Disclaimer: vague generalities and wooly arguments follow:
I've recently watched some war documentaries, read some stuff about history, some films like Napoleon, etc. etc -- the totality of which has formed in me the impression that:
People in the field know what's going on. Distributed units can take advantage of local situations as they change. Autonomous units can do things which advancing columns can't. Rapid reaction requires an ear to the ground and the autonomous authority to carry out immediate maneuvers and strategies. The Queen Bee doesn't direct her troops, but they independently seek out targets and communicate with each other. Etc. Etc. (add your own here)
Basically, the world is too big... and we can't just stand on a hilltop like Napoleon did, directing the battle as he surveyed the field laid out neatly in front of him. Today's hilltop is the boardroom, and comfy chairs -- hardly the same.
Ok, so please flesh out this wooly argument of mine with some concrete knowledge and examples of your own. PS. I haven't read the article.
Well, yeah, I guess we should have "carefully managed" Adolf Hitler's viewpoint of the world and avoided that whold WWII deal.
Yeah, there are prople who say "gee, it's all relative, and we should respect our differences, and if the Mowatonga culture wants to practice human sacrifice, then hey, we should just respect that". But that's not what I'm saying.
You're absolutely spot on to mention Hitler... people who say it's all relative, are forgetting that while it's true that people hold different views, some views are better than others.
As you say, there are some values that hurt society -- but now here's the difficult part: in order for a person to reach the age of 21, they have to pass through the ages of 2, 7, 13 etc. We can't just turn a baby into an adult overnight -- the person has to develop through all the stages, in order to get to adulthood. And unfortunately, it seems like values go through a similar developmental process.
So the problem is that, yes, the ORANGE competitive viewpoint does do damage to the environment, but, according to Spiral Dynamics, GREEN "common bond and concern" can only emerge after ORANGE is established. You can't skip any classes.
Spiral Dynamics says the vMEMEs emerge in sequence: BEIGE, PURPLE, RED, BLUE, ORANGE, GREEN, YELLOW. Where BEIGE is "just day to day survival", PURPLE is "family bonding", then RED "power drive", BLUE "respect authority and order", ORANGE "individual competitiveness", and only after all these others, we get to GREEN "sensitivity".
And you can't chop out any of the levels. Ie. a GREEN "sensitive" person may think RED "power drive" to be something bad. But if you somehow were to stop people developing RED, then you would arrest them at PURPLE, and they would never make it to BLUE, nevermind GREEN. Ie. we would throw our society back to the stone age.
I'm apologising to you now-- this post is way to long. You said, so what about Hitler? Well, Hitler wanted to "unite his tribe"... and there were probably a lot of Hitlers around 40,000 years ago. Because back then, the tribe was the biggest social unit that had developed.... there were no countries, never mind multi racial mixes. And as such, Hitler would have been the peak of evolution 40,000 years ago, but his ideas and values are hopelessly outdated today. And that would have been that, were it not for him having access to 20th Century technology... 40,000 years ago tribes would go to war with clubs -- so mass genocide, while their goal, was not easy. But today, it's all too easy -- Hitler wanted to make a tribe, by wiping out other tribes, using tanks, planes, bombs and gas chambers.
His view point, "the tribe" is not 100% wrong... there are plenty of tribes in Africa, but his means -- modern military machine -- were way beyond what he should have had access to. And we all have to pass through that tribal PURPLE value MEME, in order to eventually reach GREEN, whereupon we can feel concern for the planet -- so the ORANGE vMEME, is not "completely wrong" -- we have to allow it, within limits, just like we have to allow the tribes to exist, but make sure they don't get their hands on sophisticated weapons.
Again, sorry for the long reply -- I'm mostly recalling stuff I've read... and your point, about "Hitler's viewpoint" was spot on. It is relative, but some views are better than others, but they develop sequentially, and we can't chop off the bottom of the ladder -- people have to be allowed to grow through, and out of, the more primitive viewpoints, but without doing too much harm to others.
If you hold the GREEN value, then that means you already passed through the previous levels, including ORANGE. So it's not that ORANGE is wrong, it's just limited. And GREEN value goes beyond what ORANGE is capable of. Just like ORANGE goes beyond BLUE. And BLUE is higher than RED. Ie. the values of a Christian church goer (BLUE) are higher than the values of a street gang (RED). The trouble is that people get stuck at a certain level, like Hitler seems to have got stuck at PURPLE/RED, and happened to be head of a nation with hage technological capability. We need to find ways to help people develop, like, how do we get all those ORANGE businessmen to grow to develop GREEN values... and have them conscious of the damage their operations are doing.
So ORANGE/business isn't evil, it's just limited, and unfortunately, has access to vast technologies. 200 years ago, what the businessman could do to turn a profit was more limited. Today, we are desperately in need of getting a whole lot of people who are at ORANGE and in charge of Megacorps to evolve onto the next value level, say GREEN and then hopefully YELLOW. And meanwhile, keep a lookout for tribes with nuclear bombs.
Why is the Internet expected to comply with "basic economic laws"?
I have a sort of answer to your question. I recently read a book called, "Spiral Dynamics", which describes basically 6 different value "memes" which have been found to exist in people. And that quote sounds suspiciously like the speaker holds the "ORANGE" value meme (each vMEME is colour coded for convenience). Many people in this forum probably hold the GREEN vMEME, (see the book for a description), and hence sort of can't believe how anyone could be so "evil" -- how could anyone think that the internet is just a vehicle for profit??
People who hold different value memes just won't see eye to eye. And typically, whatever vMEME you happen to hold, because you value that vMEME, you dis-value all the others, so a competetive/profit valuing ORANGE person will think that people who try to work together for the common good are "just a bunch of hippies", while people who hold the GREEN vMEME will see the profiteering ORANGE viewpoint as being evil and self centered.
The point is to recognise that the other person simply holds a different value MEME, and as such, will value things differently to what you value -- so you just have to learn how to acknowledge and include their viewpoint, while getting them to understand the limitations of their viewpoint. IANAPsychologist, but just thought that what with this issue being basically about two different groups with different values, ie. "Hey, we business people (ORANGE vMEME) value profit and competition, and we see the world in terms of how it can be made to generate profit" versus the academic group (more GREEN vMEME) "we work for the betterment of all by the sharing of knowledge, and see everything as something to be studied, understood, and shared" -- that I'd mention the theory of Spiral Dynamics.
Yes, there are people out there who see a tree as a "resource for profit making". The internet, to their eyes/worldview, is no different. Their worldview is not wrong, it's just limited -- ie. we have actually evolved, at the cutting edge, beyond just profit making, and have begun to think about global environmental issues, but that doesn't mean we stop making profit -- rather, we include profit making, in carefully managed ways, as part of the greater "web of life".
