Can you see the blinders?

[coberst]

Can you see the blinders?

Quickie from wiki: “Blinders, also known as blinkers or winkers, are a piece of horse tack that restricts the horse's vision to the rear and, in some cases, to the side. They usually are made of leather or plastic cups that are placed on either side of the eyes, either attached to a bridle or to an independent hood. Many racehorse trainers believe this keeps the horse focused on what is in front of him, encouraging him to pay attention to the race rather than other distractions, such as crowds.”

Our culture and its associated educational system prepare young people for the work place so that as they reach adulthood they can easily assimilate into a work force that will help to maximize production and consumption, i.e. they will help maximize GDP. Our educational system graduates young people with a “set of winkers” sturdily attached to the cultural tack that will restrict the individual’s intellectual vision to those personal and community activities that will best enhance national GDP.

As a result our citizens are not prepared to deal with the complexities that result from our ingeniously developed high tech culture.

“Tradition” is a word for a complete set of blinders. Tradition provides us with sets of assumptions that we pick up, not through a process of contemplation, but through a process of social osmosis. Of course our family and our immediate community provide more provincial assumptions.

Our Western tradition is primarily forged from a Judeo-Christian heritage. Our idea of the universal moral status of each and every person is equal because we are created “in the image of God”. That which makes us equal is our essential human characteristic of reason. “That is, we all stand equally under the same moral laws, and so have the same duties toward ourselves and others. As rational, all are due equal respect as moral agents.”

“But the fact is that what we come to regard as this ‘universal’, ‘formal’, ‘limiting’ principle of reason (i.e. the principle of universal moral personhood) is only one among the many possible principles, values, goods, and ends we might reasonably come to embrace. It just happens to be the foundational principle for our moral tradition. But to say that it is foundational for our tradition does not make it a formal principle of reason itself.

Quotes from Moral Imagination by Mark Johnson

[billl]

Is Mark Johnson connecting reason to morality? If so (I assume he is), then all who have access to "reason" are, at least in that sense, on an equal footing. Beyond "access", there might be various stages of development and capability (children, those who suffer brain injuries, prodigies, etc.), and so, for example, it's nothing new to think that an adult has greater moral responsibility than a child.

What I wonder is if Mark Johnson is suggesting that an imbalance (in moral responsibilities? or worth?) might be a "desired" or "unregrettable" feature in an alternative culture or tradition. If, perhaps, he even means that such an imbalance might actively be sought after or settled upon, in a quest for advantages that might exist in inequality. I'm (pretty) sure he would admit that any such tradition would likely involve a lot of blinder-wearing, not least on the part of those who are denied moral responsibility and/or worth. Reason could certainly be applied to a variety of scenarios and starting-points, but I think there is something special in the approach of "universalization", a sort of meta-perspective, that's seems to ultimately rely less on blinders than other, more restricted systems might.

Here, I guess I'm thinking along the lines of Kant's Categorical Imperative.

I admit I'm maybe missing Mark Johnson's point--it's a brief description of something that must be rather nuanced. There are still plenty of cases (in the U.S....) where people might be judged (socially, professionally, criminally, etc.) according to their perceived advantages or disadvantages regarding education and environment, maybe that could be connected to it somehow....

But if he's suggesting that some few people not be shy about turning their back on the potential of others, and marching off into some experimental culture of supermen or something, I'll have a few quibbles :) Just because a scientist or a logician can understand the full moral implications of some complicated prospect, doesn't seem to be sufficient reason for ignoring how such implications might be perceived and lived-through by moral beings with less 'affinity' for that particular form of reasoning. We're all still in the same club, at least enough not to go around disrespecting or devaluing each other, because we might all theoretically be vulnerable to such 'disadvantages', someday, someway, somehow.

When Nietszche wrote about this stuff, I always appreciated it when he laid stress on the "nobility" and generosity of the superman. I think that's where any 'burden' or difficulties would best be lain, if they need to be created at all. This is the other direction that my (perhaps blindered) mind also looks toward when considering your post, Coberst.

