|New Civilization News: On the Wings of Hummingbirds|
10 comments19 Sep 2002 @ 06:48 by invictus : I like no.2...
Speaking for myself (the only person I have direct internal experience with, even if I don't truly know *them*), I think I have more selves than there are people looking at me. Sometimes I wonder what would happen if people really saw the way my mind works. Hmm... Andy, you're a very "special" boy, and you're going for a little trip to the funny farm. It's a wonder I ever manage to say anything coherently. Maybe that goes for everybody; I don't know for sure. *We* somehow manage to stay bound together by a loose bubble inside meta-Andy's head. So, umm, don't burst my bubble :).
I think the thing about Heisenberg is true too, in a metaphorical sort of way. "The unexamined life is not worth living", yes. As I'm sure many of us know, though, it's almost impossible to truly examine your life without changing its course in funny little ways.
19 Sep 2002 @ 07:02 by shawa : Betrayal means...
...that there was something to be betrayed, a friendship, an alliance, a relationship, a link, some thing. But how can we be sure that this "something " really exists in this "virtual" world in which we can´t see each other´s faces? Everything may have a different meaning than ITRW.
Your posts make for quality reading, so thanks. :-)
19 Sep 2002 @ 08:51 by swan : A mirror
Weather/Whether it be virtual, real or imagined it is all opportunity to look at the reflection and what is it's message. Positive or negative reflection..a gift..an opportunity to transcend the density that holds us captive. So we can soar. When all is said and done I must thank both my alies and my adversaries for the beautiful mirror they create in which I view both my self and them. All is perfect.
Thank you, my friend Francis for the reflective words you discover and share.
21 Sep 2002 @ 14:02 by quidnovi : no.2 is alive :-)
Hehehe, I like no.2 too, Andy, I also like the Meta-Andy image :-) It kinds of makes you wonder, doesn't it? Just how many "me" are there? And we are not just talking about the Freudian three-part personality model here. Maybe something in between Jungian psychology and Kurt Lewin's Field Theory, or a combination of both: Life Space, hmmm...? Kurt Lewin believed that to understand personality you must understand a person's life space and what it contains at any given time. He referred to this as the Principle of Contemporaneity. He also contended (1936) that it would be more reasonable, model-wise, when it come to one's own psychology, to imagine ourselves living on a small island inhabited by only a few people than in a nation of millions. I find it a worthwhile concept to examine, in terms of humanity's evolution, and its psychological impact (nation-wise, family-wise, and individually) in a day and ages where satellite communication and the internet have all of a sudden made the "island" a lot bigger than it used to be.
21 Sep 2002 @ 16:38 by quidnovi : How many "me" are there?
Why do we do and say so many things which we very much regret afterwards? Why do we wake up depressed for no apparent reason? And, on the other hand, why do we sometimes surprise ourselves by doing or saying something much better than we ever expected of ourselves, or wake up very cheerful for no cause we are aware of? And what of the fascinating subject of dissociative disorders (psychogenic fugues and multiple personalities disorder.) How many "me" are there? While there is a long history of psychologists, mystics, alchemists and magicians who have explored the depth of the unconscious AND also its summits (that superhumanly wise guidance that exists in the unconscious, which Jung referred to as "the absolute knowledge" in his essay on Synchronicity) my purpose here in bringing all of this up lays simply in its relevance to NCN. How many "me" are there? An interesting question And more importantly how do they work together?
I feel a little dizzy, as I've just scanned the Cauldron back to some of the earlier comments in the Chat-Room. Trying to understand what makes some of our members tick. I must say that it is a shame that some of those exchanges of ideas did not take place outside of the Cauldron or cannot be sorted by theme and made public for reference and/or further development. I read something about "organization" and "decision-making" and "legislature"(?) and "some semblance of a judiciary"(?!!) And while I understand why one of our members whom I respect (and who has had some involvement with some of the principles of governance on which our Democracies are founded) would have an interest in trying to replicate some of those operating structures here at NCN, an alarm rings in my mind as I look at what a mess such structures have brought forth ITRW and how inescapably contaminated by politics such structures have become. If the member of whom I speak is disturbed by what he perceives as the play of politics in NCN under its current form (an evaluation with which I disagree), I suggest to him that he would become even more deeply disturbed at what would result out of the changes that he suggests. I too have had some experience with governance, and my experience was not that of a teacher---hence, possibly, our diverging views on the subject.
