For Don...:

[Mitch Cronin]

Hullo Don...

You asked: "If an airframe had an overspeed and, whether it was reported either in the logbook or in an incident report, wouldn't you want to know about it just to check the airplane?"

I surely would. ...but there was another question laying somewhere inside that one that I've missed... help me out here? Whaddya gettin' at?

[Mitch Cronin]

I've just read through that essay you provided a link to, by Robert A. Nisbet, "THE IDEA OF PROGRESS"..

Krikey! That guy writes just like you!

Interesting reading though, once the plow is done, cleaned off, and put away.

As a fairly uneducated sod, I had no idea there was such a long standing discussion of the topic through time, from so many great thinkers....

... a couple of comments from a simple mind:

The meaning of progress seems to be a rather subjective thing... an assessment of whether or not we're progressing is going to depend on what it is that the person doing the assessing feels our goals ought to be.

For instance: Technologically we've seen much progress over the last half century or so... but I reckon, as a species, we haven't progressed much at all... The only progress I can point to in that regard that I feel has had any meaning is that there may be a greater acceptance and tolerance of differences in people. ie. race, culture, beliefs... And then I can only guess that our acceptance and tolerance have improved, in spite of all the headlines, because it seems to have done so from what little I observe. The continuing wars, intolerance, and hatred that exist may only be from an increasingly smaller percentage of our population, as we expand past the 6 billion mark?

I think it's a natural thing that as we've begun to move about so freely, thanks to this field of aviation, through exposure and experience we begin to learn to get along better...

However, I'm fairly sure that if you were to ask Bill Gates if we've progressed, as a species, he'd be full of thoughts and ideas about his views of our huge progression... I think it's likely that he'd be getting confused with technological progression, but again, that's just my perspective, and my guess.

You alluded to a need for progress, in the other thread, to improve our globe: " At present, the available science demonstrates that our physical presence is now being felt in the larger ecosystem. Given early understandings regarding the fluttering of butterfly's wings in Japan causing hurricanes in the Caribbean we might start taking this stuff seriously."

I'd call that a bullseye! Nisbet speaks of another kind of "progress" coming from science that many of us might see as being a rather undesirable thing, depending on religious beliefs etc... but here, science has indeed progressed to at least the point where they can tell us where, how, and how badly we're trashing this planet. Sadly, so far we haven't been listening! The wallets that run this world all have their own goals, and thus, their own ideas of progress. Until things like wicked weather and flooded cities start ripping at their roots and threatening to collapse their dreams, they'll continue to ignore the science.

I could easily get carried away here... so I think I'll shut up... I'm eager to hear what it was you meant with your metaphor above though... if it was a metaphor?

Cheers,

Mitch

[Don Hudson]

Hi Mitch;

No it wasn't a metaphor, it was just a question about flight data that's all.

On The Idea of Progress...

Such notions are not "received" notions. In other words, we don't get them from "unknown" sources or any special deity. They don't just magically emerge. We think them up ourselves for various reasons, but mostly for the base reason of controlling other groups' behaviours, usually through the obvious means, fear, insecurity, lack of belonging to a "special group" and sometimes anger or envy, although the latter two don't last while the other emotions can.

A little cleverness in manipulating the circumstances which cause these emotions goes a long way in controlling either individual or collective behaviours and of course those circumstances (and attendant cleverness ) cover the entire range of human behaviour from raising children to governing a nation. There's not much different in the approach except for varying degrees of sophistication. The only requirements are a little cleverness on one side and laziness or credulity on the other. The only time such control tactics don't work is when people stop a moment and begin asking questions.

"Progress" is one such controlling technique. Who among us doesn't want a little "progress"?.... While we might properly call the achievement of a breakthrough such as a vaccine, great medical "progress", we would hardly describe the growth of a tumour as "progressing nicely".

In other words, the notion is socially "located" as are almost all notions which are publicly expressed, they being expressed for specific, albeit probably obscure (ie, lost in history ) reasons, (seems obvious I know, but taking that into account, knowing the assumptions, unpacking the idea, are all part of what a good crap detector does if nothing else ).

So the notion of Progress takes on different meanings which causes different behaviours for different groups. Progress certainly means something different to the patient and the oncologist for example, or for either General in a war between two groups, or...for those conducting the "WOT"...the War On Terror...

In other words, knowing what is meant by "progress" takes the discourse up a few notches.

Funny though...the moment one asks another with whom one is in conversation, to define what is meant by "...", the risk of giving offence heightens. In fact, pointing out assumptions or going "deeper" into the question usually gives offence unless the rules of ordinary discourse are suspended as they delightfully are here. This offence is probably because these notions ARE assumed by most to be "received" and are somehow "obvious" in their meaning. They're not of course but if one person (or group) knows that fact and knows the subtleties and the other does not, guess who's controlling the dialogue and thus the behaviours...

