I think that it is a good topic because we need to be treated as unique individuals. I would say that there is an increasing tendency to treat and expect everyone to be the same and we are not. I know that I cannot function or perform if I am expected to behave in that way. I remember once being in a job where I was told that I needed to do exactly all the tasks which the person before me had done.It was as if I was meant to be a duplicate of the other person, as if nobody would notice that he had left and I had taken over. I did not stay in that job because I didn't feel valued as a unique person, and felt I was meant to behave almost like a robot.

I love you for saying that! That is exactly what I wish everyone would understand. In many years of trying to get people to understand that, you are the first person to do so.

Yes, everyone is supposed to do the job exactly as the person before and that mentally was not exceptional but in reality, Nazi Germany won the war because what you are talking about is Prussian military bureaucracy applied to citizens. Every aspect of a job is described in detail and the employee is to do no more nor less than the defined job description.

That policy goes with education for technology and merit hiring. The good side is education for technology and merit hiring, means the poor have a better chance of moving into the middle class. The downside is they can be totally unfit for the job because technological correctness does not mean having the character and personality fit for the job. And things get worse....

Children reared for such a technological society and prepared to follow not to lead. They are prepared to rely on authority, not to think for themselves. They are made to be amoral and impersonal because they are being prepared for a technological society that is impersonal and amoral.

That is what we defended our democracies against, but the system is extremely powerful as it crushes individual liberty and power and those in the seats of power have chosen for power, and we are shocked to have a president who is today's Hitler and has followers who follow his command to literally fight to the death of others and themselves, to keep him in office. We no longer have a sense of personal power, but we can believe we are very powerful when we follow a leader who is popular and powerful. Politics are now reactionary. We have what Germany had.

I think that some people are better at trying to be robots than others. At work, I can remember how so many people just used to be able to be so alike. The more people expect me to act like a mould the more chaotic I become.

Perhaps it comes down to how we are treated as children. I don't think that I was forced to conform that much. Even at school, I was considered as 'arty' and left to my own devices a lot. My close friends are mainly arts orientated and seem to have difficulty conforming and being robotic.

So, I am really in favour of the right to be a creative bohemian outsider. It will be interesting to see what other people on the site think of your thread and whether they struggle if they are not given enough scope to be unique.

Extra: I just looked under discussion and saw all your previous one. I smiled at the one about toilet paper, and I think my mum hoards toilet rolls.

I think that some people are better at trying to be robots than others. At work, I can remember how so many people just used to be able to be so alike. The more people expect me to act like a mould the more chaotic I become.

Perhaps it comes down to how we are treated as children. I don't think that I was forced to conform that much. Even at school, I was considered as 'arty' and left to my own devices a lot. My close friends are mainly arts orientated and seem to have difficulty conforming and being robotic.

So, I am really in favour of the right to be a creative bohemian outsider. It will be interesting to see what other people on the site think of your thread and whether they struggle if they are not given enough scope to be unique.

Extra: I just looked under discussion and saw all your previous one. I smiled at the one about toilet paper, and I think my mum hoards toilet rolls. — Jack Cummins

When my grandmother was a teacher, teachers thought it was their purpose to help children discover their own interests and talents. Learning math was about learning how to think logically, not learning how to have a high tech job. The focus was on independent thinking and that has been changed to "groupthink". The president the US had and his followers who wrongly thought they could stop the transfer of presidential power by use of force, are the result of a change in education and our social order. I am frantic as the changes have occurred without public awareness and knowledge of the ramifications of them. Our ignorance of what has happened makes us powerless.

This is more important than you may think. Taking responsibility for the goal of getting things done and being creative are essential for our sense of empowerment and satisfaction of doing a good job. The democratic model of management encourages this while obviously, the autocratic model does not. Under the autocratic model, we are to obey without questioning authority. Under autocracy having initiative can lead to being fired for being insubordinate. The autocratic model is efficient but not self-correcting and it can lead to very bad employee and management relationships that result in problems. The autocratic model becomes a family problem when employees treat their family as badly as they are treated at work. Autocratic workers are more apt to teach their children to obey than they are apt to teach them to lead, locking them into the lower class and abusive relationships.

