I like this episode, a lot. It's in the seemingly hopeless depths of the abyss of depravity that we rediscover our ability to fly.

I don't know how to respond to something I can't even see.

'Backward compatibility' (sp?) seems to be some kind of oddity for the sophisticates. I can't watch 'the video', and I can't even see the web-site that is supposed to be the original 'stuff'. 'Cause I'm one of these poor-folk who use old equipment and it is just on the barest means I can even see what's going on here. So, I guess it's okay to just pass all us 'backward' types and begin a discussion we are gonna be left out of, 'cause. Can I call 'blankety blank' here? You got a thesis or something to say in plain old ASCII? Something people like me CAN READ? Or, at least, some summary by someone who can see the 'live streaming' or the 'mpeg' or the video or the 'yooo-tooob' so that it is relevant to we poor?

And even we, must seem 'rich' to those who can only get 'analog' tv or rely on libraries and . . .

This might be important stuff. I have no idea. My impression as of this moment: elitist just because we are not ALL given the topic. Blankety blank.

======================
"'Why don't you do all of us a favor, and drop the act?'
'Drop the "act"? I'M AN ACTOR. What do you MEAN, drop the "act"?'
'We meant, that particular chapter of your play. It brings up too many problems with the producers.'
'Oh, that act.

great one! i wish we could get more of him on RS. he has great coherency.

 

i wonder what the role of the internet may be in such an undertaking, or if we should really just learn to live without coal-powered computers with poisonous components and all the EMF's (http://www.mercola.com/article/emf/emf_dangers.htm)

 

 ?

 

Must we do away with the beloved buzz of machines? I am starting to think that this internet stage of evolution is very temporary and that we'll move beyond it somehow...whether because we must or because we wisen up! 

wanderlust

 

i like the way Neal talks, like what he said about the hippies not just being antisocial.Yeah, i was forced to be a hippie, it was not just because i was antisocial, i mean i did not sit around thinking one day, ok, i'm going to be antisocial, and that will really change the world.Exactly.

I did think that, Turn On, Tune in, Drop out, meant that the only chance this world had was if we planted that seed, no matter what other forces were coming down the tube, the subtext of that phrase, would become more meaningful, when it's all collapsing around us, isn't obvious that it was seeing into the future?

or do you think it was part of a conspiracy, to make kids act strange and take strange drugs, and say strange things?

like, power to the people? or Peace and Love.

Like Roger, I'm unable to benefit from the latest communication technique, so I can't relate directly to the original information. But the few things mentioned by Adam give me some clues.

Science and 'spirit' (whatever that turns out to be) have for a long time entrenched themselves in semantic and e-piss-temological (thanks cj) beliefsystems, making it almost impossible to find common ground. Personally I'm convinced, that such a common ground exists, but it requires an effort from everyone involved to find it.

I have repeatedly suggested a model of symbiosis (which can also be used at more abstract levels), and with risk of being considered monomaniac, I still suggest, that this is a method at least worth considering. It could f.ex. soften up some of the varieties of the 'primitive garden state' (edenic), which competes with abramic religion, scientism and transcendence as an exponent of truth/reality. In my opinion the 'primitive garden state', in its most fundamentalistic forms, is the least supported of all these possibilities.

A 'primitive garden state' with computers and internet?

We need better answers than that, and threads like those about f.ex. filters, DMT and the present one seem to be a step in that direction.

You got the gist of the episode, Bogomil.  While an answer to the effect of "A 'primitive garden state' with computers and internet?"  is definitely lacking content, it's making up for that in form.

 

As far as I'm concerned the internet is a reactionary construct.  The reason for it's success is due to the concentration of power in the hyper-centralized governing body.  An effect of the public-claustrophobia caused by the smothering of all fronts from the control freaks at the top.  In effect it's another extremity of the superfluous paradigm the hyper-centralized society we're living in.  

 

The content would look something like:  Pre-industrial Rural technology.  This is even proven to be too much stress on the planet as we can find in Englands historic transition from wood as an energy source to coal.  At the onset of agriculture the population swelled to the point that coal was the only available option, regardless of how dirty it was.  There just aren't enough trees to craft and cook with when our food source is too abundant, agriculture is a luxury with no apparent answer outside of its death.

 

But I digress, the content missing from the equation of hunter/gatherer + conquer/occupy is simple, it equals impossible.  Our inability to find the answer lays within our methodology.  The more we observe the less we understand.  The more we conquer the less stable we become.  The more we occupy the less room there is.  The longer we search the less time we have.  If we use any more energy than the amount coming in to our planet right now, the sun, than inevitably we will transform the useful to useless. 

 

This goes for minerals also.  There are minerals entering our biosphere.  Meteors sometimes make their way to the surface.  But this is so rare that we shouldn't even consider it a factor.  The common answer to minerals is recycle.  Recycling only leaves us with a small portion of the product still usable (something like 30%) which leaves us with a large amount of unusable waste.  So you can see that mineral resources are limited also.