As I said, the problem is when one vMEME thinks it's the "best" vMEME -- when profit makers think profit is the highest goal and the very meaning of life. But there ain't no big "treasury in the sky" place like the Ferengi believe.
The AU Government, wishing to serve the people in it's full capacity and competence, and seeking to employ the most technically sound and logically considered data attainable, has assembled a task force of experts charged with the duty of identifying clearly and without doubt, those "tools" which are the most serious and effective aids to the operation and infiltration of computer networks by criminals.
"Our data, as set forward in our considered report, "Keep your mits on", has conclusively shown that in a vast majority, and we are making no exageration here, for we found said "tools" to be in the "hands" of 99% of not only hackers, but also criminals in general, of cases, the "fingers" were the single most pervasive means with which criminals were able to persue their illegal activities."
Citizens are free to study the newly published report, wherein they will find details of scientifically conducted tests where criminal hackers were left totally unsupervised, alone in a room, with a computer terminal, having had his or her fingers removed. The data found is so strong, that any even half-educated sheep farmer could plainly see that the chances of the hacker being able to purse a horrible and dangerous criminal activity online was rendered almost completely impossible without the aforementioned tools, the "fingers".
However, the authors of the study wish to deepen their understanding of the "hacker", and recommend a further study into some discrepacies in the data. Partiularly in one case, one criminal individual was found to have, it appears, by means of a pencil held in his teeth, to have actually operated the computer, as evidenced by the words "help me" clearly visible on the screen in an e-mail program. As already stated, for reasons of national security, we recommend further studies into the potential criminal activities of hackers armed with pencils but no fingers.
The philosopher Ken Wilber theorises that there are two basically irreducible axes to the Kosmos. These are "In/Out" and "One/Many" -- and basically "everything" can be mapped onto a diagram formed of these four quadrants.
[imagine nice four quadrant diagram here that got interpreted as "Junk character post." by slashcode]
Upper left quadrant [Inside/One] : Subjective Individual. Here art is self expression. Art is the way an individual mind expresses it's own meanings. I as Artist place meaning in my work, and so long as I live and view my work, that meaning exists for me. It's art to me, for this is how I choose to express myself.
Lower right quadrant [Inside/Many] : Intersubjective Culture. We as a society of members who share meanings, who talk to each other, who communicate, must all understand and agree upon the meaning of the words and ideas we use. Memes jump from mind to mind, travelling through the network of shared brain power. Collectively, art is what we can agree to put in an art gallery, championed by academia, and the movement of History.
Upper right [Outer/One] : Objective Individual. Art, regardless of it's meaning, each art artefact has a physical presence, and objective materiality, be it canvas, oils, faeces, or a VDU. Whatever the idea looked like in the artist's mind, this is how it's physically manifested.
Lower right [Outer/Many] : This is similar to the previous, except it's about the physical structures that house the art, like galleries and computer networks. Libraries and books. Again, it all has to have physical presence, or the only way I'd get to see your art is through a Vulcan mind-meld.
Ken Wilber emphasises that ALL FOUR QUADRANTS are necessary, and equally valuable. This means that it's ok for an artist to call his work art, because that is true for the artist. But for anyone else to call it art, the society has to recognise it as art--but this does not contradict the artist. Your art may be unrecognised for years. But for you it's still art. And lastly, whatever the meaning of the art, it has to have physical form, like a collage of newspaper cuttings, or via a computer and projection screen. Note that there's no meaning in the object itself. Only the minds of the viewers or the artist can "hold" the meaning.
Some people think art is "paintings" or "landscapes" or "what's in art galleries". Each of these definitions unconsciously priviledges one quadrant. But Wilber's point is that every quadrant is important, because none of the quadrants can be reduced or collapsed into the others.
Disclaimer: please check out the essays on Wilber's site, and don't rely on my bastard presentation of his ideas.
The key is that when Hailstorm gets integrated into applications (instead of being "on the web") people won't feel as uncomfortable with it. They won't even notice its happening.
This reminds me that a lot of people are confused when operating their computer--they aren't quite sure what's going on. For example, an intelligent lady of about 60 recently told me that she avoided using the internet because she wasn't sure whether she was paying for stuff when web pages came up showing products and prices...
In a department store, we all know we haven't paid until we go to the till and it goes ka-ching!
I know I'm paying when I switch on the lights. And I know the bill will come from the electric company. But how the hell am I supposed to keep track of thousands of micro payments to hundreds of companies I've never heard of? Check my system logs??
The "masses" who are unsure of what exactly their computer is doing are not going to be examining their system logs... only the tech savvy will know how, and so only the tech savvy will use this technology--except they know enough not to trust it--while at least now even the average user may venture to type in their credit card number occasionally.
Maybe in 15 years the new generation will grow up accustomed to understanding what's going on in their computer, and know what it's doing at 3am. But in the meantime, technology will have changed even more.
It is theft. It is stealing. Let's assume for argument's sake that there is a movie you really want to buy. You're already on your way to the story when your boss calls you up and tells you to immediately go to London. You hit on the accelerator and head out to the airport where tickets are already waiting for you. After watching a couple of region 9 movies you get to London where you buy the movie you wanted to get at the airport for say UKP 8,00 (USD 12,00). Now the movie you bought for about 12 dollars costs 24 dollars at the local store where you live and where you intended to go to in the first place. You ripped them off for twelve dollars! That makes you nothing less but a dirty thief.
But, to investigate this example further, I actually "paid" with my own travel and time to personally import the thing.
Like, here in the UK, people often travel to France to buy wine. They get it cheaper in France, but they have to make the effort and expence of the journey. Sure, overall, it works out cheaper, but they still personally had to travel to France instead of just down to the supermarket.
Taking advantage of the price differential between where something is easy to get, plentiful and cheap, and where someting is rare and expensive, has been a prime money making opportunity for centuries. And today, importing a DVD for personal use is just taking advantage of an artificially created price difference--but even if it is to pay for the import and distribution--well, I imported it myself. So why can't I get the cost savings??
However, I don't understand when Slashdot went communist. I've only been a user for about two years, but this has really gotten weird over the past 6-12 months. Corporations aren't evil.
Maybe it's not so much "communist" as "green/postmodern". From what I've read, the latter loves finding "victims" everywhere. Greens are anti-heirarchy ("everyone's view is equally valid") and anti-competitive ("we should be sensitive and co-operative and listen to each other"). So maybe megacorps, born of "modernist mass production", become a target for hatred. Throw in a few oil spills, and they become seen as evil incarnate.