Effectively we are like sea life that is trying to survive in a radically changing environment. The sea life has no way of knowing that things were not always this way. I expect more of humans but so far you are the only one on the planet who seems to be capable of knowing things were not always as they are and things are not as good as might want.

:lol: Bless you for the laugh about hoarding toilet paper! I wonder how many people will remember the horror of finding the shelves empty of toilet paper and cleaning supplies. When this last lockdown was announced, people panicked and bought up all the toilet paper again. :lol: I doubt that will go down in history books but for the people needing toilet paper it was a big deal.

When I did my degree independent thought was considered as the mark of excellence. However, in courses I have done more recently independent thinking is not about independence at all, but just backing up arguments with published opinion. I had a tutor told me, 'You might as well suggest that people fold up pieces of paper all day, unless you back it up with empirical evidence to show that what you are saying works.'

I think this probably goes back to the whole idea of post truth, which I mentioned in the discussion on relativism. Even though I have found some of the postmodern authors, such as Lacan and Baudrillard useful for helping me think through ideas, I believe that postmodernism has contributed to the erosion of individual expression and the importance of uniqueness.

When I did my degree independent thought was considered as the mark of excellence. However, in courses I have done more recently independent thinking is not about independence at all, but just backing up arguments with published opinion. I had a tutor told me, 'You might as well suggest that people fold up pieces of paper all day, unless you back it up with empirical evidence to show that what you are saying works.'

I think this probably goes back to the whole idea of post truth, which I mentioned in the discussion on relativism. Even though I have found some of the postmodern authors, such as Lacan and Baudrillard useful for helping me think through ideas, I believe that postmodernism has contributed to the erosion of individual expression and the importance of uniqueness. — Jack Cummins

Oh, I can not say the word that is on my mind. :zip: Ah, how about this- just like human beings can not psychoanalysis nations can also need psychoanalysis. My grandmother's generation would be outraged by that opinion. I understand the importance of empirical information but it had nothing to do with being independent thinkers until recently.

Eisenhower's farewell address (sometimes referred to as "Eisenhower's farewell address to the nation"[1]) was the final public speech of Dwight D. Eisenhower as the 34th President of the United States, delivered in a television broadcast on January 17, 1961. Perhaps best known for advocating that the nation guards against the potential influence of the military–industrial complex, a term he is credited with coining, the speech also expressed concerns about planning for the future and the dangers of massive spending, especially deficit spending, the prospect of the domination of science through Federal funding and, conversely, the domination of science-based public policy by what he called a "scientific-technological elite". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower%27s_farewell_address — wikipedia

What you have said destroys our individual liberty and power and that means we have fought two world wars for nothing. Millions of people died for nothing! Imagine the people of Athens or the founding fathers of the US, discrediting each other because they do not have empirical information. That is an insult to the speaker and the listener.

I studied public policy and administration at the University of Oregon. I know the research has flaws. By the time something is narrowed down enough to be the point of the research, the results of the research represent reality as well as a plastic-wrapped steak represents the animal it came from. There is a question of if the researcher should participate with the subjects being researched or be more like a computer collecting data and avoiding all interaction. When collecting that information it is important to have no facial and vocal reactions that may influence the person being questioned. But so many things can mess up the information gathering process and each method will get different information.

AND FACTS ARE NOT EQUAL TO MEANING. That is something that is much easier to understand in our later years. When we are young we are good at gathering facts. In our later years, our head is full of information and the neurons have grown and begin touching each other. That is to say we develop more complex thinking and a much better understanding of complex concepts. The experience is enlightenment, a much better understanding of meaning than we had in our younger years. Our reliance on technology instead of our elders is miss-placed faith. Biden will be a very different President than Bush Jr. was because as we age, if we have remained mentally active and intentionally pursued knowledge, we are as a fine wine and have much better judgment. Come on, a computer can not think like a human. Doesn't it make sense to turn to nature's best computer the well-programmed elder? In the not so distant past, children were taught to respect their elders, but society and education have turned the young against the elders, and we have some pretty serious social problems that technology can not fix.

