Rules and meanings

We talked about how if a person is never taught the reasons why a rule is in place, they will eventually get to a point where the person will reject the rules they are given because they have no meaning to base those rules on. It struck me as an interesting comparison to the difference between teaching language to a human, and to a parrot that mimics voices. A human learning a language will understand the meanings and grammar behind the words and phrases it learns, but a parrot just learns basic association, not the actual definitions of things, and thus never really understands what the words mean in the larger scheme of things. This is probably why some pet parrots will end up repeating seemingly nonsensical words over and over: they have no understanding of what the word is, outside of it is something that is said. Thoughts on how else this connects to sets of rules?

"Culture of Theft"

Okay, so in class on Tuesday we talked about how, when placed in a society with no legal framework for redistributing resources to make sure everyone can survive, theft becomes allowable when done to survive, and if the thief does not get caught. We also mentioned how this actually makes for a functional and survivable society, but that we today would consider this sort of behavior not only illegal by our laws, but also wrong, since we punish theft. However, one wonders what would change if we were to adopt such a "culture of theft" in today's world. If it became a matter of just not getting caught when stealing in order to survive, one wonders if there would be fewer people going hungry on the streets. In some ways, having a general rule of "just don't get caught" could be seen as a sort of skill-based social well-fare: if you're smart or talented enough to get it, it's yours, and you just won your survival for another couple of days. Any thoughts on how having this kind of culture in modern day would change things or not change them?

Monotheism

Yeah, this one's a day late. At least it's here.

Anyway, back to referencing Magic the Gathering. We talked in class a fair bit about the pros and cons of a monotheistic culture. The advantage is that it gives everyone a shared purpose and background, as well as giving the society a unifying force that can be used to direct a collective will, effectively making a more focused and driven culture. This is one of the more positive incarnations of White mana from Magic, which focuses on protection and order, and lives for an orderly society where everything is in accordance with the traditions and rules. Of course, you can also get the same problems that monotheism can bring: xenophobia to those who aren't of your god/culture, an easily moblized-to-war society, and a lack of new ideas for fear of upsetting the way things are.

Also, another good thing that monotheism brings to a society, other than unification, is a lower cost of temple-building: since you only have one deity to worship, you don't need the perhaps dozen or so from polytheism, so you can spend less resources on temples, and more on feeding your people.

Confucian Internet

Continuing the conversation from class about trying to make the internet less of a place for insulting others, I really do think that the best way to get to that point is not only to have etiquette taught as a more prominent part of society, but also to change the medium of communication online. I recall someone bringing up the idea of a sarcasm font, but other methods could be added in as well. Emoticons are a good start, but perhaps the idea of using a Skype-like program for communicating on forums could work. Record a video of yourself speaking your response, then post that. Using a video as ones way of speaking on the internet also has the advantage that you actually can see hand gestures and facial expressions, as well as people knowing who you are, without necessarily  knowing everything about you. Using your own face would negate the requirement of giving a name (though you still could), as well as make you more recognizable on and off the web. There can be a thousand John Smiths in the world, but once you can put a face on a particular one, it is more personal.

Also, maybe the first step is to get people to realize that even when you are posting stuff online with a mask of a screen-name or anonymity, it is still a part of who you are, and that fact matters, or at least should. And maybe that is all we would need to do: convince people that the Internet really is personal, and that it should be treated as such.