Third: Listen, I do not want everyone to have equal things. You know why, BECAUSE I WORK MY BUTT OFF! It pisses me off when individuals think that we should all have the same thing and we would be free from want and desire. Guess what buddy, want and desire drive innovation, change, invention, discovery, mass production, commidization, so you can go down to Signature Kroger and buy your imported Tofu!
Although I'm adding this comment, what I'm gonna say isn't meant to contradict your post. I believe your position is very valid. I too would rather be the architect than the blick layer, the programmer than the vdu assembly line worker. I see people collect the garbage, and I think, "I'm so glad that's not me down there". Not just because I don't want to break my body, but also because informational work is just more interesting. It doesn't smell. And it uses a higher faculty -- the intelect.
So I don't want to romanticise "the ancient ways". There's a programme on about a bunch of people who try living in iron age conditions. They are mostly "ecowarrior" types, but after spending most of their days just lugging buckets of water around, they're losing enthusiasm for "feeling the spirits of the place".
Ok, so what I'm getting at is this: innovation, change, invention, discovery etc. don't in themselves make people happy. I mean, I'm happy when I buy something I want, or need, but it's a sort of momentary happyness, not a deep happyness, not joy. What I mean is, people never seem ready to die, like. It's like, "no wait, I'm not ready yet -- I haven't made it yet / I didn't get what I wanted". If I saw that I was about to get hit by a truck, I imagine I would feel that my life was not complete -- not just a self preservation thing -- but a 'I've missed out' sense. But not on steak dinners. Or on books. Or on television. I mean, I'm not too bothered about that truck causing me to miss out on next week's episode. And I probably wouldn't feel sorry that I can't go to my job anymore. So it's something else.
This "getting complete" is a sort of Zen thing. And just like the intellect is something that we humans have that dumb animals don't, the ability to be in a state of total completion, deeply fulfilled, not in a drugged state, but in a more-awake than awake state, is also something we humans appear to have as a potential, that animals don't. Now I'm not talking about "hippy love and peace man". I'm saying that there are individuals who have practiced certain methods and exercises, and at some point developed the capacity for trans-intellectual insights. Not pre-intellect, not pre-rational, but trans-rational. And part of that is a sort of cessation of desire.
In that "ultimate" sence, desire is the cause of suffering. But that doesn't mean we in the meantime just "give up wanting", because then we're just trying to want to not want, which is a want, and so still suffering. It's not so easy. Which is why it takes years of practice using the established and tested methods. So in the meantime we need ways of satisfying our wants that don't clash too much, while educating people to start practicing for deeper, higher fulfilment of their wants. Ie. reach the end of wanting. So maybe the trouble with big business isn't so much that people are doing big business (after all, before the ecowarriors can preach about "think globally", you have to actually discover the damn globe in the first place, which historically took money, power, science etc.) -- it's rather that while doing business and science and steak dinners, we're not aware of the additional activity of developing the soul. Not as some airy fairy belief, but as a direct experience. The trouble is not that people are making money, but that people think money will make them happy. Money makes material comfort and survival, and is absolutely necessary. It just doesn't get you the ultimate goodies, the transcendent Self that is truly free.
Science is about performing an experiment, getting a result, and checking with others who've also performed the experiment. That's what Zen Buddhists do -- they do the exercise, see what they find, and check with others, "did you also see what I saw?"
I imagine that some enlightened alien culture would still do science, not because they were trying to expand their sence of power or importance, or hyper-nuke other aliens, but just because they love to do science. And they'd probably just be a lot more efficient at it. Because they would just do science, and not waste time in ego fulfilment projects.
Well, this post is too long -- I'm not dumping a lecture on you, although it probably sounds like it -- I dunno how to keep this short. But hey, how many Zen Buddhists does it take to change a lightbulb?
None, because there is no lightbulb. -- I can't decide whether that's at all funny or not...
Several times he dismisses Linux as not being particularly revolutionary. But it is revolutionary in several ways.
Yep. Mr. Miller talks about customers, value, competition, market, products etc. etc. Every sentense is pure business achievement speak. And looking through this filter, knowledge is just a saleable asset.
Linux and other free software makes no sense in this worldview. I think Linux only registers with people who's worldview is beyond business achievement, and is rather about love of truth, utility, competence and discovery. Linus says he wanted to be a famous scientist. A person who's just interested in science, is really just interested in discovery.
Linux and free software is more of a leading edge in culture, because its a movement who's principles and ideals are not about success and competitive slaughter, but about knowledge and integration. Business success, while a part of society, is not the cutting edge in society's development.
Our world faces new levels of problems that are not going to be solved by business competitive thinking. And MS is pure business competitive thinking par excellence. They are kings of the marketplace.
But the children of these business achievers know that in the end, their parents grew old and unhappy. Success brought money, but it didn't bring lasting joy. So newer generations look for higher values. They measure themselves not by the paycheck, but by something higher. Not that there's anything wrong with paychecks. It's just that they aren't enough. People want more, but not more money, rather, more community, or maybe more knowledge, or meaning or spirit etc. This is the leading edge in culture.
So the "products" of tomorrow have to work for the whole planet, not just the corporation or the market. MS is culturally like the pyramids. Very large, and rather immovable. But also history.
There's a funny story that has been passed around by science fiction fans that illustrates the folly of most "secrets."
Remember also Dr. Strangelove? It turns out the Russians have a Doomesday device that will destroy the world if a nuclear attack is detected. The Device is meant to be the Ultimate Deterrent. However, they hadn't told anyone about it yet.
If you've seen the footage, the paint may have been the cause, but the real power came from the hydrogen. The skin burns quickly, but it did not main explosion/fire.
In the documentary about it and NASA scientist and hydrogen specialist Addison Bain's inverstigation, it was highlighted that the colour of the fire and it's spread was not characteristic of a hydrogen fire:
He came across accounts of the color of the flames: bright red and orange. But hydrogen burns blue when it can be seen at all. There is no doubt that the hydrogen at that point was burning as well, but it was masked by the brighter colors of something else burning.
Also, looking over film footage of the flaming Hindenburg, Bain noticed that it remained buoyant for many seconds after the fire began; it did not drop to the ground instantly as would have happened if the hydrogen were suddenly combusted. That meant something else was burning. Finally, he noticed that the outer covering was burning rapidly, at 49 feet per second.
Here's a good one.. would you prefer that I steal your computer's hard disk, or image it? Don't say neither. That's not the point. If I were to do it, which would you prefer? Should I image that cd, or image it, then destroy it? In order to think clearly about the subject, we must differentiate between copying, and stealing.
I gave up listening to music when my cd collection was stolen. (No insurance). But lately I've come to have some spare HD space, so it seems ok to me to make copies of public library cds of those albums that I used to have in my posession.