Democracies, though I will concede that they are, no doubt, a positive evolution from the feudal system that preceded them, are still based on an adversarial system---hence the partisan politics and corruptions and other banes that come along with them.
NCN is about finding OTHER WAYS not about replicating existing flawed models.
I find the concept of the human personality fascinating and most relevant to NCN as psychologists too have been struggling with the identity concept. How many me are there? And how do they work together? Is our identity organized along the lines of a Democracy or an oligarchy?---I most certainly do not think so!!! Here is an interesting model to study---NCN has an ORGANIC FEELING to it and it's precisely what makes it what it is. I find it in fact to be a model so OPEN that I don't see any reason for those of us who want to play "Democracy" not to create a workgroup dedicated to that purpose and set up for themselves a platform from which they can "organize" their actions, conduct surveys, greet new members as they see fit, and whatever else strike their fancy (just a thought.) As I see it NCN is not a buffet, it is a potluck. If Democracy is your thing, just do it. Do it democratically--- do not impose it to others. Create a work-group, promote your work-group, and see who is interested in participating in "participatory-democracy." Given time such a group could prove to become a valuable "chamber" of NCN (I would find it for my part an interesting laboratory---kind of like an emulation room. I might even create a monarchy-group next door, just for the fun of it--- Merlin would be such an interesting role to play :-) But such a group will never become, in my opinion, the way NCN is run as a whole. Because if that were to happen, NCN would cease to be NCN the very minute it happened and the experiment would be over.
21 Sep 2002 @ 17:47 by quidnovi : Follow-up on Shakti's rejoinder
How can we be sure that things really are what they seem in this virtual world in which we can´t see each other´s faces? Point well taken Shakti!
I've heard rumors that there might be some among us who are using more than one NCN identity in their interactions with others. Another interesting take on "How many 'me' are there?", isn't it? I have taken a look into this (Hehehe...NCN is a school and class is always in session :-) and though I have found so far nothing to coroborate these rumors, the thought does not surprise me however---it can be done (and rather easily at that) and therefore it stands to reason that most certainly it must have been done, for so is human nature.
Unlike you I do not share your apprehensions about the virtual though. "How can we be sure that this 'something' really exists in this 'virtual' world in which we can't see each other's faces?" is a good question, but on the other hand, how can we be sure that things really are what they seem in the real world (ITRW) in which we can see each other's faces---faces we see but hearts we do not. No doubt, you will agree that the inner world is just as real as the outside world with which we are familiar; in fact I think you will be one to agree that it is in fact MORE real. I believe the same thing can be said of the Virtual and the Real world. In the real world too most people also do play a role---they play at not playing a role---and sadly there are many who play a role and yet somehow manage to remain unaware that they are playing a role. If the roles people play ITRW often lie, the roles people play in the virtual world, on the other hand, cannot lie because such creations are imaginary and imagination unmasks human significance---quoting Ionesco, "standing at the frontier between reality and unreality, art connects our world to the world beyond." But again, just as in the real world, there are "artists", and there are "con-artists." So I will add this warning to Shakti_ma's rejoinder: USER BEWARE, in the virtual world as in the real world, EVERYTHING IS REAL OR NOT!
22 Sep 2002 @ 06:58 by jazzolog : Fearless Foibles
I like your analysis in this rejoinder, Francis. Surely we all feel baffled, disappointed, depressed even with the ongoing challenges of human relationship. For many people things are even more complicated on this "labor-saving" device. For one thing right now we're here instead of in the arms of a loved one. How much time do we spend here? Do we get another machine and a hub? Then at least Dana and I could chat at the same time we'd each be online. :-) Do the kids suffer?
