Long time passing'
The question would then be, what makes an inherent value firstly in the individual. Easy to imagine that as a forum topic.... you can set the tone and expectations for participation somewhat stringently, and filter out those that don't want to invest that much in participation while simultaneously inspiring others who do to join due to the inherent value of such a rare environment where things can be actually examined in some depth ... — Distortion
Paul had an advantage in that he was early in a time when people were experimenting with communicating online and he was intelligent enough to develop it in the context of philosophy. I think there may be a time when people come round to communicating again with interest and no fear of 'brain rot' but that may be for awhile.It's just me dreaming as usual until someone just plants the flag and goes for it I suppose like Paul did back in the day. — Distortion
But hey, plant that flag and fly it proudly. Whether it's here or wherever it flies, I will help in whatever manner. I do entertain some idealism, it's just that nowadays I do it more privately. As Martha would say: "It's a good thing".
