OT: social consensus realities

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Excerpts from NON-CONSCIOUS PARTICIPATION IN SOCIAL CONSENSUS REALITIES by Ingo Swan There's a good chance I'll flub the message and the "text" of this particular essay -- the MESSAGE being whatever you can make out of the words; the TEXT being what is not put into words, but is being said anyway, the sort of read-between-the-lines thing. But if I flub, there are two good reasons: We all are "victims" of the consensus realities among which we live; and it is necessary to utilize consensus reality concepts and nomenclature of the consensus reality in order to talk about it. So, plop! One ends up back in it. * Everyone of course has some idea about what a consensus reality is, if only from their mindset perspectives. But the idea is usually vague, and even so most feel they are free of consensus reality influences. * Allowing for differences at the individual level, the general consensus about consensus realities seems to be that they involve the majority who have trouble thinking for themselves and thus ape or imitate each other. But we, ourselves, are not like that, and even if influenced by consensus realities, we can escape from them any time we want. After all, we are individuals with freedom of thought and choice, right? Well, not if the language you are using is the same as the one the consensus reality is using. For when you speak or read the language and words the consensus reality is using, you are actually participating in the consensus reality format. The usual result of a consensus reality formation is that what the consensus thinks is real takes on some kind of stability, often becoming immovable, enduring, habitual, unquestioned and cement-like -- and thus exhibiting various degrees of resistance to any kind of alteration or change. Even if things are not all that stable, what is more or less an illusion of it serves the purpose of making community possible and maintainable. The other option is what people refer to as "chaos." * Much can be said for and against consensus reality formations, usually without getting anywhere in the longer run of things. On the favorable side, it is obvious that consensus reality formation is THE basis for social coherency. But somewhat on the questionable side is that social consensus realities are utilized to beat up on the social consensus realities of others' groups -- often with the result that members of two consensus reality groupings, neither of which have ANY hold on real realities, can mess around with each other in rather deplorable ways.

Link



-- Shelia (Shelia@active-stream.com), August 12, 1999

Answers

Excerpts from NON-CONSCIOUS PARTICIPATION IN SOCIAL CONSENSUS REALITIES by Ingo Swan There's a good chance I'll flub the message and the "text" of this particular essay -- the MESSAGE being whatever you can make out of the words; the TEXT being what is not put into words, but is being said anyway, the sort of read-between-the-lines thing. But if I flub, there are two good reasons: We all are "victims" of the consensus realities among which we live; and it is necessary to utilize consensus reality concepts and nomenclature of the consensus reality in order to talk about it. So, plop! One ends up back in it. * Everyone of course has some idea about what a consensus reality is, if only from their mindset perspectives. But the idea is usually vague, and even so most feel they are free of consensus reality influences. * Allowing for differences at the individual level, the general consensus about consensus realities seems to be that they involve the majority who have trouble thinking for themselves and thus ape or imitate each other. But we, ourselves, are not like that, and even if influenced by consensus realities, we can escape from them any time we want. After all, we are individuals with freedom of thought and choice, right? Well, not if the language you are using is the same as the one the consensus reality is using. For when you speak or read the language and words the consensus reality is using, you are actually participating in the consensus reality format. The usual result of a consensus reality formation is that what the consensus thinks is real takes on some kind of stability, often becoming immovable, enduring, habitual, unquestioned and cement-like -- and thus exhibiting various degrees of resistance to any kind of alteration or change. Even if things are not all that stable, what is more or less an illusion of it serves the purpose of making community possible and maintainable. The other option is what people refer to as "chaos." * Much can be said for and against consensus reality formations, usually without getting anywhere in the longer run of things. On the favorable side, it is obvious that consensus reality formation is THE basis for social coherency. But somewhat on the questionable side is that social consensus realities are utilized to beat up on the social consensus realities of others' groups -- often with the result that members of two consensus reality groupings, neither of which have ANY hold on real realities, can mess around with each other in rather deplorable ways.

Link



-- Shelia (Shelia@active-stream.com), August 12, 1999.


Ok, that second version was an attempt to reformat again.... I swear I put the two returns--extra blank lines-- between the paragraphs.

-- Shelia (Shelia@active-stream.com), August 12, 1999.

Sheila - I believe that once you use html code in a message, for instance, by providing a hotlink, the entire message must be coded. That means using the carrot/p/carrot code between paragraphs. (I'm not sure I can type what I really mean - usually whatever you type between the carrots, if that is the name for the symbol, does not appear on the screen.) Simply inserting carrier returns will be ignored. Good luck and thanks for the post!

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), August 12, 1999.

The name has recently been changed in the HTML 4.0 standard....

They are no longer referred to as carrots but have been renamed to 'Brussel Sprouts'.............

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), August 12, 1999.


Say what???

-- Forrest Covington (theforrest@mindspring.com), August 12, 1999.


Thanks Craig, and that would be "BS" for short??

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), August 12, 1999.

Now let me get this straight...Consensus Reality,will this new buzzword help me fit into the Consensus Reality? Yikes!

-- citizen (lost@sea.com), August 12, 1999.

The point to this post was how we are all searching through data which is filtered through the consensus reality (i.e., Y2-OK); without appropriate data it is difficult to form any new consensus that will closely match the reality that will soon be upon us. Therefore we find ourselves gravitating to either one extreme or the other and encouraging others to do the same. We end up defending against the opposite team in an attempt to support our position. Outbreaks of needless verbal abuse and emotionalism are the result...which only creates static or as Ingo would say Noise on the Signal Line.

-- Shelia (Shelia@active-stream.com), August 12, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