"I believe that postmodernism has contributed to the erosion of individual expression and the importance of uniqueness." I so agree with you and that leads to the atrophy of civilizations and their death. Athens was aware of this problem. When it began expanding it became necessary to prepare people to govern the colonies. This flipped their education from developing human excellence to technological correctness, and soon, its problems became unmanageable and it became subject to Rome. Mythology warns us of the danger of the beast. Our reliance on technology is making the beast strong and I will repeat, we fought two world wars for nothing if this continues because if we destroy individual liberty and power, that leaves only the beast with power and authority and being a subject instead of a free man is a terrible thing.

The one concern which I have is about how computer technology is used, for good or bad. Obviously, it brings positives, mainly so much knowledge at the touch of the keyboard.

My own personal worry is that many aspects of social life will never reopen again. I got this worry after I spoke with someone in a public service and she hinted at the word 'if' the service is open in the future. So, I am worried that services such as libraries, community education centres may be closed down through the backdoor after the pandemic is over. I see many jobs advertised as being remote working. Of course, that is for now, but the pandemic may go on for years because we don't really know how effective the vaccine will be, so there is a danger that the need to socially distance in most situations will be enforced for an indefinite future.

I know that some people say if the future is one of remote working that it will be good for the environment. But most of the people saying this are based in a family unit and with comfortable homes. How is this going to be for people living alone in bedsits?

We have already seen prior to the pandemic that people are shopping more and more online. This is going to have escalated and is becoming the new norm. It cuts out the whole level of human interaction. The worst possibility would be if the need for others gets pathologised. We are not at that stage, but it would be the worst scenario for any emerging totalitarian society.I do fear that the way in which individuals' uniqueness is being undermined is a first move towards that chilly prospect. Of course, I hope that I am wrong in making the connections and that people wake up to the need for the value of individual and social connectedness as an inherent human values.

Interesting to contemplate the combination of technology and the pandemic. I think the effect of the pandemic will hit the young the worst because they are developing ideas of who they are and what life is all about and they coming into this and are growing up in isolation. Many of them have electronic devices and communicate with complete strangers and I suspect have very superficial relationships that are not like the school buddies children have had for 200 years. What if that is all a child knows for the early developmental years? Then add to this learning of life in a society that pushes the idea that computers and future robots are better than human beings? This is beginning to look like a science fiction on another planet.

Have you seen the TV series "Human's"?

Humans is a science fiction television series that debuted on Channel 4. Written by the British team Sam Vincent and Jonathan Brackley, based on the Swedish science fiction drama Real Humans, the series explores the themes of artificial intelligence and robotics, focusing on the social, cultural, and psychological impact of the invention of anthropomorphic robots called "synths". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humans_(TV_series) — Wikipedia

I know this is picky but I am not comfortable with the word "knowledge" being used the same as the word "information". Knowledge implies experience and information is factual but not experience. The Internet has a lot of information but the information is not equal to knowledge. It is only knowledge if it is experienced. What do you think? I think this is an important distinction if we are going to maintain the value of humans? What happens in our brains is unique to humans and it differs from computer information.
(last paragraph reworded for better clarity)

I am inclined to think that the information we find on computers is sometimes lacking something. However, I am not sure that everyone else would agree. I suppose that people might say that the what we get from books is just the same. I would say that the point where it becomes knowledge is about our relationship with it. Obviously, if people don't read their books fully it is static and not a lived reality too. I am inclined to think that the information on some sites, especially Wikipedia, can just be pulled out and used to back up an argument.