[coberst]

Bill

Johnson's book is an attempt to demonstrate that the new paradigm created by SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) makes it clear that moral values are not created from dogmatic moral theory that is absolute and forever. He uses his understanding of human cognition to point out that imagination is basic to reason and must be basic to moral understanding and moral action.

[billl]

OK, that's interesting, I think it's great how imagination is getting (potentially) more empowered these days, and becoming more and more a topic of discussion. I still think that there is an "absolute and forever" factor that plays a role in moral theorizing, however--namely, consensus reality. I think that science is definitely introducing more virtual forms of "reality", and even finding ways to radically alter "real" reality. Having a conversation in cyberspace like this is just scratching the surface, of course.

But, without destroying our memories, I think it would be hard to completely remove our sense of a shared reality, from which our imaginings (no matter how extensive or important they might become) emerge. And I really think that we'd be stepping into potentially unpleasant territory well before such a radical event as that were to take place.

Johnson is addressing an important point, and it's just getting more important with time. But just as important as reaching forward, I think, is holding on to what we've accomplished. I think part of "saving" ourselves (or, our selves) is going to involve the maintenance of some limiting reality, as a frame of reference.

In the realm of moral considerations, such a limiting reality might be the result of simply imagining a case in which we, ourselves, might someday be eclipsed by others possessing a more 'advanced' capacity to perceive, judge, and act upon moral issues. And, would they (those others) themselves consider such a case? What would it say about them if they didn't?

[coberst]

bill

Our great failing is that our adults think that they can store their intellect with their year book in the attic when their school daze are over. We must find a way to convince adults that their learning must really begin when their formal schooling is over.

[billl]

I think more needs to be done in that regard. However, I also think that the people who are shaping the future have to accept that humans are well-adapted to making families and tending to regular, habitual affairs. Motherhood, gardening, bus driver--I think that these sorts of things are admirable vocations, and if someone devoted themselves to something like that and felt no need for further education, that would be fine. There's plenty to learn about being in a family, having friends, what to do with the yard, etc. True, as children we have a great capacity for learning, and some people manage to carry that curiosity until the end of their days. But it's not been the only way to live a happy life.

But you are right 100% when it comes to a person's exposure to media, for example. So much of it encourages dumbing down and lowest common denominator type of thinking. People should definitely be encouraged to improve their reasoning and to learn more when they are enjoying fiction, or watching the news or history programs.

Anyhow, like you say, there has thus far been a great failing. As improvements are sought, however, I think we should keep in mind that not everyone has to be interested in learning in the academic or technical sense, and that we don't all need to become involved in problems that require super-astute reasoning ability. For many, such a situation would make "progress" an unwanted and unnecessary burden. The high-flying techies need to develop a constituency within their ranks for those who wish to show consideration for people who are less-inclined towards intellectual pursuits. For such people will, by their very nature, not be present at these important debates.

I think that the original posting had something to do with the development of culture that a certain portion of the human population is unprepared for, and that Mark Johnson was asking us to consider to what extent the unprepared people would have to be valued, morally. I've been putting forth reasons not to carry on such considerations (but I admit I might be missing some subtlety to Johnson's position), and I'm now suggesting that an entrance into a world of ever-increasing complexity might be undesirable to many, and that it would be immoral to enter upon such an endeavor without taking into account the harm it might do to such people, and without taking measures to prevent such harm. Perhaps (hopefully) Mark Johnson is a bit concerned about exploitation and manipulation (ie. something historically analogous to the First World's treatment of colonized people, etc.)...

But I am in total agreement with Mark Johnson, as far as he might be suggesting that academia and mass media have (in the U.S. at least) been encouraged (largely by corporate behavior, I think) to make learning and independent thought less and less a strength of the adult population. We are already living in a world where too many are too easily manipulated by advertising, peer pressure, sophistry, and all sorts of other propaganda.

[coberst]

Bill

The question is "how much longer can our species survive with such a low level of intellectual sophistication?" We are great at developing a technology that places great power into the hands of common people with little sophistication.

[billl]

I think that we need to spend time and effort on making training wheels available for this tech. And leave room for those who don't want to use it. And spend time on tech that prevents the sufficiently sophisticated users from doing harm to the environment and other people around them. And if the danger is to come from having unsophisticated people using the tech, I think their unsophistication leaves room for us to limit their access to it.