Personally, I thought I was paying for the music. Some may argue that I was paying for the physical item, and having lost the physical item, I should pay for a new one. Well, I'm not "copying" the physical item. I'm only copying the virtual data, onto physical hardware that I have paid for (HD, CDR). Whatever I was paying for the virtual data, the music, the sound data that the band produced, I have already paid for as part of my original purchase of their album.
The trouble is that some people/organisations want to "lock" the virtual data onto the physical medium. Traditionally, there was a sort of lock, in that only imperfect copies could be made. You needed the professional recording/pressing houses to produce the item, because they had the best machines for the job.
But today, a cdrom burner will produce a perfect copy. We don't need the publisher to make the disk. We can do it ourselves. We just need the band to make the music.
Bands will still need promotion, but they won't need the huge music stores. We don't need to pay for the large store to stock the media, because we don't need the media. We just need the data.
If the band currently only gets one UK pound per album sold, then lets pay one pound fifty for a download.
Sure, there won't be any money for the mega Virgin and HMV stores, but we don't need them for music. All you need are small burning booths, where, if you don't have your own net connection, you can go in and have a couple of disks made.
And there would be another effect: people would be able to spend their money more diversely. Instead of paying 15 pounds for one bands' album, I can spread that money to ten bands. People may have the opportunity to explore more, and try out obscure names. Because it would be fairly cheap to do so.
The folly of evolution and absurd mutation style ideas is that they keep lumbering forward with the idea that life prefers innovation and flexibility to predictability and stability.
If I may be slightly off-topic, it's interestng that you state where you are coming from. I've recently been reading about a system called Spiral Dynamics, that sets out different cultural world views or vMemes. There are about 8 of them, each colour coded, so as not to imply that any one is 'better' than any other.
Individual people are at a particular vMeme, which forms their basic value system.
I'd say that most people arguing here are really showing us mainly an Orange vMeme vs. Green vMeme argument (with a sprinkling of Blue). Actually the argument cannot be resolved, because the basic value system used by each is just so different.
The Orange is about competition, winners and losers, and individual pursuit of achievement. The Green is about degrees of sensitivity and caring, relating and listening. Orange: the more you achieve, the better you are. Green: the more you are sensitive, the better you are.
I'm probably mis-representing the idea, but I get the feeling that the Orange's are the ones saying, "hey, it's business, and besides, those Africans are way too backward to even know what to DO with this stuff". Meanwhile the Greens are shouting, "Man, it's our one World, one planet. Those are human beings, just like you and me. We are killers and murderers if we don't help them!"
Needless to say, because the two sides, oh, not to mention the Blues, "they deserve it for their voodoo witch belief" (you know who you are), so yes, the two or three factions are just in totally different value systems. The gulf between them is wider than they think, because their own values are so obviously 'right', how could anyone think differently?
But to get back to the parent post, PoMo is pretty Green.
A call to take responsibility is a call to say this part is mine to control. You may want to call on others to do their part, as well, but your actions are what you control directly.
Nice in theory, but if you're doing what you can do and others refuse to, then _they_ aren't looking to respond and it is a natural human reaction to throw your arms up in despair and say "I can't do anything because I can't get cooperation from the necessary parties, who themselves need to take responsibility and take action". See "blame" is just a negative facet of responsibility./I>
You taking responsability has nothing to do with whether others take responsability.
If you give up, you are NOT taking responsability.
I get the feeling that you are twisting your words to make it ok to "blame" while claiming to "take responsability".
All you are saying is "oh well, yes, I'll try to take responsability, but if they don't, then what's the use... blah blah
Of course they have to as well, but then, maybe I should just shut up and not try recommending to anyone to take responsability, I mean, why bother trying if nobody is listening????
I just knew someone would ask that. Does not having unsafe sex count? Does asking people not to get into a blaming match count? Does sending money to charity count? It's not much. It's a start. It's something. I'm not a president, or a doctor, or a tribal chief.
Please make any suggestions. Preferably something you've also tried doing and can vouch for.
This isn't a case of "capitalists and the corporate republic and patents are killing millions in Africa". This is a case of Africans and African beliefs killing themselves through denial and stigmatizations.
The article is about one problem. And you're talking about another. The article is talking about the physical needs (drugs and money). You're talking about the cultural problem (awareness, education, stigma, rejection).
This is fine. But I take issue with your use of the word 'blame'. You see, by introducing this word, you're creating a third problem. Because when you blame someone, there's a subtle implication: "Its' their own fucking fault and they deserve all they fucking get for their own fucking stupid idocy and don't come fucking pleading to us for fucking help."
Blame doesn't get you anywhere. Actually it just gets in the way. Because there's a difference between action/consequences and blame.
When I blame somebody, I'm avoiding looking at my own respons-ability. That's the ability to respond. If we start blaming companies or witch doctors, we're forgetting our ability to respond to the situation.
Otherwise, drug companies will just blame the witch doctors, while the third world governments blame capitalist greed. While actually a concerted effort by all parties will get everybody a lot further more quickly.
I'm sure cootch knows this anyway -- I'm just saying that blame is not going to help.
When I'm looking to blame, I'm looking for how, "it's nothing to do with me." But when I'm looking for how I'm responsable, I'm looking for what I can do. How can the drug companies respond. How can the governments respond. How can the village witch doctors respond. How can South African citizens respond. How can Kenyan teachers respond. How can American citizens respond. But don't blame.
I can get drunk in the morning. You, on the other hand, will still be a fag.
I believe that's a Winston Churchill reference (he was a bit of a drunken manic-depressive). One evening at dinner, a lady says to Churchill, "You are drunk, horribly drunk!". Churchill replies, "Madam, you are ugly, horribly ugly, but in the morning, I shall be sober."
Now there was a great quick witted drunken bastard.
I still have a standing offer: will anyone have an architect without a degree design a house they would then live in?
Le Corbusier, detested by his contemporaries (they built a high wall around his exhibition house to hide it), got, if I recall, a third (just passed) at college. But he's now considered generally one of the greatest architects of, er, last century.
An architecture tutor once told me that, effectively, the lower your degree qualification, the more you'd end up earning.
Certainly I don't wish to dismiss university qualification. It's not a free ride. You do have to work, do the necessary things, to achieve it.
The debate here is whether those necessary things are the best/only way to produce a skilled individual. Especially in a field like architecture, where creativity and practicality have direct effect on the cost of a project, not to mention the highly intangibles like cultural depth, style, social engineering concerns, and philosophical and ethical standing (what's more valuable: reducing energy consumption, or reflecting the Zeitgeist?).
