Of course, new problems may emerge. I can mainly guess there would be disagreements on what position a character is supposed to take, but these should still be solveable because :
An issue that may sometimes arise is the order of the arguments : Which are most important, which are the least so. Here again, both sides can present the order they think is the best - that is done on the french version of NuclearEnergy, where the topic is divided into subpages on nuclear waste, global warming, etc.
See also :
This needs experimentation !
I tried to get some people (from a french environmentalist forum, a mailing list) to come here and work on this too … nobody seems that interested in wikiing.
I’ll maybe try to set up another topic (religion, society, technology ?), in english, and see if I can pull some people in. Hmm, or focus on a topic that could interest wiki folk ? I can’t think of anything that involves the kind of disagreements you get around nuclear energy or creationism or abortion or guns …
I woke up a few hours ago, a bunch of realizations fresh in my mind.
I also think it’s funny that we talk about the DoubleWiki in this context, given that AntoninArtaud wrote a book called TheatreAndItsDouble around just this sort of theme. Not that there’s deep similarity there, – but there is some WordMagic present.
I agree; This does need experimentation.
But, I now see why the prior experiments did not work.
Drama is not for debate.
It’s for sharing, but it’s not for debate.
I’m also curious about this french environmentalist forum; Can you tell me anything about it, and why you thought to invite them here? I think it’s great that you did, and I think the invitation is good too, but I’m curious about: What connection did you draw between here and there?
Let me share something.
And I believe I have seen what I will call Drama here, even though we didn’t use WikiDrama. I am not speaking of Drama in a negative sense, any more than I would call the ZeitGeist negative. Let me be clear: the ZeitGeist is a Drama. The interior life of the mind is Drama. Drama is Spirit. En-thus-iasm is Spirit.
There were two gatherings that I have been in, that produced short-duration-but-very-real Community: The EvolutionarySalons, and the StoryfieldConference, many of the participants of which overlap, and that I have been in sustained communication with; if not in material communication, in spirit / interior-simulation.
What I saw is that people who are talking with each other sincerely for 5 days in mixtures of full-circle time, breakoff meeting times, and just free and random associations, naturally put down the mask of FormalRegister and ordinary politeness, and unmask DramaticPersona from within themselves, psychological realities, all manner of things.
People become living Gods ands Goddesses, and I’m not talking about anything that an avowed atheist could quibble with.
This isn’t something you can “debate nuclear energy” with; This isn’t something you can “debate creationism or abortion or guns” with.
You can only share from the heart, and recount the essence of an experience that you had, or a vision you saw, filled with both thought and emotion, with this.
But I’ve made my point.
And I want to thank you for bringing this to the wiki. I want to thank you personally for bringing this to me, as well. I have no doubts that, in the back of my mind, that this conversation and these conversations and these DramaticPersona have helped me to learn all this, and to bring me to where I am.
I thank you.
( ( ) )
About the environmentalist forum: It’ was the forum of the “young greens”, a part of the French Green party; I knew one of the members, a friend from Nekeme (who has been known to link to Community Wiki on his blog). I considered that they had a were close enough in idea-space to Community Wiki to be interested in weird things like this
About Drama: yes, the Drama you talk about is more real, next to it WikiDramaForDebate looks like adding masks instead of taking them off.
I think the kind of living Drama you talk about is more likely to lead to positive change than artfully engineered debate systems; thanks for sharing your stories.
I’ve been asking myself a lot lately: Is it adding or removing masks?
(This is a different conversation, but we seem to be here.)
I’ve been considering the authenticity angle.
…and then, to turn it around; we begin to see the archetypes for archetypes, and get a sense of the pulse of the drama, and then consciously interface through that, which, if it’s not connected with what we really think and feel, it can become an inauthenticity again (it becomes a mask.)
I discovered recently that there has been a thing in the past called the anti-theatrical movement. On the basis that acting is lying. And I remember my friend Marcus Slagel, who’s parents wouldn’t let him read sci-fi or fantasy when he was younger, because it has “words that aren’t true” in there.
It’s a very peculiar metaphysical space, this general realm of consideration.
By the FiveWorldsMandala I’m positively pro-imagination, but I want to see the space more deeply.
I don’t know, those things are hard to talk about, subjective experiences are hard to pin down because you can’t be certain that two people are talking about the same thing, and they can even change depending on whether you’re aware of them or not - what does it feel like to be unaware of one’s inner state?
That anti-theatre thing (and the anti-sci-fi and fantasy) is pretty interesting, I dont know what to think of it. I’d tend to side on the side that “fantasy books are not lies”, but I don’t have much of an argument for it. I don’t think avoiding “non true things” will help us avoid the Dark Pits of Irrationality, I can imagine the “do not speak of non-truths” ideas fitting in truth-crushing ideologies like those of Stalin or the Inquisition, but then I don’t think that someone who considers fantasy as “lies” will accept an “argument from an imaginary world”
Another approach: things like hopes for the future, scientific hypothesis, and simplified explanations (“the earth is round and goes around the sun …”) are technically “non-true things”, but getting rid of them would be more problematic than getting rid of science fiction and fantasy.
