I am not persuaded. You, on the one hand, say that freedom has bred ego-driven destruction of human values, and at the same time provides your right to say it. And she says we must honor rights but do it in a way that does not sacrifice the incentive to help others."
Was the school experience so much better than the rest of his life abroad that everything was seen through the filter of transmitting 'approved' curricula? Had the currency of academic ascendance really created a perception of transcendent value?
If the debate (approved to happen within the ivory walls) gave a 'fair' listen to both sides, the argument could continue indefinitely. And guess what, the incentive was to validate the debate protocol by sustaining the argument for as long as possible. And each time this process was repeated, it reinforced the illusion of its architecture primacy. No matter that it made sense, it was fundable.
And what if the architecture was flawed or just limited? Now that was, to put it lightly, the awkward moment. By the time the elephant sitting on the coffee table could no longer be ignored, much of the good had to be carted out with the obsolete. Three steps forward, two back. Is that the best we can do?
To be fair, when they designed the model they were operating on a hunch. But, of course, that was nearly always the case. Objective view, it served well until ... it ran out of steam. Two salient facts: First, that science itself is far from complete if you look just beyond the backyard gate. And second, isolating either the observer or the observed, while convenient, has an incompleteness consequence.
Being so damn sure is pretty silly, big girls and boys need more compelling games. A humbler and wiser time coined the acronym, MAC (Machine Assisted Cognition). We never finish growing up, we just run out of gas? Science and technology alone are simply insufficient.
No comments:
Post a Comment