‘Media’ for McLuhan included essentially all tool use.

I would like to see a media theorist who takes it to the ultimate level: media as sense perception, the body and mind as media, etc

A couple of things in your excellent post made me think of McLuhan. First, he seemed quite into etymology: the roots of words are worth considering whenever assessing their meaning. And then he took the word ‘media’ and ran with it in a similar direction to yours but not quite: all media are ‘extensions of man’: they extend our natural faculties in a variety of ways: we think they are other than ourselves, because we have created them, but they are not; their very existence clouds and distorts the way we see the world. ‘Media’ for McLuhan included essentially all tool use. ‘Media’ can be divisive, or inclusive (and can change their nature). New and emerging media are difficult to perceive.

But I don’t remember reading of McLuhan joining ‘media’ and the growth medium of a culture… I haven’t read all his work but this strikes me as an excellent insight.

I suggest his book (or collection of related essays) entitled simply ‘Understanding Media’…

A human animal puts out approx. 1/20th of a horsepower of energy.

It takes a certain number of calories to make sure that a human will have the energy required to work or play.

Also the amount of Calories, B.T.U.`s or Joules, or kilowatts, ergs, etc. that is required for a human to have a sustainable abundant life, is figured to get our energy accounting system.

In essence Tim you have stumbled on in your talk exactly, in a very simple coherent way of saying, what we want to do.

Our whole system is based on that energy accounting system.
Why energy. ?
It is real. It gives a real thing to measure by.

The amount of energy it took to produce the food you are going to eat can be gotten at easily , so the real value , in energy of the food you are going to eat can be accounted, and then a good inventory of what people like and what more they want of something , can be gotten at.

This same formula works to get the amount of energy it takes to transform a raw material into a consumer product, such as say a lamp.
The amount of energy from the start of the process to the end would be what is debited from your energy debit card.
Thus the resources of energy are monitored of what it took to create that consumer product, which you would get for free as a right of citizenship.

This accounting system , using energy , instead of money can transform our society completely from a society that uses the unreal , abstract , concept of money which does not measure anything, except arguably debt , another abstract concept,
to a society that protects our world we are living in by protecting our resource base.
Our resource base of land , water , trees, everything, is where we derive our true wealth. These are true rich`s .
We crossed a point about 1913 when our system , because of extraneous energy or mechanical energy could be started.

That was realized shortly thereafter by the Technical Alliance, a precursor group to Technocracy. Then our complete study was published in 1934 , with instructions of how to construct that culture. It still makes perfect sense.

To survive we will probably go to a technocracy system at some point.

To survive that is in a life enhancing , and vitally human way.

Our prospects with the present system which values nothing , is bleak, and getting more bleak.
We are very lucky to be in this part of the world with our resource base.

The clock is ticking though as to changing into a better system.

We very desperately need to have a different operating system for North America. Technocracy offers what may be the only really viable alternative. Explore Technocracy. It is a real alternative.
We wrote the book on alternative. Ha.

That would be determined by what is in our resource base here.

We have a large enough resource base to have an abundant society.

We are in a window of opportunity as to be able to change now . That won`t last forever. We are looking for people to help us tell others and eventually enact our program before it is to late.

It’s interesting to see how beliefs can be shared without obligation, but it seems as necessary as beliefs are to thinking people, that line to cross is always lurking below.

I doubt beliefs can exist without that subtle pressure which will always motivate the espouser, either out of personal drive or altruistic sense, to view his/her belief as a changing force.

As an artist I can appreciate a culture where merit and contribution is rewarded beyond money. Another artist and I were discussing the predominant view that art is a talent, not necessarily a skill. So while people may admire you, they think what you do they should somehow get for free. Makes living as an artist very difficult.

I suppose beliefs not to be positive or negative really , it isn`t like they are bad or good. They have their place in human culture. Freedom of and from belief has to be the cornerstone of a good society.