I would say that the main difference between information and knowledge is about the living experience it has for us. When I have spent time and energy searching for a book in a library or shop and spent time engaging with it, and reflecting on it, from my point of view that is when it becomes knowledge. It would be possible to interact with information on a computer in this way but I am not sure that people always do. I would say that it is possible for some of the ideas exchanged on this site to become knowledge, because we have much more of an interactive relationship, involving discussion with others. Certainly, when I am engaging with others on topics here it seems to me that I come away with more of an internalised sense of understanding than if I was just browsing the internet.

Extra: I am adding something to this after feeling angry in the middle of the night by yet another reply to something I wrote which simply challenged what I wrote by referring me to Wikipedia. I am so fed up with the way people on this forum use it as if the ultimate word. I almost feel tempted to write a thread question asking if people think philosophy discussions are redundant because Wikipedia has all the answers, but I think that I would be seen as the enemy. But I do believe this sums up how information is being manufactured in preference for knowledge.

:lol: That is hysterical :rofl: . Philosophical discussions are redundant because Wikipedia has all the answers. Requiring nothing of us right? Don't worry in another forum a gentleman refuses to accept the value of classical education or even to acknowledge a difference between New Math and practical math in learning reasoning. The difference being New Math is very abstract and we don't interact with it as we do with practical math.

I like your concept of the difference between knowledge and information being our relationship to it. Did you happen to watch a US show called Star Trek? People live on a spaceship and explore the universe. The show made it possible to consider many different human situations, including living in computer run societies. It was a TV series and also movies.

In one Star Trek movie, Spock dies and in a following one, he was brought back to life. Doc. asks Spock what it is like to be dead. Spock asks Doc if he was ever dead, and with shock that Spock would ask such a ridiculous question, Doc says "no", he has never experienced death. Then with a bit of irritation to Doc's ridiculous question, Spock says, then there is nothing for you to reference. In other words, without the experience it is not possible to understand the experience. This fact of life is quite irritating for people of color because White people do not experience life as they do and therefore lack motivation to change the reality. Or as a convict man once told me, "you may think shit tastes bad, but you don't know how bad until you eat it". The Quabala a Jewish tradition mentions God can know facts of lives but can not experience being human. I am sure that line of reasoning lead to edifying Jesus- a god experiencing human life.

There does not appear to be much interest in this discussion and I wonder why? We are turning our lives over to technology and creating a future very different from the past, and I thought people would want to discuss this? Knowing the difference between information and knowledge might play a role in how we create the future.

I think that the majority of people are so engrossed in technology that perhaps they have stopped asking questions about it. It seems that many just see the information age as wonderful and don't make a distinction between it and technology. Of course, it is possible that your thread might have got a different response if the title had been different. It could be that the focus on impersonalness was part of the discussion, but the wrong starting point for some of those who opened the thread.

I had science and technology confused, until I listened to a professor's explanation of the difference, and his explanation made perfect sense to me. It is like the difference between information and knowledge. Technology is information. The Egyptians had practical math and technology, but not science. The difference is knowing the triangle and how to use it for building and painting, but not the universal principle of triangles. Science is knowledge, understanding the universal laws, and Greek morality was built on concepts of universal truth, something that seems totally lacking for nihilistic people.

Technology leads to the Star Trek Borg, a spacecraft that gathers humanoids from all the different planets and plugs them into the spacecraft in such a way that they become part of the Borg and can not walk away and have a human life. The Star Trek caption was taken by the Borg and plugged in and the crew had to rescue him. Of course, that was a comment on what is happening to us. :lol: Being part of the Borg or having a job where every position is described in detail and everyone who does the job does it exactly the same as the person before. That is very impersonal and efficient.

Because of the other forum I do, I have concluded 'the idea that the good life depends on technology and nothing is better', is so pervasive, minds can't even question the human value versus the technological value. Replying to you, I am reminded of how Strek Trek addressed this theme over and over again.

Here is an explanation of the Borg and in the other forum there is no resistance to it because everyone is nihilistic and is choose technology instead of humanity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-01AQryzPs

we need to be treated as unique individuals — Jack Cummins

I love you for saying that! That is exactly what I wish everyone would understand. — Athena

Are you not both arguing for and treating everyone the same here?