Slashdot Mirror
Disclaimer: vague generalities and wooly arguments follow:
I've recently watched some war documentaries, read some stuff about history, some films like Napoleon, etc. etc -- the totality of which has formed in me the impression that:
People in the field know what's going on. Distributed units can take advantage of local situations as they change. Autonomous units can do things which advancing columns can't. Rapid reaction requires an ear to the ground and the autonomous authority to carry out immediate maneuvers and strategies. The Queen Bee doesn't direct her troops, but they independently seek out targets and communicate with each other. Etc. Etc. (add your own here)
Basically, the world is too big... and we can't just stand on a hilltop like Napoleon did, directing the battle as he surveyed the field laid out neatly in front of him. Today's hilltop is the boardroom, and comfy chairs -- hardly the same.
Ok, so please flesh out this wooly argument of mine with some concrete knowledge and examples of your own.
PS. I haven't read the article.
Well, yeah, I guess we should have "carefully managed" Adolf Hitler's viewpoint of the world and avoided that whold WWII deal.
Yeah, there are prople who say "gee, it's all relative, and we should respect our differences, and if the Mowatonga culture wants to practice human sacrifice, then hey, we should just respect that". But that's not what I'm saying.
You're absolutely spot on to mention Hitler... people who say it's all relative, are forgetting that while it's true that people hold different views, some views are better than others.
As you say, there are some values that hurt society -- but now here's the difficult part: in order for a person to reach the age of 21, they have to pass through the ages of 2, 7, 13 etc. We can't just turn a baby into an adult overnight -- the person has to develop through all the stages, in order to get to adulthood. And unfortunately, it seems like values go through a similar developmental process.
So the problem is that, yes, the ORANGE competitive viewpoint does do damage to the environment, but, according to Spiral Dynamics, GREEN "common bond and concern" can only emerge after ORANGE is established. You can't skip any classes.
Spiral Dynamics says the vMEMEs emerge in sequence: BEIGE, PURPLE, RED, BLUE, ORANGE, GREEN, YELLOW. Where BEIGE is "just day to day survival", PURPLE is "family bonding", then RED "power drive", BLUE "respect authority and order", ORANGE "individual competitiveness", and only after all these others, we get to GREEN "sensitivity".
And you can't chop out any of the levels. Ie. a GREEN "sensitive" person may think RED "power drive" to be something bad. But if you somehow were to stop people developing RED, then you would arrest them at PURPLE, and they would never make it to BLUE, nevermind GREEN. Ie. we would throw our society back to the stone age.
I'm apologising to you now-- this post is way to long. You said, so what about Hitler? Well, Hitler wanted to "unite his tribe"... and there were probably a lot of Hitlers around 40,000 years ago. Because back then, the tribe was the biggest social unit that had developed.... there were no countries, never mind multi racial mixes. And as such, Hitler would have been the peak of evolution 40,000 years ago, but his ideas and values are hopelessly outdated today. And that would have been that, were it not for him having access to 20th Century technology... 40,000 years ago tribes would go to war with clubs -- so mass genocide, while their goal, was not easy. But today, it's all too easy -- Hitler wanted to make a tribe, by wiping out other tribes, using tanks, planes, bombs and gas chambers.
His view point, "the tribe" is not 100% wrong... there are plenty of tribes in Africa, but his means -- modern military machine -- were way beyond what he should have had access to. And we all have to pass through that tribal PURPLE value MEME, in order to eventually reach GREEN, whereupon we can feel concern for the planet -- so the ORANGE vMEME, is not "completely wrong" -- we have to allow it, within limits, just like we have to allow the tribes to exist, but make sure they don't get their hands on sophisticated weapons.
Again, sorry for the long reply -- I'm mostly recalling stuff I've read... and your point, about "Hitler's viewpoint" was spot on. It is relative, but some views are better than others, but they develop sequentially, and we can't chop off the bottom of the ladder -- people have to be allowed to grow through, and out of, the more primitive viewpoints, but without doing too much harm to others.
If you hold the GREEN value, then that means you already passed through the previous levels, including ORANGE. So it's not that ORANGE is wrong, it's just limited. And GREEN value goes beyond what ORANGE is capable of. Just like ORANGE goes beyond BLUE. And BLUE is higher than RED. Ie. the values of a Christian church goer (BLUE) are higher than the values of a street gang (RED). The trouble is that people get stuck at a certain level, like Hitler seems to have got stuck at PURPLE/RED, and happened to be head of a nation with hage technological capability. We need to find ways to help people develop, like, how do we get all those ORANGE businessmen to grow to develop GREEN values... and have them conscious of the damage their operations are doing.
So ORANGE/business isn't evil, it's just limited, and unfortunately, has access to vast technologies. 200 years ago, what the businessman could do to turn a profit was more limited. Today, we are desperately in need of getting a whole lot of people who are at ORANGE and in charge of Megacorps to evolve onto the next value level, say GREEN and then hopefully YELLOW. And meanwhile, keep a lookout for tribes with nuclear bombs.
Why is the Internet expected to comply with "basic economic laws"?
I have a sort of answer to your question. I recently read a book called, "Spiral Dynamics", which describes basically 6 different value "memes" which have been found to exist in people. And that quote sounds suspiciously like the speaker holds the "ORANGE" value meme (each vMEME is colour coded for convenience). Many people in this forum probably hold the GREEN vMEME, (see the book for a description), and hence sort of can't believe how anyone could be so "evil" -- how could anyone think that the internet is just a vehicle for profit??
People who hold different value memes just won't see eye to eye. And typically, whatever vMEME you happen to hold, because you value that vMEME, you dis-value all the others, so a competetive/profit valuing ORANGE person will think that people who try to work together for the common good are "just a bunch of hippies", while people who hold the GREEN vMEME will see the profiteering ORANGE viewpoint as being evil and self centered.
The point is to recognise that the other person simply holds a different value MEME, and as such, will value things differently to what you value -- so you just have to learn how to acknowledge and include their viewpoint, while getting them to understand the limitations of their viewpoint. IANAPsychologist, but just thought that what with this issue being basically about two different groups with different values, ie. "Hey, we business people (ORANGE vMEME) value profit and competition, and we see the world in terms of how it can be made to generate profit" versus the academic group (more GREEN vMEME) "we work for the betterment of all by the sharing of knowledge, and see everything as something to be studied, understood, and shared" -- that I'd mention the theory of Spiral Dynamics.
Yes, there are people out there who see a tree as a "resource for profit making". The internet, to their eyes/worldview, is no different. Their worldview is not wrong, it's just limited -- ie. we have actually evolved, at the cutting edge, beyond just profit making, and have begun to think about global environmental issues, but that doesn't mean we stop making profit -- rather, we include profit making, in carefully managed ways, as part of the greater "web of life".
