Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-04-2013, 04:50 PM (This post was last modified: 15-04-2013 04:58 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Close-minded
A piece from Jacque Fresco's book Looking Forward, a fictional "a week in life of a 21st century couple"

Perhaps for the first time in human history, people are not bound tightly by the forms of a culture. In the past individuals who did not observe the mores of their particular culture were subjected to penalties that varied from disapproval to death. Scott's generation encourages diversity; they try to avoid getting into personal or social ruts.

In the nurseries children enjoy games that help develop complete flexibility in going from one system to another. They know that two plus two in many situations equals four. They do not want to be rigidly bound by this. They want to know the hidden assumptions that lie behind this ' 'self-evident" formula. Children enjoy finding ways in which two plus two is not equal to four. Much of life is not additive. If two mouthfuls of a food are pleasant, it does not follow that four mouthfuls will give twice as much pleasure. The pleasure may decrease even more with six mouthfuls. Twelve mouthfuls might be unpleasant. "I remember once discovering a life situation in which two plus two equaled zero," Scott says.

The free minds of the twenty-first century challenge everything that seems self-evident. They like to try on mentally different points of view. They search for their hidden assumptions and delight in bringing them to the surface. They are experts at changing their minds. "There are many people I especially like because they do not share my points of view," Hella says. "I enjoy talking with them when they vigorously defend a position that contradicts mine. I know I learn more when I find people with ideas that challenge mine."

So this is what a free mind of the 21st century looks like. That's me. A practitioner of chakra-opening exercises and meditations on a skeptic forum. And not a first forum too.
I can fundamentally oppose the market economy in the face of my professor and dean, but then I go on Facebook and tear down some Marxist's misrepresentation of the market economy. At one point I write about how the chakras work, then I go and oppose my dad on his belief in chemtrails and link skeptical websites.
For me it's a natural choice to seek out people who disagree. What if they have better reasons? What if my reasons are better and I can change their mind? What if there's something I missed? What can I do to broaden their worldview and show them possibilities they never thought of?
Can I pinpoint inconsistencies in their self-appointed skeptical thinking or even better, can I get them to see that as well, without antagonizing them? Can I control my emotional reactions to guide them gently into a new position, instead of threatening them into defense?

(OK, I know I shouldn't write this, it might open someone's wounds, hit a sensitive spot or something... Please don't take it 100% seriously, I am parodying myself here for a good part Dodgy )
How comes they're satisfied with that boring, predictable and logically flawed materialistic worldview? Just because it's a scientific fact, doesn't mean it's a representative sample of the universe. Most of the universe is wildly different and invisible. They must be wounded inside from the lifetime bloody battle with religion and woo, it killed all curiosity in them. Militant atheism is a real problem and this forum is full of traumatized veterans who'd need some therapy and counseling. Now the only curiosity they can feel is at the Nature journal cover or something harmless and nice, like memetics or Hubble telescope pics.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: