THE WORLD QUESTION CENTER 2006 — Page 8

THE WORLD QUESTION CENTER 2006 — Page 8: "The idea that ideas can be dangerous

Dangerous does not mean exciting or bold. It means likely to cause great harm. The most dangerous idea is the only dangerous idea: The idea that ideas can be dangerous.

We live in a world in which people are beheaded, imprisoned, demoted, and censured simply because they have opened their mouths, flapped their lips, and vibrated some air. Yes, those vibrations can make us feel sad or stupid or alienated. Tough shit. That's the price of admission to the marketplace of ideas. Hateful, blasphemous, prejudiced, vulgar, rude, or ignorant remarks are the music of a free society, and the relentless patter of idiots is how we know we're in one. When all the words in our public conversation are fair, good, and true, it's time to make a run for the fence."
==============
ANDY CLARK
School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences, Edinburgh University
...../... In my favorite recent study, experimenters manipulate cues so that the subject forms an unconscious goal, whose (unnoticed) frustration makes them lose confidence and perform worse at a subsequent task! The dangerous truth, it seems to me, is that these are not isolated little laboratory events. Instead, they reveal the massed woven fabric of our day-to-day existence. The underlying mechanisms at work impart an automatic drive towards the automation of all manner of choices and actions, and don't discriminate between the 'trivial' and the portentous.
------------------
SHERRY TURKLE
Psychologist, MIT; Author, Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet
The Darwin exhibit wants to convince and it wants to please. At the entrance to the exhibit is a turtle from the Galapagos Islands, a seminal object in the development of evolutionary theory. The turtle rests in its cage, utterly still. "They could have used a robot," comments my daughter. It was a shame to bring the turtle all this way and put it in a cage for a performance that draws so little on the turtle's "aliveness." I am startled by her comments, both solicitous of the imprisoned turtle because it is alive and unconcerned by its authenticity. The museum has been advertising these turtles as wonders, curiosities, marvels — among the plastic models of life at the museum, here is the life that Darwin saw. I begin to talk with others at the exhibit, parents and children. It is Thanksgiving weekend. The line is long, the crowd frozen in place. My question, "Do you care that the turtle is alive?" is welcome diversion. A ten year old girl would prefer a robot turtle because aliveness comes with aesthetic inconvenience: "It's water looks dirty. Gross." More usually, the votes for the robots echo my daughter's sentiment that in this setting, aliveness doesn't seem worth the trouble.
===============
DANIEL C. DENNETT
Philosopher; University Professor, Co-Director, Center for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University; Author, Darwin's Dangerous Idea
There aren't enough minds to house the population explosion of memes

Ideas can be dangerous. Darwin had one, for instance. We hold all sorts of inventors and other innovators responsible for assaying, in advance, the environmental impact of their creations, and since ideas can have huge environmental impacts, I see no reason to exempt us thinkers from the responsibility of quarantining any deadly ideas we may happen to come across. So if I found what I took to be such a dangerous idea, I would button my lip until I could find some way of preparing the ground for its safe expression. I expect that others who are replying to this year's Edge question have engaged in similar reflections and arrived at the same policy. If so, then some people may be pulling their punches with their replies. The really dangerous ideas they are keeping to themselves.

===============
CAROLYN PORCO
Planetary Scientist; Cassini Imaging Science Team Leader; Director CICLOPS, Boulder CO; Adjunct Professor, University of Colorado, University of Arizona

The Greatest Story Ever Told

The confrontation between science and formal religion will come to an end when the role played by science in the lives of all people is the same played by religion today.

And just what is that?

At the heart of every scientific inquiry is a deep spiritual quest — to grasp, to know, to feel connected through an understanding of the secrets of the natural world, to have a sense of one's part in the greater whole. It is this inchoate desire for connection to something greater and immortal, the need for elucidation of the meaning of the 'self', that motivates the religious to belief in a higher 'intelligence'. It is the allure of a bigger agency — outside the self but also involving, protecting, and celebrating the purpose of the self — that is the great attractor. Every culture has religion. It undoubtedly satisfies a manifest human need.

WMD Liars || +Let's Put Christ Back In CHRISTIAN

Grassroots Northshore - Editorials: "No good answers

Posted by Administrator (admin) on Dec 15 2005 at 9:55 PM
Editorials >>

My pre-teen son saw President Bush on the news today answering questions about the Iraq war. Later, he asked why, if there were no terrorists or weapons of mass destruction (at age 11 he knows these words) in Iraq before the war, we went to war.

After taking some time to think about this I said something like, 'Well, our intelligence agencies (I had to explain this a bit) thought that Iraq did have these things and convinced the President that Iraq was a danger to the United States. Apparently, they made a big mistake.'

He said, 'How could they make such a big mistake?'

Another pause from me. Before I could answer he had another question, 'If someone made a mistake like that, wouldn\'t the President want to know how it happened?'

A long pause. Finally, I could think of no answer other than what was really on my mind. I said, 'I don\'t know why the President doesn\'t seem to care about why he was given bad information. I know that if I was President I would be furious that I had sent young men and women to fight a war in a foreign country for false reasons. I\'m not sure why a President would not seem to care about this.'

Now it was his turn to pause. Finally he said, 'Is President Bush a bad man?'

A really long, uncomfortable pause as I played over all the reasons why a young man should not think of his country as run by dishonest, questionably-motivated, people. I said, 'You know, I didn\'t agree with all of the policies of Presidents Reagan or Bush Senior, but I thought they were decent, respectable men. I\'m not sure what to say about President Bush and his administration.'

We sat quietly for awhile and then changed the subject."

[[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]][[[[[[[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]][[[[[[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Married to Christmas
Posted by Administrator (admin) on Dec 15 2005 at 9:54 PM
Editorials >>

Used to be the only displays we were treated to around this time of the year were colored lights, blow-up snowmen, stars hung from everywhere and the occasional sprig of mistletoe sought out by the lovelorn. But over the past few years we can look forward to in your face displays of vitriolic Rad-Cons carrying out Christ’s message of love by threatening to sue stores and harass governments for using the phrase “happy holidays.”

It’s not that we have a lot to worry about, but we do. But what concerns these people during this “hap, happiest time of the year” is that their base isn’t being stirred up enough. So the only holiday spirit they seem to pour is the whine of “they (who ever the hell that is) are taking Christmas away from us.”

These champions of the so-called beleaguered Christian faith overlook that we have heads of televised mega-churches in $2,000 suits telling us that the government should “take out” certain world leaders, and we are not talking about for a movie and pie and coffee at Bakers Square. Hard to see where this conceal and carry crazy crowd has to worry about worldly protection. Nothing like using faith as a weapon rather than a shield.

What is laughable is for the most part this message is being carried in imperfect vessels such as Oxycotin freak Rush Limbaugh, Loofah Boy Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity who breaks that false witness thing many times.

What’s wrong with calling it a Christmas Tree in the State Capital rotunda or singing carols in the public school? First of all, we share this state with a lot Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists and maybe even a few Wicans and a pluristic host of others. And if you haven’t noticed – and no is blaming Conservative Republicans for being way observant – those people are growing more numerous, even with the Patriot Act.

And by the way, this minority – for now – pays a good share of the taxes for these rotundas and schools where the rad-cons want to have their Christmas pageants.

Then what about the idea of Christmas generosity? The highly non-partisan Miss Manners points out that the derided concept of being PC is really an exercise in manners. So how about having at least this time of the year?

Even if these rad-cons practiced real Christian piety, it still doesn’t buy them the privilege of shoving Merry Christmas down the collective throats. Talk about ruining a good idea.

These are the people who think they can make us feel like moral inferiors because they push for precepts that are barely visible or even non-existent in the Bible, people who want to post the Ten Commandments in front of every public building maybe because they forget what’s on them.

The point is here is a crowd that loves playing Scrooge the rest of the year lecturing us about keeping Christmas. I don’t have to go through the list of unchristian values they try to legislate every week.

You kind of wish the rest of the public would get wise to what this annual ritual of fake or ill-informed anguish is all about. The are being played for rubes, but quite likely they will eventually tell the bogus piety crowd to celebrate Christmas the way the rest of us do, in our homes, in our churches and in those times when we are around a group made up of Christian friends.

Used to be one of the things people who worried about the commercialization of Christmas would say was “put Christ back into Christmas.” In 21st century America those of us who espouse the Christian faith should be a little more aware of this, but especially for the hypocritical Rad-Cons it should really be “let’s put Christ back in Christian.”