I think you're right about sabotage artists being ITRW just as cleverly and insidiously as in here. I don't think I've ever held a job where there wasn't somebody whose whole life seemed to be involved in gossip, manipulation and control in the office, plant or building. I believe people gravitate toward these sharks out of fear that (s)he will turn of them next. Probably the thing to do here is what we do there: we concentrate on the job, stay focused on what we do best, make improvements---even when "suggested" by the bad guy(s)---and treat paranoia gently if possible. Paranoia responds well and even heals, I think, simply by shining the Light on it.
22 Sep 2002 @ 22:31 by simpleman : THE REAL WORLD????????
Personally, I don't like the phrase "in the real world". I suppose it is because the experiences in my life(my world) are different than the experiences in someone elses life(their world). For me to discount something or someone because it or they do not apply to my world, is like passing judgement on that something or that someone, which I try not to do in my world. I may not agree with something or someone, but I don't have the right, at least in my mind, to say, that doesn't apply "in the real world". Do they live in the fake world? Here at NCN we give a little bit of ourselves in an attempt to make the world a better place, to make ourselves better, not to be put down, or shoved aside, or humiliated for trying. It also seems to me that anything someone is capable of saying or doing here on the pages of NCN, they are capable of doing in their world, which is part of our world. As Richard mentions, gossip, manipulation, and control, they all exist in the virtual web just as much as anyplace else, they're just easier to hide in the virtual web. Sometimes I wonder if some members here in NCN have any feelings at all, or if they just don't care about anybody elses. Well, enough of my ranting, besides, in my world its time for some ZZZ's.
Uh? Gregg...I don't think that anyone was trying to "discount" anything or anyone here in the way they used the words "real world" nor was any attempt made at invalidating anyone's reality. Rather, I would suggest that the word "real" was intended in the current context as meaning nothing other than the "non-virtual" world (i.e. the world outside of the internet) and that no one was "passing jugement" on the value of anyone's world, be it virtual or otherwise.
I couldn't agree with you more, though, "here at NCN we [all] give a little bit of ourselves in an attempt to make the world a better place, to make ourselves better, not to be put down, or shoved aside, or humiliated for trying", this is in essence PRECISELY what my Log was about. Thanks for your input---and your concern.
23 Sep 2002 @ 13:56 by quidnovi : Shining the Light
I am not sure who are the "sharks" and the "bad guys" of which you are speaking, Richard, but I hope you'll take your own advice and find "your" own Light. Those who are at war with others are seldom at peace with themselves. One doesn't have to blow out another's candle to make one's shine bright.
A careless word may kindle strife.
A cruel word may wreck a life.
A timely word may level stress.
A loving word may heal and bless.
24 Sep 2002 @ 02:13 by jazzolog : Blessed Healing
I'm sure my candle will be glimmering much brighter at NCN, Francis, after the results are tabulated from the survey/feedback project planned here~~~ http://www.newciv.org/mem/persnewslog.php?did=10&vid=10&xmode=show_article&amode=standard&aoffset=0&artid=000010-000111&time=1032858317 As we can remember and reread, Scott and Alana are helping Ming coordinate the project and other changes. Errrr, Scott? Alana?
Other entries in Communities
1 Jul 2010 @ 12:14: Happy Birthday Canada
25 Oct 2008 @ 05:37: Politics, economy, culture and society of New Civilization
10 Apr 2008 @ 13:52: Survival
8 Apr 2008 @ 18:19: Freedom and Self-Selection
1 Mar 2008 @ 16:56: Whimsical Gardenings
30 Jan 2008 @ 18:06: A Bigger Flag to Fly
25 Nov 2007 @ 11:18: A Mournful Thanksgiving
8 Nov 2007 @ 01:49: The value of connections
12 Jul 2007 @ 14:58: Auroville.
5 Jun 2007 @ 20:31: Biocities.