My own feeling on this is that speaking of treating everyone as unique is about treating everyone as of equal worth, but not necessarily demanding that they are identical. You could say, for example, does that mean that at work everyone does the same tasks. I would say that it allows for some differences, according to ability and skills.

But it will be interesting to see if Athena thinks differently to this.

Yes. I'm just bemused by the thread. When I try to imagine an alternative to treating everyone the same in the common sense way of justice as blind, I can only come up withe notion of privilege - literally "private law", as in one law for the rich and another for the poor, for example. That systems of this sort abound in history and still at present is lamentable. Caste, race, aristocracy, the forms of inequality are legion, but once a society becomes bigger than a single village, personal relations cannot be the basis of interaction, and to the extent that it does remain the basis, it becomes another form of privilege - "it's not what you know, it's who you know" - nepotism. I assume neither of you are advocating for any of this, so what is it that you want?

I don't think that it is about privilege but about respecting individuality and difference. But I can see that this does involve debate. However, I will let Athena discuss further as she created the thread.

I like your questions and your comment. And I almost worship Jack because he is well-read and we agree on what is really important yet he manages to turn just about everything into a pleasant discussion. His questions are sincere, not antagonistic.

My thought is humans are very limited. We are lucky if we can remember the names of 600 people and know a few facts about them, like who their parents are and who their children are. By the time our numbers reach 6000, we are alone with strangers. At this point, prejudice plays a strong role in whom we are attracted to and whom we avoid. For example, when I was young and attractive, my alarm went off if passing a male but not if passing a female, because males could be a threat to me and females were unlikely to be a threat. Our prejudices serve the purpose of protecting us when we have overwhelmed our ability to know each other.

That is where rules of good manners become very important! I love my grandmother's 3 rules.
1. We respect everyone because we are respectful people. It doesn't matter who the other person is because how we behave is about who we are, not who the other person is.
2. We protect the dignity of others. Now that can be hard to do when the other is antagonistic and insulting. I have a hard time not reacting in a shameful way, so I try to avoid people who bring out the worst in me.
3. We do everything with integrity. This is right next to being honorable.

So while a lot of responsibility falls on us for a moral society, taking that responsibility is about having liberty and favoring individuality. There are two ways to have social order, culture, or authority over the people. Authority over the people, even if it is blind justice, destroys liberty, and that makes a moral culture very important. I think changes in public education have destroyed the culture we had in the US and this could end our liberty and democracy. We have put technology above the enlightenment goal of raising the human potential. I love technology, but I think loving people, and the variety of people, is more important. I wish we would give back to children their childhood, and as we did in the past, allow them to choose their own course after they have developed their unique identity, talents and skills, and judgment. Preparing them to be products for industry beginning with the first day they entire school, is horribly wrong!

There are two ways to have social order, culture, or authority over the people. Authority over the people, even if it is blind justice, destroys liberty, and that makes a moral culture very important. — Athena

Spoken like a true anarchist! My own position as an anarchist is that we already live in an anarchy, but the difficulty we always face is that there is nothing to prevent anyone from setting up a government and producing authorities. There ought to be a law against it, but ...

So while we are waiting for everyone to become moral and cooperate, impersonal justice including police and law courts seems like the best of governments rather than the worst - at least when they function as intended, that is 'blindly'.

Oh dear, I am sorry to disagree with but I do not see myself as an anarchist. However, I think I like the spirit of which you speak and we might call that the Spirit of America? The spirit of America is a mural in the US Capitol Building. She brandishes the Sword of Justice and so does the Lady of Justice who holds the sword and scales. They go with the Statue of Liberty who holds a book for literacy and a torch for enlightenment. Back in the day, one of the British philosophers argued in favor of our democracy and said those who have liberty have the most self-restraint. Only those who have high morals can have liberty and that is what makes education so important to a democracy.