It’s also good for the mind to be aware of “non-truth”; would your friends’ parents let him read Dickens? I don’t think non-true stories set in a true worls are less “dangerous” than Tolkien’s non-true stories set in a non-true world.
Anyway. This guy argues that knowledge of things we know are entirely fictional may still affect our judgement.
I don’t know about the Theatre guy, I think he’s not as much “rejecting theatre because it isn’t true”, but rather saying that it lost contact with it’s roots (a bit as if in three hunded years there were still EvolutionarySpirituality meetings but just “going through the movements”), and he probably has a point.
Some things (Love, a bunch of people talking about changing the world, parties, storytelling around a campfire, a group of football fans in a pub) are of the spirit, and their value comes from human souls and boiling blood; they live in the instant, and if you try to pin them to a piece of paper, they wither and die. Other things (trials, scientific research, programming, business) are of the machine, and their value comes from precision, regularity and balance; they exist out of time, and if you try to fuel them with passion, they will go astray and break.
I think AntoninArtaud’s point is that theatre used to be in the first category, but it was formalized, professionalized and taught in the schools (all good things by the standards of the second category), and that the soul was lost somewhere in the process. But then, I may have misinterpreted him, all I know of him is the wikipedia page I read yesterday.
I sense that there is a larger & very juicy conversation in here. I’m going to disagree with just about everything you said here; Please know that I’m not disliking your person, I’m just zooming in on difference, intentionally.
I agree that these things are “hard to talk about,” but it is also clear to me that there is a science in here. I know this because there are people who are good at working a crowd, there are people who are good at understanding where others are at, and they can consistently and reliably interact with people in ways that they can predict. I know it exists because artists study / tune-themselves-to-intuit how slight differences in expression will be interpreted. This doesn’t mean that they control other people, but they can recognize where the choices are being made by other people, and speak to them.
I know that people can communicate, because there are ideas that communicate from person to person to person to person, with very high fidelity, even though the exact representation has differences from person to person. (ie, for example, science has been communicated from person to person to person.) That this is all subjective doesn’t seem to stop people, because there is a background layer of communication that is strong enough as a net.
I know very well what it feels like to be unaware of my internal state, because I know what it feels like to be very focused on a task.
“Would my friends’ parents let him read Dickens?” I don’t know; I suspect yes: “Good traditional American literature.”
I disagree with both claims about the spirit vs. the machine; I’ve always agreed with LeonardDaVinci?: Make an art of your science, and a science of your art. I think the things of love you described (Love, changing the world, parties, storytelling, football,) derive great benefit from pinning to the paper, and that scientific research, programming, business, and trial, derive great benefit from the admixture of passion: Crick, on LSD, discovers DNA. Douglas Engelbart and Alan Kay’s wild investigations into computer interface and software design. (And so on, and so forth.)
The OvercomingBias? guy’s LineOfThinking is bogus, it raises red flags for me all over the place. “The precise dance of rationality” ..? “A story is never a rational attempt at analysis, not even with the most diligent science fiction writers, because stories don’t use probability distributions.” ..? These are major self-delusions. This is a manifestation of a line of thought called Scientism, which is far more dangerous to my mind, than the scientismists imagine EvolutionarySpirituality to be. The fundamental error is that by clothing ourselves in the trappings of science (statistics, scientific papers, refutations and logical debate, a particular demeanor, etc.,) we will live in with less (“minimized”) delusion. “If we all just envision ourselves like TheArchitect? in the matrix, all things will come to balance. The imbalance will be accounted for systematically.”
If someone comes at you with the wrong movie (“like in Terminator?”), they are expressing a fear, a fear for a possible future that people consider. They’re not making a “ergo” statement, or making a CasualFallacy?, simply because they’re not making a statement. It’s more like saying, “I’m afraid it would turn out this way.”
Saying, “You’re arguing from fiction” is a cheap way out, and has no real value. Instead, you want to say, “Here’s what’s wrong with the Terminator argument,” or you want to say, “Here’s why we don’t have anything to fear about super-intelligent AI.”
I would not be shocked if the New Atheists developed to start telling their children to not read fiction, because it’s “things not true.”
It’s clear to me that arguing from fiction is legitimate and necessary. Just call it “future scenario investigation” if it’ll make those other people happy.
Fiction doesn’t substitute for seeing, any more than listening to other people substitutes for your own thinking. It’s a dance and a dialog.
The Spirit / Machine bit was mostly my interpretation of anti-theatre; reading a bit more about the subject it doesn’t seem to be really about that. I don’t think it’s such a great dichotomy either (things like music don’t fit in very well …).
I haven’t really seen the argument for the “fiction is bad” side; the closest I can think of is the “fictional evidence” post I linked to; I don’t see the whole “science and reason” faction as hostile to fiction; maybe I see them in a better light because I’m closer to them than you are. I don’t see who would see a danger in EvolutionarySpirituality.
I’ve presented the ideas to several atheists, and many have said things like, “You’re confusing the issue,” and stuff. (The issue being, as far as I can tell: The elimination of religion and irrational thought.)
But no matter.