Wed 03 Jul 1996 21:01

Saw Kevin before I came here- I have a friend, 
she, 
I want to talk to her, 
she's not very responsive-
I send her and email, and,
nothing

Hey, y'all we're all the same,
shout it scream it, what you feel.

Wed 03 Jul 1996 05:55

Chris is missed

BAck from end.
How can the individual use mass cmu to become more human, less animal?
Is there any reason to do this?
What is animal, what is human? Someone damn well better argue with me. It 
sucks that people don't even think enough of your ideas to argue about them.
What use of mass cmu promotes change in this way? What hinders?
What is the fully developed human, how does she, or does she use/ need mass 
cmu? Do you need mass cmu to be one? Do we need it to get there?

The effect of mass communication on the human experience
 
What is the future of mass communication in human experience

Mass communication is what makes us human, not animal. It was not the
fruit of the tree of knowledge that caused us to leave the garden of eden,
animal bliss. It was a clay tablet with symbols written on, a string of
beads representing, the beat of drums relaying messages in the forest, the
hieroglyphs on the temples, tepees and cave walls. Actually it was simply
that the human animal became able to communicate to herself and others her
past experiences and her hopes for the future.

Our ability to communicate gives 'us awareness of ourselves, of eachother,
of our past and of the possibilities of the future.' Or is it our ability
to reason? Whatever the core cause, the result is that the human is "life
being aware of itself". The awareness of ourself as a separate entity ...
etc. 

How does communication, the mass aspect, keep us from being animal? Once 
aware, we can never go back.

How does the development of the individual parallel the development of human 
civilization?

Where are we going if we can never go back? What part will mass cmu have?

Damned if I know, but let's play. Consider past advancements and their effects 
and hypothesize on future advancements.

Where does the individual fit? Will it only be the most developed
individual that realizes the greatest humanity? Or will our civilization
raise all individuals to a greater humanity? How dangerous is this? 

Consider evolution. In living things, evolution seems to avoid the rule
that everything tends toward increasing disorder with time. We have
organized into increasingly larger nations. "Global communities" exist.
Given an alien nation, the world federation in Star Treck is not unlikely. 

Is the only development we will see a more cohesive global community? What 
drives this community? Communication, and mostly mass communication. How 
is the world view of the individual changing because of this. How does the 
individual change.

Is it any better to be alive now than 9,000 years ago? What is the basis
of human experience? Is the aboriginal tribesman less human and more
animal than the parytying sorority sister? Very human beings can exist in
cultures without outside communication and very animal beings can exist in
cultures with the most technologically advanced communications. 

What is the most human human? is it desirable to be this way? It is inevitable 
inescapable unavoidable if you continue to ask these questions, so, where are 
you going?

People will be just as animal no matter the access to information they
have? But some people will be able to use this information, this
awareness, and become more human. 

How mass cmu can help us stay animal?

the result?

No longer any need to communicate.

Interim: increasing acceptance of individuals in different races,
cultures, sexes, preferences, capacities, as being human. Resulting in
global culture? The human homogeneous on the surface? Wearing blue jeans,
smoking camels, driving a car?  The human homogeous basically, but being
incredibly diverse inside? Even possible? 


I think I have enough to work with here.

love,
Colin