Briefly, I am in favor of government. Why do you object to it? I like the idea that we debate things until there is agreement on the best reasoning, and from there, we have rule by reason. I think that group effort is very important to good governing. Without rules, how do we know how to play the game? :grin:

I also love what empowering women has done to our sciences and thinking and how that is being manifest in government. There is more and more talk of preventing the abuse of children. Living below the poverty level is abusive to children. Now we must be very careful here because too much government interference becomes a negative, but a civilized society would not be blind to abuse because that is a setup for future social problems. And just living in a society where people do not seem to care about the children, is abusive to the children. At least that is how things looked to me when I was a child living in constant insecurity.

don't think that it is about privilege but about respecting individuality and difference. But I can see that this does involve debate. However, I will let Athena discuss further as she created the thread. — Jack Cummins

It is interesting to me how some people around the world come up with the same ideas, but we are kind of clustered in groups that do have different points of view. You and I seem to share the same notions and obviously, there are not a lot of people jumping in here agreeing with us.

I think Unenlightened also shares the same values, but not exactly the same, and that makes for good conversation.

The US based Social Security on age not need, to protect the dignity of older people. Much later the US created the Older Americans Act, which entitled older people to social benefits. Of course, we have free education for children, and the states vary in how much assistance children get. Unfortunately, and the reason for this thread, is the US stopped transmitting its culture and left moral training to the church, and now it is divided and at war with itself. The US adopted the German models of bureaucracy and education, and THIS LEADS TO EXCESSIVE OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY AND IMPERSONALNESS. We fought two world wars against what we have become. And Jack, I am alarmed that you have experienced the same impersonalness on the job. That means more of the world is under the spell of this authoritarian, impersonal social order than I thought.

What is probably the most important factor is whether people question authority. I am thinking here about Milgram's famous psychology experiments on compliance. Would many people administer electric shocks if asked to do so by those in authority? If asked, with the question spelled outrightly, I am sure that many would say that they would not. However, it may be that 'the electric shocks' which they are asked to deliver are more subtle forms of inflicting pain and suffering to others. Based on my experience, I am not convinced that many people do question and look beyond the surface of policies and laws, or the status quo. I am sure that there are great variations but I think that whether people question authority is central. I don't know if education does tackle this because education is under the power of governance itself.

Education in the US did tackle the power issue. It is popular to say education has always been preparing the young to be products for industry, but that does not agree with the old books I have read. William James (1842-1910) was an education authority and he strongly disapproved of the German purpose of education because it did not encourage original thinking.

If we reflect upon the various ideals of education that are prevalent in the different countries, we see that what they all aim at is to organize capacities for conduct. This is most immediately obvious in Germany, where the explicitly avowed aim of the higher education is to turn the student into an instrument for advancing scientific discovery. The German universities are proud of the number of young specialist whom they turn out every year,- not necessarily men of any original force of intellect, but men so trained to research that when their professor gives them an historical or philosophical thesis to prepare, or a bit of laboratory work to do, with a general indication as to the best method, they can go off by themselves and use apparatus and consult sources in such a way as to grind out in the requisite number of months some little pepper-corn of new truth worthy of being added to the store of extant human information on that subject. Little else is recognized in Germany as a man's title to academic advancement than his ability thus to show himself an efficient instrument of research.

In England, it might seem at first sight as if the higher education of the universities aimed at the production of certain static types of character rather than at the development of what one may call this dynamic scientific efficiency. Professor Jowett, when asked what Oxford could do for its students, is said to have replied, "Oxford can teach an English gentleman how to be an English gentleman." But, if you ask what it means to "be' an English gentleman, the only reply is in terms of conduct and behavior. An English gentleman is a bundle of specific qualified reactions, a creature who for all the emergencies of life has his line of behavior distinctly marked out for him in advance. Here, as elsewhere, England expects every man to do his duty. — William James

He goes on to explain how to develop a child for original thinking. In the US vocational training became a strong part of education when we mobilized for war in 1917. The US used its schools to mobilize for war in the first and second world wars. That meant increasing the focus on American values. However, it was always the purpose of education in the US to Americanize the flood of immigrants who had no experience with democracy. Democracy demands knowledge of democracy and leadership. Liberty demands good moral judgment. The Greek and Roman classics and learning Latin and math were important. Math being a method of teaching logical thinking, along with diagramming sentences. William James thought it important for a child to verbalize the subject to be learned, and take action such as making a map or working in a garden plot.

Anyway, the answer to the question does education tackle the questioning of authority, depends on what country and its period in time. The major countries in the west have gone from liberal education to education for technology and use the German model. You know the model that lead to Hitler and Trump in the US, because the focus has shifted from independent thinking to reliance on authority. Right now there is a lot of fear of the US and growing demand for authority over the people. That change in education goes with the change in bureaucratic order. You know, being told you are to do the job exactly as the person before you did the job.

That takes us to the importance of being personal. When everything is run by policy everything becomes impersonal, then a government can do what the Nasis did because they are just following orders.

Your words reminded me of my own school years. I was a "creative bohemian outsider" but the pressure to conform in my school was so strong I frequently found it necessary to conceal my thoughts and to pretend to conform.
Then by great, good luck I found two friends who were just like me. The result was we became combative and fought back and largely succeeded.
Here is a definition I made at the time - "Bohemian" is an old-time word that refers to a Thinking, Principled Person that has a fanciful outlook on life and was born with too much imagination and inherits very artsy-fartsy genes and reads more books than is good for him and is frequently an artist or an actor or a writer and who looks at you with far-away eyes and who dotes on Beethoven and Bach and the Beatles and who goes his own way in the world and knows his own mind and does his own thing and who cares not a gnat’s ass for tradition or convention.

I remember someone saying to me, 'You are like some kind of artsy fartsy magic mushroom eater.'

Have you read 'The Outsider,' by Colin Wilson? It is one of my favourite books as it explores the whole way in which artists and other creative people see life from a different angle and have difficulty fitting into mainstream society.

I used to feel affiliation with the various subcultures ranging from the hippies, punk, goth etc. and I love music festivals. I think that we need a new subculture because all this seems retro nowadays. I think that there are ones around rap and someone told me about one called drill, but I am not that keen on rap.

Perhaps we need a new avant garde in art, literature, or even philosophy, such as a 'post' post modernism.

From discussion that I have had with some people I know, especially those I used to work with, it seems that many see unique expressions and being valued as an individual as something to be experienced in family life and personal life. In other words, go to work and put on a robotic self to get money in order to enjoy freedom outside of work. One of my friends recommended that I should see it that way, but I don't really feel able to split myself up in that way. If I try to act as a robot, I just seem to become a dysfunctional machine.

Personally, I am inclined to think that the more organisations push the arts out of the picture the more the value of the unique gets lost. Of course, I am in favour of science as a tool for critical analysis, but when this gets overblown, without any regard to the arts, I think that it all gets one sided. What we are beginning to see in many organisations is science and technology as the supreme champions with the arts squeezed into a little corner and I believe that this allows for dehumanization.

A possible solution might be to adjust your environment so that it includes a higher percentage of compatibles.

Like moving to live in today's equivalent of Haight Asbury or Greenwich village.

But don't you think that technology like telephones and computers has improved things notaby?

Witness what Athena and you and I are doing right this minute. And witness the Philosofy forum.

We have done it electronically.

I would say that to be a gentleman is possible today. I am so old that I actually Was once a gentleman. I know the ropes. Not an Englishman country gentleman, of course, which implies a rich landowner. But a gentleman never the less.

I really don't think that we would manage this time of social distancing at all if it was not for telephones and online interaction. My mother relies on 2 phone calls from me daily and doesn't use computers at all, but has television. I do feel that using this forum has helped me during the current time because I have read and written on it virtually every day for the last few months.

Of course, all this electronic communication has made life so different. I used to get really frustrated when I met friends and the conversation kept being interrupted by them responding to texts. Now, I am doing the same. My mother has almost grabbed my phone from my fingers on a couple of occasions when I have been in her home, tapping out my responses on my phone on this forum. So, it does mean that we can be in the presence of others but not truly present for them. In the shared house I am myself and others are often preparing food in the kitchen, each involved with our phones, but more or less locked into our own separate universes.