This simple first-year university fact (it should be known and taught in high school, but try and get courses which do this introduced these days...if it ain't got to do with business, accountability, a job, it ain't gonna happen in high school ), is at the heart of every government's need and plan to control "the rabble", especially in a democracy where the usual totalitarian methods of social control can't be overtly employed. Most of the time such behaviours are innocent, harmless, unimportant and without consequence. We experience them every day with little significant result but restrictions on true freedom take many forms, and in so-called democratic countries, almost all of those restrictions are voluntary, controlled through language and these very principles.

Anyone who's interested by this can now look at the notion of "progress" in an entirely different way. Reading about the Invasion of Iraq and see who's using the notion to justify and continue unique interests takes on a new meaning with new understanding.

Opinions and interpretations on the war and many other issues may abound and the situation may appear complicated because there are a lot of commentators squawking from the crowded spaces on the available rocks, but the principles are simple, effective, and, most important to comprehend, easy to sleepwalk through especially if one has one's daily pablum of television, consumer goods and sports. Comfortably numb...

Anyone really interested in the principles of control might Google the word, "Panopticon".

Whodathunkit? A simple idea, progress, and all that control?

[Mitch Cronin]

.... Ok, my fingers are heading for the keys that will peck out words like "Thanks for that considered and thought provoking response" or something like that, but inside my head a voice is screaming at me: "You idiot how're you gonna sleep now with all this on your mind!?"

In any case, I'm going to have to re-read that... I don't think I've ever considered the idea of using notions of progress as a means of control... I suspect that somewhere in my forgotten youth, I somehow took on the belief that the meaning of progress had to be defined by the individual contemplating it. To see it any other way is, to me, a completely foreign idea. ...? ... I wonder if a total inexposure to church would have anything to do with that effect?

...more thought required...

[Don Hudson]

Mitch;

The only reason that this seems a bit foreign is because we never think of language as other than a tool for "communication".

But we have to think of what is being communicated, and more importantly, what it is that is being interpreted by the receiver(s ).

The easiest example I can think of is watching say, a melodrama, our equivalent to "As The World Turns" or something like that but in Japanese or some other language which is foreign to one.

Lots of things are said. Brows are furrowed, frowns are made, hands are waved, yelling is done, people leave, people enter, things go quiet, things get raucous etc etc. And it is all a complete and utter mystery to us because we don't know the meaning of what is being said and how it is being interpreted by the receivers.

Another example: A General barks orders, still in a foreign language, and all of a sudden things happen. Or better still, a teacher quietly offers suggestions to her class of five-year olds in, say, Mandarin or Urdu, and all of a sudden things begin happening.

Its at once a very common, ordinary experience and one which we accept so readily that this question might seem ridiculous, but it is also highly instructive as to (one of) the true nature(s ) of language: two people together: one utters sounds, the other moves or does something. Why? Conveyance of meaning is the conventional understanding, but if we take that understanding further in our investigation into what is happening, the bread-and-butter meanings of words becomes more blurred and, well, interesting to say the least.

The Greeks and Romans knew this well and called it "rhetoric". Lawyers and politicians know it and so do parents. We may be certain that all religous denominations know the phenomena really, really well because in "received" knowledge, words have specific meanings and one had best know them for one's catechism or bar mitzvah etc for they aren't to be questioned. And this is where it gets interesting because the notion of heresy emerges, both formal (as in a religious declaration of same ) or informal such as making someone angry because their beliefs are being "questioned". Just what is "heresy"? Does it have to do with language, actions, "received" dogma or something else? Do you see how the notion of "heresy" can also be a controlling notion? It prevents one from exploring interpretations other than received knowledge from "authority". We may very well decide within a limited community that certain interpretations are "correct" and that non-adherence to them means a raised eyebrow, a mild rebuke, being left off Christmas lists, public humiliation, punishment such as fines or jail or in some communities, banishment or shunning and in "serious" cases, death.

All because of language.

So if one understands language, one understands "The Dialogue".

The best example that comes to mind, is Brutus' speech to the gathered friends of Caesar, and we know it as, "Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ear...", and on he goes to "honor" Caesar but by the end, he has the crowd ready to oust or even murder Caesar...great example of the original notion of rhetoric....in this case, sarcasm, a pretty overt and unsophisticated means of social control.

Find a little book called "Invitation to Sociology" by Peter Berger. Its been around for about 35 or 40 years now and it discusses far more than those things that traditionally interest sociologists, that group of strange university folks who spend years and thousands of dollars studying what everyone already knows to be true.

