Wednesday, February 9, 2011

change the channel

the reach of the world has not increased, only our collective imagination of what the world really is. the fact has always been that the world is limited that which we can see immediately surrounding us. the rest is hear-say. and no amount of television or internet will change it. starving children, war, love, all remain myths until you find them in front of you.


jezbold said...

Yes. On a related note, Max Weber on the meaning of scientific progress:

Does [scientific progress] mean that we, today, for instance, everyone sitting in this hall, have a greater knowledge of the conditions of life under which we exist than has an American Indian or a Hottentot? Hardly. Unless he is a physicist, one who rides on the streetcar has no idea how the car happened to get into motion. And he does not need to know. He is satisfied that he may 'count' on the behavior of the streetcar, and he orients his conduct according to this expectation; but he knows nothing about what it takes to produce such a car so that it can move. The savage knows incomparably more about his tools. When we spend money today I bet that even if there are colleagues of political economy here in the hall, almost every one of them will hold a different answer in readiness to the question: How does it happen that one can buy something for money--sometimes more and sometimes less ? The savage knows what he does in order to get his daily food and which institutions serve him in this pursuit. The increasing intellectualization and rationalization do not, therefore, indicate an increased and general knowledge of the conditions under which one lives.
-Science as a Vocation

jezbold said...

So I might have forgotten the most important part...sorry:

It means something else, namely, the knowledge or belief that if one but wished one could learn it at any time.

Shimmy Boyle said...

yes. totally.