If important societal choices that effect us all, are made thru that lens though , disaster can ensue.
We believe in our price system , our price system is self destructive, if we keep it , it will destroy us.
Why.?
To make money.? Not a good reason.

No sense that we would not have shared beliefs as a society. We would have the same shared experience of being here and being together.

J. Krishnamurti , one of my favorite philosophers said this ;
I don`t believe in anything I have to believe in.

Belief can be like a prison for people . A prison of thinking that is bequeathed to them from parents and society. Beliefs often are inculcated rather than taught.
Belief is used to trick people often to go and fight a war , or buy a useless product.

The best society is one where belief is not important , and people allow their fellow citizens whatever beliefs they care to have. The beliefs they have though are not inflicted on others .

Utility, common sense, practicality, live and let live, would be hallmarks of a technocratic society. Creativity in education would be a real key to a more successful culture.
When money is no longer used to make decisions as to education , then a good quality of education can be given. Money is considered the most important aspect of a good education now. Enough money is thought to be needed to fund a good education.
This theory of education is not working.
Money is thought to be needed to clean up the environment.
That theory is not working.
Money is thought to make people have a good life and be fulfilled, that theory is no longer working.
A big change is needed.
All these beliefs of how to solve problems are actually the major problem we face.
These beliefs in how to solve problems no longer work , and are not creative in the situation we are now in.
These beliefs that we cling to are going to destroy us , and are destroying us.

Dang, I dont think a society without any shared beliefs would have any good holidays … maybe National Subjectivity Day?

We ourselves have no assumption to power.

We don`t actually do the creating of the culture. We have our social proposal that we hope makes enough sense to people to be adopted. We expect a crises of survival in this system to precipitate things perhaps.

It could be a few months or a few years from now. It`s fun being a technocrat.
We are not like any other group. Ha.

We want to just allow for a practical society that allows humans to become what ever it is they want to be.

There’s your answer. That’s the crop you’re farming. It’s up to you to figure out what the implications of that may be.

The great beauty of being a human is to grapple with or accept some role , or conceptions in life.

Every human is in the same existential position of coming to grips with living.

We are here, we are human, we come to grips with what that means. We are all of us alone in that. Also together .

When I said that above Tim, I was referring to the technocracy system , not the price system, or system we have now.

Sorry , if it seemed that way.

We don`t mess with that. We accept that. We are not control freaks. This is a different approach. We are totally non-sectarian. We don`t farm people.

Who is “we”? Technocracy? All societies, all cultures function by domesticating humans to a greater or lesser extent.

Think about that question you ask.

I have thought about it! I asked the question!

We are not making people into anything but what they want to be.

Well what is it that people want to be? Riddle me that! What equals fulfillment within technocracy? What is the ideal human? There’s your answer to the kind of crop you’re growing!

Humans will always believe anything they care to believe. We don`t mess with that. We accept that. We are not control freaks. This is a different approach. We are totally non-sectarian.
We don`t farm people.

What kind of crop is your culture making you into. ? Think about that question you ask. We are not making people into anything but what they want to be. There is no accounting for belief.

What is it that you want then as a good culture of belief. ?

I don’t know! That may be why you’re confused. I am as well.

I have to assume that you are excited because you have an ax to grind as to a belief system you want incorporated.?

Huh? I don’t have any belief system I want incorporated. That’s your game, not mine!

This is the problem with believers that want to control things with belief.

Again: huh? Is that me? Am I a believer who wants to control things with belief? Maybe you’d enjoy listening to my two podcasts about going *beyond belief* and the importance of questioning thoroughly all beliefs!

http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/10/17/podcast-03-beyond-belief-pt-1/
http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006...d-belief-pt-2-the-power-of-questions/

That is why our system allows for any damn belief and does not care about belief , or changing human nature.

Our system absolutely cares about belief! As you have said elsewhere, it demands we believe in politics, in money, etc. And it is hell-bent on changing human nature so as to be a cog in that endless machine.