Very little in language is without "value-laden" attachments. Some descriptive language may be, but the mere act of choosing words and creating syntax creates inherent value-attached statements. Watching for these and trying to discover the underlying "agendas", especially in the media, is the very least activity in these increasingly dangerous and disconnected times.

The shift in perception from language as a communications device to language as something much more powerful is both liberating and disturbing and one must do it with care. Its why I have never brought it up here...at least until now.

[ccairspace]

It's frustrating to be at work and be tempted by all this interesting reading... and have NO TIME to indulge myself.

Sigh. Guess it will just have to wait for the evening glass of wine and fireplace. Looking forward to the education.

ccairspace

[Mitch Cronin]

"In other words, knowing what is meant by "progress" takes the discourse up a few notches."

I think I'll start there.

In my mind, progress has always meant that which is of genuine overall benefit to mankind. I've also always recognized it as a BS word for advancements in technology... When I eventually read 1984 I learned that was the kind of BS that Orwell called "newspeak", and with that, I guess I've just discovered the idea of using it as a control isn't so new to me after all.

*** Well... that much is what I had composed before going to sleep... now, I read what you've written above and I'm in need of another cup of coffee! There's a lot to consider in that... and it's not washing through the fog in this head yet...

I've just looked through a raft or two of books my wife has on sociology, psychology, social psychology, and every'other'ology... but there's none there by that name... I'll be doing some book shopping soon (the only time I get to a bookstore -and a lot of other stores - is around Christmas), so I'll add that one to the list to look for.

I'm back to work tonight, but if I can, I'll make some time for reading here when the fog has cleared

Cheers,

Mitch

[Mitch Cronin]

Ok, I'm back with more coffee... I've just read, and reread your posts Don, and now that I understand what you meant in your last post, I went to apply that knowledge in reading your first post here.... and I began to think you were doing some dancing around a point... I first thought I must be reading wrong (again), until I did as you suggested and "googled" the word "Panopticon"... Now I'm convinced of your footwork.

Do me a favour, if you can? ... put the message on the head of a hammer for me... and slam it down? ...never mind the sound waves... as you've noted, "the rules of ordinary discourse are suspended" here.

(another point worth spending time considering: communication, when to use the bushes: - Kid, sometimes an old lady's health can suddenly take a turn... vs. the direct hammer approach: - Kid, your Mom's dying.)

Are you simply referencing the level of control and or manipulation that governments, churches, and other manipulators with an agenda exert over the masses, through their own influences on our ideas; such as the idea of what progress is? ..or ?... less global?

Maybe the fog wasn't as thick as my skull?

Cheers again...

[Don Hudson]

"Are you simply referencing the level of control and or manipulation that governments, churches, and other manipulators with an agenda exert over the masses, through their own influences on our ideas; such as the idea of what progress is? .."

Yes.

[ccairspace]

... but I reckon, as a species, we haven't progressed much at all...

Mitch,

If you are defining progress as improvement, then I reckon so too. And, Wright noted in his book A Short History of Progress: “Our specialisation is the brain. The flexibility of the brain’s interaction with nature, through culture, has been the key to our success. Cultures can adapt far more quickly than genes to new threats and needs.” If you measure progress in terms of technologic advance, then we have progressed; if you measure it terms of species-specific adaptive change, we’re treading water.

I think it's a natural thing that as we've begun to move about so freely, thanks to this field of aviation, through exposure and experience we begin to learn to get along better...

I’m not sure of your verb tense, but I think that that is wishful thinking. I am not convinced that people are necessarily more racially, ethnically or religiously tolerant since we have become more mobile, but the potential could exist. The problem is that cultures tend to be protective and exclusive. Sometimes they can peacefully coexist side be side, but often they clash, despite efforts at tolerance.

I'm eager to hear what it was you meant with your metaphor above though... if it was a metaphor?

I was hoping it was a metaphor too, but it appears from his answer above, to be a non-sequitor instead… Too bad.

ccairspace

[ccairspace]

In other words, knowing what is meant by "progress" takes the discourse up a few notches.

Don,

I think I’ll start there too... I am frequently intrigued by the often-declared notion that “progress” is synonymous with “advancement” or “improvement”. I generally interpret it to mean “movement”, but not necessarily improving movement. So, when someone says, “We made good progress today,” I wait for the clarification. For example, I could spend all day making “progress”, only to find at sundown that I’ve been walking in circles.

In fact, pointing out assumptions or going "deeper" into the question usually gives offence unless the rules of ordinary discourse are suspended as they delightfully are here.

I’ll second that. It is part of what keeps me coming back.

