World according to Spin

I am so often amazed when I hear people speak so confidently about when and how and where and why someone should be or do something-even when they are speaking of other people, whose lives or circumstances they have little or no personal knowledge of.
I usually don't even have those set in stone types of answers or opinions for myself, not to mention for anyone else.

I can only assume they believe that everyone lives a life similar to theirs, or they would if they could, and so one solution or perception should fit all
(especially for those who are living "correctly" which can be translated to mean "as I do" in the case of the spinners).


You know-I can think of only one fact I hold to be universal and/or absolute- as in one size fits all- or as a yard stick by which I can measure any situation. And that is that it's wrong to be intentionally cruel.
Sometimes I wish I was more sure about things or had a "set spin" by which to measure everything and everybody-if only because it would make it much quicker and easier to come to a conclusion by dismissing other people or other possibilities-but I have to say my life has been more enriched by remaining open. And even when I suffer for it, which I certainly have (but only on occasion) usually the rewards in the main have been such that I can't bring myself to choose to live closed down or fenced in by any chosen "spin", just to avoid the rare mishap.
There are too many possibilities in life (people, places, lifestyles, ideas etc.) for me to choose just one "type" of anything, and reject all the others.

That's my experience. I don't know how or if anyone can apply any of that to their own, but I think it's a very interesting topic/concept. Thanks, Coberst.

Aidan

If you are as you say, you are perhaps the only person in the world who is. The big problem with spin-worlds is when we do not recognize it and thus cannot correct the irrational tendencies that result from our very limited perceiption of reality.

I suspect you are a capitalist, you are either a religious person or an agnostic or athiest, you are perhaps either pro-choice or pro-life, you are a liberal or a conservative, etc.

No, I know a lot of people like me- most of my friends and family as a matter of fact. They may not believe the same things I do, but that's the point, they allow me to believe what I believe and I allow them to believe what they believe. And I think the reason I am the way I am, is because they're the way they are (in that they're the same way-accepting of differences- and they were that way first and that's what I saw modeled and lived as an example).
My parents are very fundamentally religiously and politically conservative, but I can honestly say, I've never heard a cruel or judgemental word toward any race, religious group, or class of people come out of either of their mouths. That's not what their brand of Christianity taught them.
I'm much more liberal in my spiritual and political views-yet fundamentally- I appreciate that what they believe has made them who they are and I accept their right to their beliefs and the fact that it works well for them and they do the same for me. Our relationship and love for one another has nothing to do with having the same beliefs-if it did- it wouldn't exist because we don't have the same beliefs- except for the one that I stated-that none of us would be intentionally cruel to anyone.


I think Coberst, that if you only choose to see one reality, you will have a limited perception. But that is a choice, because everytime you walk out your door, you have the opportunity to see and experience different realities.
Due to the circumstances of my life, I've seen a lot of different realities. I married someone who was from a different racial group than me, from a different social class, from a totally different part of the country or type of background or family structure than I was. I've always worked with people who are also from different races, social backgrounds, and at this point different countries, who speak different languages and have ended up in a place that has given them totally different life experiences than I've had.
I've seen a lot of different realities, and it's been incredibly educational and enriching. I'd never choose to go back to just seeing and knowing my own little set of circumstances and calling that reality.


I am a capitalist (because that's the society I live in)-but I see value in socialism. I am a spiritual person, but I can allow that it might not make sense to others to be so. I am pro baby and adoption, but I understand a woman's right to choose. If I had to label myself, I'd say I'm liberal, but I can see the point in some aspects of conservatism.
The only thing I can't tolerate from a person is cruelty and judgment (because people don't have the right to judge what they don't know).
You don't always have to choose one or the other Coberst. You can make one choice for yourself, but allow that there is value in the choices others make. I think the only thing that stands in the way of that is fear and insecurity. If you have to convince yourself that your way is the only way or the best way-you're probably compensating for or trying to convince yourself of something.

You asked how we could change the tendency to have a narrow view and only be accepting of and comfortable with one's own spin. I'm telling you it can be done. Look outside your own world-even if it makes you uncomfortable at first, instead of giving into the tendency to stick with what's familiar and comfortable, try something new. I think it's much more interesting and makes life so much richer and more exciting on a day to day basis.
(I met a jockey the other day who gave me a good tip on a horse. I've never placed a bet in my life-but I'm going to come the middle of March- just to have another new experience, and maybe win something ).

aidan wrote-



That's about all you need babe.

Spendius- I'm not sure how to interpret what you posted. If you want me to know for sure what your intended meaning is, maybe you can elaborate further. (I know short posts seem to be what is aspired to, but I think they lead to unnecessary, (and in your case, somewhat intentional) confusion sometimes.

*And again, since we're on the subject and since you're the only person on this forum to whom I was ever intentionally cruel, (after being provoked, I might add) I apologize (just in case you didn't hear/read me the other twenty times I have done so) . Do you feel there's anything you may feel the need to apologize to me for? :wink: Just wondering....

But seriously, wouldn't it be wonderful if we could all forget our "spin" and just lay down our arms and shields and try to live without constantly jockeying for position and trying to get others to do it, see it, live it "our way"? Maybe someday...
I love this topic Coberst.