Why do you feel it is important to somehow make out that a system that is free and open and humanitarian is somehow diabolically against humans.?

There’s no such thing as “free and open and humanitarian” in an absolute sense. Just shades of grey depending who you ask. All I am saying is that all systems have flaws. None are perfect. All bend us towards the direction that allows them to perpetuate, rather than allows us to have the life we ought to as people.

People always trump systems.

You seem to want to blame people . Even people that do not deserve blame.

What people am I blaming? I think you are perhaps reading into or projecting onto something that I have not actually said.

What do you want .?

To keep looking, asking questions, examining all angles and above all striving to be human.

A fair minded society is not enough for you. ?

It would have to be fair in more than mind to be enough for me!

I think now that you are only twisting words.

What is it that you want then as a good culture of belief. ?

This last post of yours does not seem rational.

I have to assume that you are excited because you have an ax to grind as to a belief system you want incorporated.?
This is the problem with believers that want to control things with belief.
That is why our system allows for any damn belief and does not care about belief , or changing human nature.

Why do you feel it is important to somehow make out that a system that is free and open and humanitarian is somehow diabolically against humans.?

Is there anything coercive beyond your imagination of such that you in reality can glean from what I have said. ?

You seem to want to blame people . Even people that do not deserve blame. What do you want .? A fair minded society is not enough for you. ?

Tim , you have missed the entire point.

I would argue much the same about your take on what I’m saying.

The only culture which could be a good culture is a culture, where belief is left up to the individual, and not a societal brain wash concept.

So, in other words, your ideal culture BELIEVES that belief is left up to the individual. Therefore it tries to “farm” individuals who adhere to that belief as well. When individuals crop up who do not adhere to that viewpoint, they need to be corrected so that the system whereby “belief is left up to the individual” may be maintained. And if you are enforcing the belief that belief is left up to the individual, then your culture is just as coercive and flawed as anything else.

what kind of culture is devoted to beliefs .?

Every culture!

Only deadly cultures, like our own is, that constantly draw value judgements through the hoop jumping of pointless and comical beliefs.

Preposterous! No culture in the world lacks beliefs. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch.

As beliefs are known to not actually have a basis in reality , what kind of culture is devoted to beliefs .?

Only deadly cultures, like our own is, that constantly draw value judgements through the hoop jumping of pointless and comical beliefs.

Your comment implies a desire to control and convince , using something that is subjective. Beliefs are only subjective.
If looked at that way , there may be no reason to kill or control someone for them.

Each human culture (humanicultural system of growth and management) creates a particular type of individual. In other words, it yields a certain type of crop.

This could be a useful place to plug in some of Richard Dawkins ideas about memetics (even though I dislike him and the concept in many ways). I will have to find the quote again, but there was a thing I remember reading by him where he suggests that an English-speaking brain is going to be hardwired differently from a Chinese-speaking brain. Maybe hard-wired is not the right word here. But the fact that each language, culture and religion will yield a different type of mind and personality as its “crop” is I think an especially good one!

What kind of crop is your culture making you into?

A culture that looks at belief as something so not very important , and most often rather comical, would seem like a good culture to be a part of.

A culture without beliefs isn’t a culture at all.

A broad margin of thinking would seem like the best way to approach people, as people are so very different in belief and attitude.

A culture that looks at belief as something so not very important , and most often rather comical, would seem like a good culture to be a part of.

When belief turns deadly people suffer.

You’ve been reading McLuhan, presumably?…

No, I never have! What should I read by him that relates to this?

I’ve been meaning to check out Teilhard de Chardin and Doris Lessing for a while!

- both, for their optimism and their implicit understanding of our human naturalness.