Now comes the challenge… what are you talking about? How are you tying

”received” notions, thought control and the panopticon into a discussion on progress?

Bingo! It just came to me. You are back into Neil Postman territory aren’t you? Medium as metaphor? Language as ideology? Progress defined by ideological interpretation, justification and guidance?

So, if instead of looking at progress in the past tense (“How have we progressed?”), we use the future tense and place it in the hands of, say, government (“How should we progress?”). Then what is said (language) is more than simple verbalising; it is communication with words, that when used subtly as compelling images (metaphors) may actually chart the future “progress” of a nation state, or religious group, or business interest. Am I close?

If I am, then Mitch has pinned it. “Are you simply referencing the level of control and or manipulation that governments, churches, and other manipulators with an agenda exert over the masses, through their own influences on our ideas; such as the idea of what progress is?”

“Received” notions also tend to hold more sway over many people rather than deliberated notions. I am guessing that this is because they are felt to come from a “higher power”. I’ve never quite cottoned to that myself, but when GWB says his decision to invade Iraq was made based on a “received” notion (he just “knew” it was the right thing to do) it held more influence for him, and obviously many others, than any notion that was arrived at in a logical fashion.

Now I come to the panopticon. I googled it as suggested and am left with the lingering refrain “mental uncertainty”. The creation of an environment where one is being watched without the subject being able to see the observer may have implication here, with reference to the power differential. The “watcher” is presumed to have the power, and the “watchee” none, and the latter never knows when he is being “watched”. Hence, mental uncertainty. I am of the opinion that such uncertainty would have the same effect as cumulative information overload: numbing of our capacity to intellectually integrate new data. And we are back to Neil Postman again…

The interesting thing about mental uncertainty is that it is also addictive. I had an interesting discussion the other day with a colleague about VLTs. Not being a gambler, I have always had difficulty understanding the allure of this activity. What was explained to me was that each time one placed a bet (or pulled down the arm of the machine or whatever), the uncertainty of the outcome was the driving force compelling the gambler to play yet “one more time”. Even if he lost, he “might” win the next time. My question: if mental uncertainty can be equated with information overload, is the latter addictive? Do people grow to love their numb state? Do they purposefully seek out further onslaught with bits of data to snow themselves into a state of numbing euphoria?

But to finish off for tonight, after reading various sites that described the panopticon, I realised that unobserved observance only had an effect if the subject cared that he was being observed. If he remained disengaged (emotionally) from the observer, then mental uncertainty did not exist. If we carefully listen and analyse what we hear, peer into the “received” notions of others with a critical mind, and read editorial reviews instead of watching the news on TV, we may be able to continue to think independently and critically.

The shift in perception from language as a communications device to language as something much more powerful is both liberating and disturbing and one must do it with care. Its why I have never brought it up here...at least until now.

Glad you did.

ccairspace

[Don Hudson]

ccairspace;

Re "You are back into Neil Postman territory aren’t you? Medium as metaphor? Language as ideology? Progress defined by ideological interpretation, justification and guidance?

So, if instead of looking at progress in the past tense (“How have we progressed?”), we use the future tense and place it in the hands of, say, government (“How should we progress?”). Then what is said (language) is more than simple verbalising; it is communication with words, that when used subtly as compelling images (metaphors) may actually chart the future “progress” of a nation state, or religious group, or business interest. Am I close?"

Yes, cc, that's absolutely where I was/am going. I think the past-tense form of the notion is relatively uninteresting.

"Language as ideology"...what a great phrase. If I might say it, there's a tremendous amount more in that statement and a rich mine in even disagreeing with it but I don't want to get diverted too much!

The aspect of the notion of the panopticon which I wanted to explore was the notion of behaviours controlled by unseen but forces which are granted respect by the "otherwise-uninvolved". It seemed to me that language can have that very same effect if one doesn't examine what's being said. I think both you and Mitch however, have pointed out a significant problem with the idea in the sense that if one is oblivious to the "seen-by-the-unseen" (the notion at the heart of the panopticon ) the power of language is more or less academic.

I wanted to introduce the notion as I thought it might be useful, but in writing these kinds of posts, I'm often running across these connections for the first time, (thus there is no intention of a preconceived argument or expectation of agreement but only exploration of some fascinating ideas ). The criticisms and/or observations regarding the notion of the panopticon are ways in which I hadn't seen it.

In returning to the original discussion, the one goal which I think is really worth pursuing in any of these wonderful discussions is first, the goal of intellectual self-defence or plain old crap-detecting. Trying to understand what is happening in language as it relates to human behaviours is I think, a tiny part of that kind of defence.

Many thanks for the energetic engagement of the discussion cc.

Picked up Wright's book today and will dive in.