Aidan

Thank you.

You are doing exactly what one should do with a topic like this. These Internet forums are a great place to encounter new ideas and thus arouse the curiosity and the thinking. These forums are not a place to gain knowledge because one must pick carefully who's words should be studied in order to learn.

If a person's interest, curiosity, and caring is stimulated they can go to the books and read what the great minds have to say about a matter. It is by reading these great minds that we can learn and move beyond our present comprehension of reality.

I think that it is our responsibility to examine the great thinkers because it is our responsibility to pass onto future generations a world better, or at least as good as we received it.

But I, for one, do feel that I've gained knowledge from this forum, particularly from your posts, among others Coberst.
The topics you post have stimulated me to reread Freud (and read a biography of him, which I'd never done before) and take a closer look at Becker, among others.

Your post on language development inspired me to revisit Noam Chomsky-in a textbook I hadn't looked at in twenty years- to compare how his stuff held up to the new literature.

I agree that there can be as much to be gained from study as there is from experience. I think your topics provide interesting opportunities to express and gain information by both methods.

Aidan

Thanks again. You are being very kind. But you need not worry that your kind words will cause me to have a big head. I would say that for every kind word there are at least 35 unkind words.

Coberst, I guess I'm having comprehension problems today. It would never occur to me that you would become arrogant in any way...so I'm confused as to what you mean. I'm sorry you've been the recipient of unkind words-but I don't know what to tell you about that. That behavior seems to be sort of a favorite pasttime for some people.
Whatever- I just wanted to let you know I appreciate what you post on the forum- that's all.

Aidan

I was just feeling frustrated. I am disturbed by the negative attitude that seems so prevelant amoung young people. I am guessing here, but I suspect that 75% of forum members are under the age of 25 and they seem to feel that to be negative is to be cool. I wish them to be critical but they seem to be negative, which can destroy their ability to learn. We are all lost, I think, if this young generation fails to learn as they grow up.

Actually, it's my impression that there are only a few people who contribute regularly on this forum who are younger than thirty. It seems the majority of regular posters are either middle or retirement age. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

In terms of the younger generation- I wouldn't feel hopeless if I were you. I'm constantly amazed by what really good, kind people they are. I'm working with young adults right now- the students I have range in age from 21 to about 32 years of age. They've come from hellish backgrounds and they've messed up a bit, but they are striving to become something more and achieve something for the first time in their lives- and it's inspirational to watch. They are smart, funny, kind and polite. I enjoy every minute I spend with them.
As for the teens, again, I think they're portrayed more negatively than they deserved to be. Especially when you talk to them one on one- they're conflicted and confused, but again, striving and hoping for good things in their lives. They're not all about laziness and sloth and ignorance as they are portrayed in the media.
Speaking of spin- there you go- a perfect example. The youth of today are not as horrible as they are portrayed. If you take them one by one you'd be amazed by what a different picture you'd get.

I think you get a skewed view on the internet. People just abuse the anonymity to indulge the most negative aspects of their personalities. I don't know why-but it's just the way it is. Don't let it get you down.

Hey, I just had a great idea- you should be a literacy volunteer . You'd be awesome. Call your local highschool-they can always use volunteers-I used to use them in my classroom all the time and they were invaluable. That way you'd have a real, concrete impact. You could also call your local prison or library to find out about volunteering opportunities. There are never enough concerned volunteers to fulfill all the needs.

Aidan

I post on several forums and I think that you may be correct about the age of the members on this forum. My experience with forums are that most members are young.

I consider my service to my community can best be served by trying to convince people to "get a life--get an intellectual life". I am convinced that we badly need to raise the general level of intellectual sophistication in the world. If we do not do so we will destroy our species and possibly our planet.

We are children playing with matches while sitting in a pool of gasoline.

Coberst- I agree and disagree.

In terms of intellectual sophistication, maybe I have a skewed view, because the last US highschool I taught in had a very large population of incredibly high achieving, intellectually sophisticated students. I'm talking about tenth graders who would ride the bus over to the University to take courses in advanced physics and calculus because they'd already gone through all the courses that were offered in our highschool (which included pretty sophisticated courses in AP physics and calculus-which they'd already passed by the time they hit tenth grade!).

I don't know about you, but when I was in school, I can only think of one guy I knew who achieved to that level at such a young age-now there are many- enough to fill a school bus from certain highschools. So I don't think the opportunity for intellectual sophistication, or even the occurence of it has lessened.

Unfortunately, at the other end of the spectrum, needs are not being met and potential is not being realized. Instead of rising, the achievement of the mean, or average student has fallen off.. But I think it's a cultural shift that has brought this about, moreso than an academic or educational shift. I do think we need to address that issue more thoroughly. And maybe you're right-maybe if adults who are having children are encouraged to be self-learners, that attitude will filter down to their children.

But I guess the way I see it is that those who are bright enough (adults and children) to read and teach themselves philosophy or science or math will do so because they can't not do so, do you know what I'm saying. Learning is just something they naturally crave and have the inherent tools to pursue.