As I said, the problem is when one vMEME thinks it's the "best" vMEME -- when profit makers think profit is the highest goal and the very meaning of life. But there ain't no big "treasury in the sky" place like the Ferengi believe.
The AU Government, wishing to serve the people in it's full capacity and competence, and seeking to employ the most technically sound and logically considered data attainable, has assembled a task force of experts charged with the duty of identifying clearly and without doubt, those "tools" which are the most serious and effective aids to the operation and infiltration of computer networks by criminals.
"Our data, as set forward in our considered report, "Keep your mits on", has conclusively shown that in a vast majority, and we are making no exageration here, for we found said "tools" to be in the "hands" of 99% of not only hackers, but also criminals in general, of cases, the "fingers" were the single most pervasive means with which criminals were able to persue their illegal activities."
Citizens are free to study the newly published report, wherein they will find details of scientifically conducted tests where criminal hackers were left totally unsupervised, alone in a room, with a computer terminal, having had his or her fingers removed. The data found is so strong, that any even half-educated sheep farmer could plainly see that the chances of the hacker being able to purse a horrible and dangerous criminal activity online was rendered almost completely impossible without the aforementioned tools, the "fingers".
However, the authors of the study wish to deepen their understanding of the "hacker", and recommend a further study into some discrepacies in the data. Partiularly in one case, one criminal individual was found to have, it appears, by means of a pencil held in his teeth, to have actually operated the computer, as evidenced by the words "help me" clearly visible on the screen in an e-mail program. As already stated, for reasons of national security, we recommend further studies into the potential criminal activities of hackers armed with pencils but no fingers.
There are 4 aspects to Art
The philosopher Ken Wilber theorises that there are two basically irreducible axes to the Kosmos. These are "In/Out" and "One/Many" -- and basically "everything" can be mapped onto a diagram formed of these four quadrants.
[imagine nice four quadrant diagram here that got interpreted as "Junk character post." by slashcode]Upper left quadrant [Inside/One] : Subjective Individual. Here art is self expression. Art is the way an individual mind expresses it's own meanings. I as Artist place meaning in my work, and so long as I live and view my work, that meaning exists for me. It's art to me, for this is how I choose to express myself.
Lower right quadrant [Inside/Many] : Intersubjective Culture. We as a society of members who share meanings, who talk to each other, who communicate, must all understand and agree upon the meaning of the words and ideas we use. Memes jump from mind to mind, travelling through the network of shared brain power. Collectively, art is what we can agree to put in an art gallery, championed by academia, and the movement of History.
Upper right [Outer/One] : Objective Individual. Art, regardless of it's meaning, each art artefact has a physical presence, and objective materiality, be it canvas, oils, faeces, or a VDU. Whatever the idea looked like in the artist's mind, this is how it's physically manifested.
Lower right [Outer/Many] : This is similar to the previous, except it's about the physical structures that house the art, like galleries and computer networks. Libraries and books. Again, it all has to have physical presence, or the only way I'd get to see your art is through a Vulcan mind-meld.
Ken Wilber emphasises that ALL FOUR QUADRANTS are necessary, and equally valuable. This means that it's ok for an artist to call his work art, because that is true for the artist. But for anyone else to call it art, the society has to recognise it as art--but this does not contradict the artist. Your art may be unrecognised for years. But for you it's still art. And lastly, whatever the meaning of the art, it has to have physical form, like a collage of newspaper cuttings, or via a computer and projection screen. Note that there's no meaning in the object itself. Only the minds of the viewers or the artist can "hold" the meaning.
Some people think art is "paintings" or "landscapes" or "what's in art galleries". Each of these definitions unconsciously priviledges one quadrant. But Wilber's point is that every quadrant is important, because none of the quadrants can be reduced or collapsed into the others.
Disclaimer: please check out the essays on Wilber's site, and don't rely on my bastard presentation of his ideas.
The key is that when Hailstorm gets integrated into applications (instead of being "on the web") people won't feel as uncomfortable with it. They won't even notice its happening.
This reminds me that a lot of people are confused when operating their computer--they aren't quite sure what's going on. For example, an intelligent lady of about 60 recently told me that she avoided using the internet because she wasn't sure whether she was paying for stuff when web pages came up showing products and prices...
In a department store, we all know we haven't paid until we go to the till and it goes ka-ching!
I know I'm paying when I switch on the lights. And I know the bill will come from the electric company. But how the hell am I supposed to keep track of thousands of micro payments to hundreds of companies I've never heard of? Check my system logs??
The "masses" who are unsure of what exactly their computer is doing are not going to be examining their system logs... only the tech savvy will know how, and so only the tech savvy will use this technology--except they know enough not to trust it--while at least now even the average user may venture to type in their credit card number occasionally.
Maybe in 15 years the new generation will grow up accustomed to understanding what's going on in their computer, and know what it's doing at 3am. But in the meantime, technology will have changed even more.
It is theft. It is stealing. Let's assume for argument's sake that there is a movie you really want to buy. You're already on your way to the story when your boss calls you up and tells you to immediately go to London. You hit on the accelerator and head out to the airport where tickets are already waiting for you. After watching a couple of region 9 movies you get to London where you buy the movie you wanted to get at the airport for say UKP 8,00 (USD 12,00). Now the movie you bought for about 12 dollars costs 24 dollars at the local store where you live and where you intended to go to in the first place. You ripped them off for twelve dollars! That makes you nothing less but a dirty thief.
But, to investigate this example further, I actually "paid" with my own travel and time to personally import the thing.
Like, here in the UK, people often travel to France to buy wine. They get it cheaper in France, but they have to make the effort and expence of the journey. Sure, overall, it works out cheaper, but they still personally had to travel to France instead of just down to the supermarket.
Taking advantage of the price differential between where something is easy to get, plentiful and cheap, and where someting is rare and expensive, has been a prime money making opportunity for centuries. And today, importing a DVD for personal use is just taking advantage of an artificially created price difference--but even if it is to pay for the import and distribution--well, I imported it myself. So why can't I get the cost savings??
However, I don't understand when Slashdot went communist. I've only been a user for about two years, but this has really gotten weird over the past 6-12 months. Corporations aren't evil.
Maybe it's not so much "communist" as "green/postmodern". From what I've read, the latter loves finding "victims" everywhere. Greens are anti-heirarchy ("everyone's view is equally valid") and anti-competitive ("we should be sensitive and co-operative and listen to each other"). So maybe megacorps, born of "modernist mass production", become a target for hatred. Throw in a few oil spills, and they become seen as evil incarnate.
Third: Listen, I do not want everyone to have equal things. You know why, BECAUSE I WORK MY BUTT OFF! It pisses me off when individuals think that we should all have the same thing and we would be free from want and desire. Guess what buddy, want and desire drive innovation, change, invention, discovery, mass production, commidization, so you can go down to Signature Kroger and buy your imported Tofu!