But I have always been in wonder at the way we can be taken into other realities electronically. As a child, I viewed records and cassettes as more or less a miracle, for the whole way in which sound can be imprinted into grooves. Even though I do like paper books, I do think that e-books are wonderful because it means that it is possible to carry around a whole library, which is so light, unlike the weight of heavy books.

So, generally I am in favour of electronic communication, because it opens up so many possibilities. I do still wish to have face to face, embodied communication, too, so it is probably about getting the right balance.

Well, you are certainly saying what I think needs to be said. And I think what

Ken Edwards — Ken Edwards

said is a good idea.

Of course, I developed my own community of people my age, but if it were not for the internet I would die from a lack of intellectual stimulation. In a way, having a sense of community may be easier for older people such as myself, because we have senior centers with activities that bring us together and people who attend these social functions are there to socialize. But when I lived in a small town, people kept their jobs and we at least recognized each other. In the city it seems people change their jobs often and there is always someone different at the store or at the bank. I am living with strangers and it is not the same as a small town. But the small towns are even less intellectually stimulating.

I think Ken Edwards, hit a nerve because neither the city nor the small town are Haight Asbury or Greenwich village. I don't think there are many places for artistic/intellectual types of people to actually have a community and we need each other to bounce ideas off of. We need a social life that is good with differences!

Thanks, Jack and Ken, I am enjoying imagining such a community and wondering where I might find just the right place for me.

I would say that the closest I have ever found to a creative arts based community was at university, especially Goldsmiths College, in New Cross. I know that Julian Clary, Brian Molko from the band Placebo, as well as Graham Coxon from Blur, studied there. College societies were often like little creative niches. After leaving college, I have found joining community education classes has been one way of finding like minded people.

But it is hard to find creative, intellectual communities. It probably varies in different countries and different parts within countries. In London, there are some areas which are more arty, especially Greenwich and Camden Town. I have spent a lot of my spare time in these areas but they are so busy that most of the time I never really got to know anyone on my travels, apart from regular interaction with staff in record and bookshops.

In some ways, I think that it is easier to find little arts based communities within towns and villages. I don't spend that much time in my home town of Bedford, but have found that in some ways it is easier to form more meaningful connections. I have often got to know some very interesting people in libraries. Probably my ideal is libraries with cafes because it allows for people sitting conversing about the books they are reading rather than sitting quietly at desks or using computers.

But, we will have to see what emerges when lockdowns ease eventually. Some things may not reopen and there will be changes. However, it could be that after all this time of social distancing, when people do get the chance to reconnect, that many will be looking for more meaningful and perhaps some creative, intellectual places will emerge for us in our various locations. Let us hope that happens.

An ability to discuss personal things impersonally is a good skill to have; because it sets a tone to discuss sensitive topics that need to be on the table more efficiency across more diverse groups of people. When communicating to many identities all in one setting, it is best to set a tone that this isn't about "you, I, this," and remove a sense of judgmental attitude and reduce prejudices/biases that may leak unnecessarily into topics with sensitive content.

BUT, to disregard identities that are impossible to ignore e.g., minorities, does multiple people a disservice, i.e., womanhood, race, etc.. because such identities are rooted in history, embedded by facts, and institutionalized to where such identities are impossible to separate from the persons themselves. There seems to be a disagreement on what constitutes a trivial and non-trivial identity, but I'd argue the latter is not able to be divorced from reality in the manner more idealistic identities are.

Trivial identities that can be ignored, hold no historic significance, and are highly personal/subjective and shouldn't even be institutionalized in the first place.

But yes, I think there is definitely a use for impersonality, and it can be used in a way to optimize quality in many environments - and even eliminate idealism (and false-fact telling) for the sake of "identity protection" - even when discussing non-trivial identities, but trivial identities have completely polluted/distorted the benefits we can extract from it's use.