 

Again, the equation is simple but as you've pointed out in the past our massive intelects get in the way.

 

Thanks. Hope it's OK to start at the end of your post.

Cit Edutainment:

"Again, the equation is simple but as you've pointed out in the past our massive intelects get in the way."

In relation to the 'primitive garden state' I believe the 'edenic' attitude to technology etc is a kind of simplified hangover from the 'original sin' situation: Tree of life/tree of knowledge. (Only I believe the real meaning of tree of knowledge didn't refer to the intellect, but to 'wisdom', 'gnosis' or 'realisation'). The sometimes present anti-intellectualism is a bit misplaced in my opinion, and usually so much desktop-theory that even its champions aren't  living by it.

But we can't stop the intellect now, it has become too integrated in us, at all levels. What I see as an answer is not to lower the intellect, but rather to enhance those parts of us, which could give our intellectual achievements a functional direction. Ethics, well-informed choices, compassion, you name it.

I agree quite much with you about internet, its reason for existing and its possible misuses (I have the same attitude to TV, which I don't own), but it has also gone too far to stop at the present, so we better make the best of it.

Cit Edutainment:

"Pre-industrial Rural technology.....................etc"

I experimented for 14 years with a amish-like lifestyle, for the same reasons you point out in your post. On my part this was very far from being a return to 'primitive garden state', but a utilitarian effort to actually experience 'simplicity' (including its technology). I have never found any intrinsic higher existential values from this life (on the 'spiritual' level that is), but I got a lot of insight in practical matters concerning energy- and resource conservation. Guess I have one small shoppingbag of unrecyclable garbage a year.

Cit Edutainment:

"But I digress, the content missing from the equation of hunter/gatherer + conquer/occupy is simple, it equals impossible.  Our inability to find the answer lays within our methodology.  The more we observe the less we understand.  The more we conquer the less stable we become.  The more we occupy the less room there is."

True, but we must find new answers, the old ones being a functional balance based on a high level of childbirth/childhood mortality and an average lifespan of 30-50 years. With intellect/science/technology this has been changed, and I for one wouldn't like to go back to the good old bad days (though a considerably higher amount of 'natural' ways and means in daily life would be good).

In these over-regulated system-ridden times, I think your mention of methodology is close to the center of the problem. We see compartmentalizing, departmentalizing etc going on at all levels of life. And parallel to your examples of energy and resource waste, these examples of administrative (and often totally unnecessary) processes is taking more and more of  time and creativity, which could be used better elsewhere. We need new ways in our approaches, starting with an understanding of ourselves and our relationship to life, and my answer sofar has always been 'awareness'/'consciousness' as the best place to start.
 

I had a lengthy response decorated all pretty with big words and infinitly folded concepts draping all over themselves and finally falling onto the conclusion.  What it comes down to is agreeance.  I just agree with you.  Now aside with the nitty-gritty and onto the nittier and grittier.

 

I tripped over a dead nurse shark that had suffocated by way of a plastic shopping bag the other day, unacceptable.  I tried to eat the muscles from the shoreline after a days work of cleaning the beach and wound up throwing them out.  I had been boiling them for a few minutes, I went back to check on them and the water had a layer of motor oil on its surface, unacceptable.  

 

About 10 years ago if someone was on the shoreline giving back a bit of what they had taken, they would likely be scoffed at and the observers would probably toss another coke can on the ground right in front of the responsive care taker.  Nowadays while I'm tidying up I might get a glance, but without scorn and certainly no coke can.  Awareness is key. 

 

I can't say for sure what the balance will look like.  If we are to keep our intelect it tact, is there a 'method of knowing' that will harbor (so to speak) us from the obvious dangers of our inflated intelect?  My answer is a whole hearted yes.  Certainly a new venue is available for our infinite consciousness to dance and play in. 

 

By studying indigenous humans we reveal a way of knowing that is in harmony with its habitat.  Is their intelect somehow less than civilized mans?  Well, that's up for debate, but not by me.  

 

This venue that will harbor our consciousness will have to be infinite in all quantities, size, all dimensions etc... 

An organic hyper-structure, capable of mutations at, presently, unfathomable rates of speed and inconcievable distances.  The technology necessary for such a way of understanding will need to be far beyond our current popular means.  If we are to see this manifest we'll need some very very capable beings to piece this all together.  There will need to be engineers, teachers, astronomers, physicists, doctors, lawyers, politicians, writters, poets, farmers, and hunters.  Everyone really will have to be involved and willing with every ounce of their being.  

 

Know this is trite, but it's been my main consolation for years:

"A 1000 mile journey starts with the first step."

It can be dreadful to concentrate too much on what is left to do and how to do it. 

I ferget. Intellect strikes agin.