That's why I think starting at a more fundamental level with people who might be inspired to learn if they had the tools, who might be avoiding it because it's difficult or impossible (in their minds), might make the bigger change. That's just my opinion though.

But what you've said here:

brings up an interesting question. Remember the topic you posted about advances in technology getting too far ahead of our ability to apply and use them ethically? How do you think this issue applies to that one? Do you see an entirely positive correlation between increased intellectual sophistication and the well-being of our species and planet?

Aidan asks--"Do you see an entirely positive correlation between increased intellectual sophistication and the well-being of our species and planet?"

No, I see little correlation between technology and intellectual sophistication. I see our species as having an Arnold-like upper torso mounted on two spindle, vericous veined, weak legs. The upper torso representing the "man of science" and the lower representing "science of man". "Man of science" is our technical intellect whereas the lower is our moral intellect. I see our problem as a dangerous lack of moral comprehension that is falling behind our technology. To me intellectual sophistication is moral sophistication because if we do not do something to drastically correct this imbalance our WMDs will kill us.

Quite correct. One of the points Aidan has raised is that it is futile to make sweeping generalizations about "people" or "society." Such generalizations are necessarily built on exactly the kind of one-minded assumptions you are referring to. For example, if one proceeds from a universalist claim like



without even trying to qualify who this "we" is, then it is very easy to convince oneself that, for example,



in the absence of anything concrete on which to base this assumption. It may be a hunch you have, but trying to construct an entire worldview on a hunch while ignoring counterrexamples is, well, a picture-perfect example of what you're describing: starting with a preconceived prognosis and then retroactively willing it to be true. As you mentioned, this kind of approach leads only to a refusal (or inability) to recognize one's biases. Given the polemical, pessimistic nature of this particular prognosis, it is also very easy to convince oneself that people who disagree are simply blind to the truth. It's a classic case of Me-Against-The-World Syndrome: the more people disagree with me, the more I must be right.

As Aidan is implicitly suggesting, it is much more useful to take things on a case-by-case basis rather than issuing general (and generic) reprimands to "society." I can understand why the latter tactic is appealing--it can be done from the comfort of one's armchair and requires no intellectual work. But as you point out, those who refuse to leave their armchairs and put their worldviews to the test will never realize how much they've walled themselves up inside their "spin-worlds."

.

This is a great analogy, and I think as an illustration it's accurate. But even though in a perfect world there wouldn't be so much correlation between technology and intellectual sophistication, in our world as it is today there is.
So many of our intellectual sophisticates-ie those who are especially bright and educated and good at continuing to educate themselves beyond formal schooling -are drawn to the technological fields of study and professions, because that's where the rewards are, in terms of money and professional recognition and prestige. It's acting as a brain drain from other fields of endeavor-education being a prime example. Why would a very bright young person with the gifts or tools to do anything he or she wishes choose to enter a poorly paid, disrespected and increasingly difficult field of endeavor when there are so many other better rewarded options in other sectors?

I agree with Shapeless that if one was to look only at the trends, it would act to depress that person to the point of inaction simply by the overwhelming sense of futility he or she would feel. Personally, I can only feel inspired or hopeful when I look at situations on an individual basis. It might be impossible to reverse a tidal wave of ignorance, but it's not impossible to inspire one person to want to learn. And that will make a difference- to that person, and yeah-to the world.

And as promising as a medium as the internet is in terms of spreading messages and educating people Coberst-sadly, I think this is an example of a technology that has gotten way ahead of our moral and ethical sophistication. So I don't think it's your best bet in terms of reaching people who are looking to be inspired to self-teach/learn and continue their education independently (although I hope you continue to persevere here, because I would miss your posts, should you not. I'm just advocating for your own sense of purpose or accomplishment, you might see or get more productive feedback in another arena). And anyone on the internet who is acting as a teacher or motivator, or any other type of message-bearer, (except for those that appeal to some of the more base human instincts that the majority of people prefer to indulge privately) will probably not get the type of feed-back they need to inspire them with any kind of feeling of success to keep them going. You said it yourself, for every positive word you get, you hear thirty-five negatives. I think that's indicative of the difference in attitudes and behaviors that people on the internet feel entitled to engage in as opposed to the more restrictive mores of behavior we engage in when we have to be responsible to others in real life. It's much more difficult to be rude or negative to someone who's trying to help you realize your full potential when you have to look into a helpful face and a pair of encouraging eyes.

I understand how you feel. I don't like or comprehend very much of anything that goes on with large groups of people either-it's seems like whenever you have a mass of humanity these days, it most often seems to turn negative and somewhat scary- and it does make you wonder what the hell is going on. I'm somewhat younger than you Coberst, (I think ) and I find myself saying all the time "What the hell is going on??? I often feel perplexed and uncomprehending and sometimes it all feels very alien to me, but when I get back out into the real world and communicate and interact with individuals, I always feel more encouraged and somewhat relieved and I'm reminded that the world can be a good place with good people.

Shapless

Learning is an inductive process. I suspect that induction is just the human faculty that is most important in the distinction between our species and other primates.