A sort of paternalism might emerge in this sort of situation, but I'm not sure if that'd be an accurate portrayal of the situation. The bold enthusiasts for the latest possibilities in tech culture might often be guilty of greed or powerlust, as often as they'd be fatherly forerunners of a more enlightened age. But the ones who retain a (I believe logically necessary) concern for other people, including those of less technological "sophistication", should be able to marry a concern for the practical application of advances (safe, customizable interfaces, etc.) with their research into new forms of technology.

Right now, there are societies of people who have decided that they don't want gun ownership to be a standard feature for average citizens (and there are rules regarding guns in most other places), and they also have chosen to place limits and safety restrictions on power plants, automobiles, GPS devices, etc.

If it's really going to be too much of a challenge to safeguard ourselves, then maybe we're doomed either way, whether people are ready to operate the tech or not. It makes more sense to me to think about how to make a more "moral" (ie. respectful of others) society, than it does to try and teach everyone how to wield dangerous tech well enough to defend themselves from each other, or navigate a suddenly less hospitable world. It is precisely the increasing likelihood of this scenario that's brought me to this position.

Thanks for bringing this, and other interesting topics, up for discussion. These are 'exciting' times, and there's plenty to be worried about. An interesting theme that keeps coming back to me in various recent discussions (of my choosing, I admit) is the idea of technology itself somehow driving the debate. And I wonder if the possible development of any sort of A.I. might end up being a continuation of this trend. Maybe it's time to give people a seat at the table, too (and not just the visionary technology people who are already there).

In my opinion, advances in technology should be for the purpose of giving people more opportunities, and maybe freeing them from drudgery. The advances should not be an occasion for pressuring people to accommodate and adapt to technology's demands--especially as the advances are happening at such an accelerated pace, honestly understandable by a relative handful of individuals.

[coberst]

bill

Marshall McLuhan “The High Priest of Pop-Culture” in the mid twentieth century was the first to announce the existence of the ‘global village’ and to express that “we become what we behold”. McLuhan sought to understand and express the effects of technology on modern culture.

McLuhan was particularly interested in “Technology as Extension of the Human Body”. An extension of our body and/or of our senses occurs when we extend the reach of our embodied mind beyond our natural limited means. As examples: the shovel is an extension of our hands and feet as we dig a trench, the spade is like our cupped hand as we remove dirt from a hole, a microscopy or telescope extends our vision to study smaller or larger dimensions.

Going further in this vein the auto is an extension of the foot. However there are negative results from all such extensions. “Amputations” represent the unintended and un-reflected counterparts of such extensions.

“Every extension of mankind, especially technological extensions, has the effect of amputating or modifying some other extension… The extension of a technology like the automobile "amputates" the need for a highly developed walking culture, which in turn causes cities and countries to develop in different ways. The telephone extends the voice, but also amputates the art of penmanship gained through regular correspondence. These are a few examples, and almost everything we can think of is subject to similar observations…We have become people who regularly praise all extensions, and minimize all amputations. McLuhan believed that we do so at our own peril.” Quotations from “Understanding Media” by Marshall McLuhan

McLuhan was concerned about man's willful blindness to the downside of technology. In his later years McLuhan developed a scientific basis for his thought around what he termed the tetrad. The tetrad is four laws, framed as questions, which give us a useful instrument for studying our culture.
What is does the technology extend?
What does it make obsolete?
What is gained?
"What does the technology reverse into if it is over-extended?"

McLuhan’s gravestone carries the inscription “The Truth Shall Make You Free." We do not have to like or even agree with everything that McLuhan said. However, we would be wise to remember that his was a life of great insight and it was dedicated to showing wo/man the truth about the world we live in, and especially the hidden consequences of the technologies we develop.

In the book “The Birth and Death of Meaning” Earnest Becker provides us with a synthesis of the knowledge about the extensions of the human body that McLuhan spoke of and science certified through research.