Although I'm adding this comment, what I'm gonna say isn't meant to contradict your post. I believe your position is very valid. I too would rather be the architect than the blick layer, the programmer than the vdu assembly line worker. I see people collect the garbage, and I think, "I'm so glad that's not me down there". Not just because I don't want to break my body, but also because informational work is just more interesting. It doesn't smell. And it uses a higher faculty -- the intelect.
So I don't want to romanticise "the ancient ways". There's a programme on about a bunch of people who try living in iron age conditions. They are mostly "ecowarrior" types, but after spending most of their days just lugging buckets of water around, they're losing enthusiasm for "feeling the spirits of the place".
Ok, so what I'm getting at is this: innovation, change, invention, discovery etc. don't in themselves make people happy. I mean, I'm happy when I buy something I want, or need, but it's a sort of momentary happyness, not a deep happyness, not joy. What I mean is, people never seem ready to die, like. It's like, "no wait, I'm not ready yet -- I haven't made it yet / I didn't get what I wanted". If I saw that I was about to get hit by a truck, I imagine I would feel that my life was not complete -- not just a self preservation thing -- but a 'I've missed out' sense. But not on steak dinners. Or on books. Or on television. I mean, I'm not too bothered about that truck causing me to miss out on next week's episode. And I probably wouldn't feel sorry that I can't go to my job anymore. So it's something else.
This "getting complete" is a sort of Zen thing. And just like the intellect is something that we humans have that dumb animals don't, the ability to be in a state of total completion, deeply fulfilled, not in a drugged state, but in a more-awake than awake state, is also something we humans appear to have as a potential, that animals don't. Now I'm not talking about "hippy love and peace man". I'm saying that there are individuals who have practiced certain methods and exercises, and at some point developed the capacity for trans-intellectual insights. Not pre-intellect, not pre-rational, but trans-rational. And part of that is a sort of cessation of desire.
In that "ultimate" sence, desire is the cause of suffering. But that doesn't mean we in the meantime just "give up wanting", because then we're just trying to want to not want, which is a want, and so still suffering. It's not so easy. Which is why it takes years of practice using the established and tested methods. So in the meantime we need ways of satisfying our wants that don't clash too much, while educating people to start practicing for deeper, higher fulfilment of their wants. Ie. reach the end of wanting. So maybe the trouble with big business isn't so much that people are doing big business (after all, before the ecowarriors can preach about "think globally", you have to actually discover the damn globe in the first place, which historically took money, power, science etc.) -- it's rather that while doing business and science and steak dinners, we're not aware of the additional activity of developing the soul. Not as some airy fairy belief, but as a direct experience. The trouble is not that people are making money, but that people think money will make them happy. Money makes material comfort and survival, and is absolutely necessary. It just doesn't get you the ultimate goodies, the transcendent Self that is truly free.
Science is about performing an experiment, getting a result, and checking with others who've also performed the experiment. That's what Zen Buddhists do -- they do the exercise, see what they find, and check with others, "did you also see what I saw?"
I imagine that some enlightened alien culture would still do science, not because they were trying to expand their sence of power or importance, or hyper-nuke other aliens, but just because they love to do science. And they'd probably just be a lot more efficient at it. Because they would just do science, and not waste time in ego fulfilment projects.
Well, this post is too long -- I'm not dumping a lecture on you, although it probably sounds like it -- I dunno how to keep this short. But hey, how many Zen Buddhists does it take to change a lightbulb?
None, because there is no lightbulb. -- I can't decide whether that's at all funny or not...
No. Because... let me try to explain.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try. -- Yoda
Yeah, let him try to explain how "No" means "Yes". Just how did he "explain" that one...?
Several times he dismisses Linux as not being particularly revolutionary. But it is revolutionary in several ways.
Yep. Mr. Miller talks about customers, value, competition, market, products etc. etc. Every sentense is pure business achievement speak. And looking through this filter, knowledge is just a saleable asset.
Linux and other free software makes no sense in this worldview. I think Linux only registers with people who's worldview is beyond business achievement, and is rather about love of truth, utility, competence and discovery. Linus says he wanted to be a famous scientist. A person who's just interested in science, is really just interested in discovery.
Linux and free software is more of a leading edge in culture, because its a movement who's principles and ideals are not about success and competitive slaughter, but about knowledge and integration. Business success, while a part of society, is not the cutting edge in society's development.
Our world faces new levels of problems that are not going to be solved by business competitive thinking. And MS is pure business competitive thinking par excellence. They are kings of the marketplace.
But the children of these business achievers know that in the end, their parents grew old and unhappy. Success brought money, but it didn't bring lasting joy. So newer generations look for higher values. They measure themselves not by the paycheck, but by something higher. Not that there's anything wrong with paychecks. It's just that they aren't enough. People want more, but not more money, rather, more community, or maybe more knowledge, or meaning or spirit etc. This is the leading edge in culture.
So the "products" of tomorrow have to work for the whole planet, not just the corporation or the market. MS is culturally like the pyramids. Very large, and rather immovable. But also history.
There's a funny story that has been passed around by science fiction fans that illustrates the folly of most "secrets."
Remember also Dr. Strangelove? It turns out the Russians have a Doomesday device that will destroy the world if a nuclear attack is detected. The Device is meant to be the Ultimate Deterrent. However, they hadn't told anyone about it yet.
If you've seen the footage, the paint may have been the cause, but the real power came from the hydrogen. The skin burns quickly, but it did not main explosion/fire.
In the documentary about it and NASA scientist and hydrogen specialist Addison Bain's inverstigation, it was highlighted that the colour of the fire and it's spread was not characteristic of a hydrogen fire:
Here's a good one.. would you prefer that I steal your computer's hard disk, or image it? Don't say neither. That's not the point. If I were to do it, which would you prefer? Should I image that cd, or image it, then destroy it? In order to think clearly about the subject, we must differentiate between copying, and stealing.
I gave up listening to music when my cd collection was stolen. (No insurance). But lately I've come to have some spare HD space, so it seems ok to me to make copies of public library cds of those albums that I used to have in my posession.
Personally, I thought I was paying for the music. Some may argue that I was paying for the physical item, and having lost the physical item, I should pay for a new one. Well, I'm not "copying" the physical item. I'm only copying the virtual data, onto physical hardware that I have paid for (HD, CDR). Whatever I was paying for the virtual data, the music, the sound data that the band produced, I have already paid for as part of my original purchase of their album.