On eugenics: sociology is still trying to distance itself from this, specifically Spencer in early sociology. He’s still mentioned in the beginning of every intro book, which then leads to a discussion of why they do not want to engage any biological ideas about humanness, and in the aggregate, which then leads into the dichotomy between scientific and activist sociology. The most often used intro text includes in all editions, a box, a highlighted model of why sociologists do this: Scientific sociology is an attempt to understand everything about human sociality, and this knowledge can then be used by bad people to do bad things, like eugenics. Therefore, a different perspective was birthed, in the forefront since the 60’s, as a sole focus on finding and rooting out the bad - people, institutions, etc.

Skip, I really do dig what you’re thinking about so carefully. I, of course, pondered the governing of our social structure by sociologists - an intentional humaniculture that at times has made sense to me. But, this simple box description of sociology has been driving me nuts and pissing me off for at least 10 years. Simplified again, I found that folks who gravitated towards the activist side were angry or sad about something(s) and found they could make money/support themselves/have a good and meaningful life trying to fix it. The scientific side - well, there’s not too many left, mostly older white guys who got funding in the 50’s and 60’s to learn math, computer power and to figure out what the hell was up with human social structure.

I have way too much to say about this, but my thoughts are coming together and it’s relevant here and I don’t want to be just a voyeur. So, sociology is basically a joke now. Postmodernist sociologist’s laid the foundation for “truthiness”, and the now favorite conversation ender/winner, “Well, that’s your opinion”, or related variants on the endlessness of subjectivity. Humaniculture by the sociology majority would be many things, scary really to me, yet the scary events of today may be leading to better days.

While writing this I refreshed and found another post by Tim on eugenics - oh no! Or not…?

So, yes to these from Tim:

“In that sense, humaniculture could be seen as a method of cultivating humans such that they perpetuate (propagate) particular institutions, practices, values, or ethnic groups.”
and
“‘Scientific humaniculture’ is rather close to what I have heretofore been calling ‘technocracy.’”

But, this is the one from Tim I’ve been focusing on because of neglect:

“Thus it may be that we are not ultimately the farmers of men we believe ourselves to be, but that Nature operates through us, meanwhile giving us the freedom to choose what we would like to grow.”

Line drawing, between us humans and everything else, has been and continues to be a fruitful and ridiculous continuous human activity - all aimed at figuring out what the hell we are - because we’re sceered - because we don’t really know.

I can also say that Technocracy is off the hook, in the sense that most cultures are not , and perhaps just about all cultures are not on our wavelength, of almost being in a way, the underpinning of the human potential movement.~!~

I have described it before as personal liberation theology, and also as the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. Both of those are poetic allusions , and we do not bill our selves like that of course.

We happily celebrate the fact that we are not in the business or process of trying to transform human nature. Only of allowing humans to do what they want , in a different system which changes some of the glaring and basic problems of this one.

This might sound odd on the surface since our system just about completely revamps human society , but our aim and point in doing so is not in a belief system sense , but to actually remove the control of belief systems which heretofore have controlled and directed us in nearly everything. We put belief where it belongs, interesting , but it should not be used to control people .

We are trying to make a medium of health , reality, freedom, protection of the world, not so much by going for a methodology of a practice or order of believing , as allowing individuals the maximum amount of freedom as long as others are not hurt. Science takes the place of beliefs in governing fairly , but beliefs can still run wild , and maybe even wilder for humans in society , as beliefs are of no threat, unless enforced on others which they would no longer be.

What could be better nurture than to know that you will not be subjected to anyone’s tyranny economic or otherwise.?

An atmosphere of creativity and peace has to be the very best human element to be in.

The time taken to nurture and understand .
Also a rough and tumble training for toughness and resourcefulness would be essential to understand and expand on the best potential of any human.

The most telling thing about the present culture is the utter lack of caring for young people, and what they face as they are growing now.

When things are measured in economic money rather than human potential of personal growth in understanding and contribution, some basic reality of having a good life is lost, or traded in for a very inferior substitute , that is not nourishing.