Becker informs us that the “self” is in the body but is not part of the body; it is symbolic and is not physical. “The body is an object in the field of the self: it is one of the things we inhabit…A person literally projects or throws himself out of the body, and anywhere at all…A man’s “Me” is the sum total of all that he can call his, not only his body and his mind, but his clothes and house, his wife and children, [etc].” The human can be symbolically located wherever s/he thinks part of her really exists or belongs.

It is said that the more insecure we are the more important these symbolic extensions of the self become. When we invest undue value onto such matters as desecrating a piece of cloth that symbolizes our nation is an indication that our self-valuation has declined and this overvaluation of a symbol can help compensate that loss. We get a good feeling about own value by obtaining value in the pseudopod as the flag.

In conceiving our self as a container that overflows with various and important extensions that our technology provides us we might appear like a giant amoeba spread out over the land with a center in the self. These pseudopods are not just patriotic symbols and important things but include silly things such as a car or a neck tie. We can experience nervous breakdowns when others do not respect our particular objects of reverence.

Do you think of yourself as being extended as a result of using technology? Do you think such extensions are a representation of reality? Do you think that consciousness of such claims to be useful?


The media is pervasive in our (USA) society; it is the vehicle for all forms of spin, propaganda, and framing. The only defense that we have against this ‘ubiquitous mental massaging’ onslaught is for us to develop an understanding of it and how to control the deluge.

Under Marshall McLuhan’s analysis media is a very broad category. Media includes such things as automobile, telephone, speech, and language along side what we normally speak of as media such as newspaper, television, and radio. All of these are technological artifacts that mediate human communication. The form of these communication artifacts alters our perception, knowledge, and understanding of our world. McLuhan’s argument is that media has its own grammar and structure, which we can learn and thereby develop our defenses against these mind altering drugs.

[billl]

McCluhan's right, and I've had him in mind as I've been thinking here, in terms of technology's affect on individuals (the changing ratio of sense perceptions, the affect on thought patterns/habits, and the potential for victimization at the hands of more fluent individuals/entities) and culture as a whole. I think education is an important remedy to these issues, but that it is also important for some agency (I imagine it would be government, heavily fortified with transparency and effective checks and balances) to protect individuals from how technology might impact them in negative or out-of-control and dehumanizing ways. Part of it is education, but part of it is a general principle that there will always be cases in which the less-savvy might fall victim to the more-savvy, and that such situations are regrettable and a terrible precedent for any future we might want to live in.

There are grandparents in this world, and there are people who care more about sitting and talking with friends, gardening, etc. Mobilizing the world's population to become fluent in the most up-to-date technology and its associated trickery isn't going to work well enough for everyone for all time, and even if it did, it would be a sad stage in human "evolution". We should have better things to do than leverage technology so as to attack, steal, defend, and hide more effectively, while living in fear of those even more obsessed with technology. What we need is education AND commitment by the best "stewards" of technology to respect human values and provide a way in which humans can lead human lives, rather than merely serve and participate in the evolution of some "superior" technological infrastructure. I think that we have a right to direct that evolution, at least until there arises some A.I.--and in that case, I think we should still have a seat at the table, and should keep our commitment to the sort of human rights that, I think, Mark Johnson's arguments did little to invalidate.

In an atmosphere of respect and tolerance, I think there would still be co-operation and participation in a technologically-oriented evolution, and that, if anything, such an evolution would be more stable and fulfilling. However, if a precedent is established in which an equal moral concern for less-technologically adept individuals becomes unnecessary, then I think the survivors of such a catastrophe have even worse waiting for them over the horizon.

I'm in agreement with McCluhan (and you, I think), but I think it adds something to the discussion (especially in the light of the original post) to mention that society can do better than tell every person, of every age and in every life situation, that you're more or less on your own in developing your defenses against an everchanging onslaught. And I don't think it would be right to blame a moral, well-meaning individual for any suffering that might befall them at the hands of the more technologically adept/integrated. It is the perpetrators of such inconsideration, negligence, or full-on criminality that would have done the wrong.

I think that success in dealing with this problem will be measured in an individual's ability to disengage from the issue without fear of harm. Total disengagement might be impossible, and different levels of engagement might appeal to different individuals, and people might even change their desired level of engagement over time--but I think this basic idea is the way to go, when we're trying to figure out what to do, and who should be doing what.