The trouble is that some people/organisations want to "lock" the virtual data onto the physical medium. Traditionally, there was a sort of lock, in that only imperfect copies could be made. You needed the professional recording/pressing houses to produce the item, because they had the best machines for the job.
But today, a cdrom burner will produce a perfect copy. We don't need the publisher to make the disk. We can do it ourselves. We just need the band to make the music.
Bands will still need promotion, but they won't need the huge music stores. We don't need to pay for the large store to stock the media, because we don't need the media. We just need the data.
If the band currently only gets one UK pound per album sold, then lets pay one pound fifty for a download.
Sure, there won't be any money for the mega Virgin and HMV stores, but we don't need them for music. All you need are small burning booths, where, if you don't have your own net connection, you can go in and have a couple of disks made.
And there would be another effect: people would be able to spend their money more diversely. Instead of paying 15 pounds for one bands' album, I can spread that money to ten bands. People may have the opportunity to explore more, and try out obscure names. Because it would be fairly cheap to do so.
The folly of evolution and absurd mutation style ideas is that they keep lumbering forward with the idea that life prefers innovation and flexibility to predictability and stability.
As a good post-modernist...
If I may be slightly off-topic, it's interestng that you state where you are coming from. I've recently been reading about a system called Spiral Dynamics, that sets out different cultural world views or vMemes. There are about 8 of them, each colour coded, so as not to imply that any one is 'better' than any other.
Individual people are at a particular vMeme, which forms their basic value system.
I'd say that most people arguing here are really showing us mainly an Orange vMeme vs. Green vMeme argument (with a sprinkling of Blue). Actually the argument cannot be resolved, because the basic value system used by each is just so different.
The Orange is about competition, winners and losers, and individual pursuit of achievement. The Green is about degrees of sensitivity and caring, relating and listening. Orange: the more you achieve, the better you are. Green: the more you are sensitive, the better you are.
I'm probably mis-representing the idea, but I get the feeling that the Orange's are the ones saying, "hey, it's business, and besides, those Africans are way too backward to even know what to DO with this stuff". Meanwhile the Greens are shouting, "Man, it's our one World, one planet. Those are human beings, just like you and me. We are killers and murderers if we don't help them!"
Needless to say, because the two sides, oh, not to mention the Blues, "they deserve it for their voodoo witch belief" (you know who you are), so yes, the two or three factions are just in totally different value systems. The gulf between them is wider than they think, because their own values are so obviously 'right', how could anyone think differently?
But to get back to the parent post, PoMo is pretty Green.
A call to take responsibility is a call to say this part is mine to control. You may want to call on others to do their part, as well, but your actions are what you control directly.
Wonderfully clear wording.
Nice in theory, but if you're doing what you can do and others refuse to, then _they_ aren't looking to respond and it is a natural human reaction to throw your arms up in despair and say "I can't do anything because I can't get cooperation from the necessary parties, who themselves need to take responsibility and take action". See "blame" is just a negative facet of responsibility./I>
You taking responsability has nothing to do with whether others take responsability.
If you give up, you are NOT taking responsability.
I get the feeling that you are twisting your words to make it ok to "blame" while claiming to "take responsability".
All you are saying is "oh well, yes, I'll try to take responsability, but if they don't, then what's the use... blah blah
Of course they have to as well, but then, maybe I should just shut up and not try recommending to anyone to take responsability, I mean, why bother trying if nobody is listening????
Nice words. But what are you DOING about it?
I just knew someone would ask that. Does not having unsafe sex count? Does asking people not to get into a blaming match count? Does sending money to charity count? It's not much. It's a start. It's something. I'm not a president, or a doctor, or a tribal chief.
Please make any suggestions. Preferably something you've also tried doing and can vouch for.
why should we try harder to stop something like this? they need to change their ways, we can't change them for them.
Guess you'd better write to Bill and tell him not to bother: Gates Pledges $100M for AIDS Vaccine
This isn't a case of "capitalists and the corporate republic and patents are killing millions in Africa". This is a case of Africans and African beliefs killing themselves through denial and stigmatizations.
The article is about one problem. And you're talking about another. The article is talking about the physical needs (drugs and money). You're talking about the cultural problem (awareness, education, stigma, rejection).
This is fine. But I take issue with your use of the word 'blame'. You see, by introducing this word, you're creating a third problem. Because when you blame someone, there's a subtle implication:
"Its' their own fucking fault and they deserve all they fucking get for their own fucking stupid idocy and don't come fucking pleading to us for fucking help."
Blame doesn't get you anywhere. Actually it just gets in the way. Because there's a difference between action/consequences and blame.
When I blame somebody, I'm avoiding looking at my own respons-ability. That's the ability to respond. If we start blaming companies or witch doctors, we're forgetting our ability to respond to the situation.
Otherwise, drug companies will just blame the witch doctors, while the third world governments blame capitalist greed. While actually a concerted effort by all parties will get everybody a lot further more quickly.
I'm sure cootch knows this anyway -- I'm just saying that blame is not going to help.
When I'm looking to blame, I'm looking for how, "it's nothing to do with me." But when I'm looking for how I'm responsable, I'm looking for what I can do. How can the drug companies respond. How can the governments respond. How can the village witch doctors respond. How can South African citizens respond. How can Kenyan teachers respond. How can American citizens respond. But don't blame.
We take a girl out for dinner before getting laid, but that doesn't mean we like eating first.
The English habit of saying "We" rears its ugly head.
No, wait, what was I thinking? Fag.
You won't believe this but, just before I hit submit, I got the impulse to add "Ok, so I guess I'm a fag." But then, never frustrate a fag-caller.
I can get drunk in the morning. You, on the other hand, will still be a fag.
I believe that's a Winston Churchill reference (he was a bit of a drunken manic-depressive). One evening at dinner, a lady says to Churchill, "You are drunk, horribly drunk!". Churchill replies, "Madam, you are ugly, horribly ugly, but in the morning, I shall be sober."
Now there was a great quick witted drunken bastard.
I still have a standing offer: will anyone have an architect without a degree design a house they would then live in?
Le Corbusier, detested by his contemporaries (they built a high wall around his exhibition house to hide it), got, if I recall, a third (just passed) at college. But he's now considered generally one of the greatest architects of, er, last century.
An architecture tutor once told me that, effectively, the lower your degree qualification, the more you'd end up earning.
Certainly I don't wish to dismiss university qualification. It's not a free ride. You do have to work, do the necessary things, to achieve it.
The debate here is whether those necessary things are the best/only way to produce a skilled individual. Especially in a field like architecture, where creativity and practicality have direct effect on the cost of a project, not to mention the highly intangibles like cultural depth, style, social engineering concerns, and philosophical and ethical standing (what's more valuable: reducing energy consumption, or reflecting the Zeitgeist?).