Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

CRN's "System of Three Ethics" and Bologna!

Expand Messages
  • okerdavid
    Bologna seems to be one of the greatest cities of all time. It was founded by the Etruscans which evolved into the Roman world. Later, it was conquered by the
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 10, 2008
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Bologna seems to be one of the greatest cities of all time. It was
      founded by the Etruscans which evolved into the Roman world. Later, it
      was conquered by the Lombards whom named it Bologna. It went through
      all the medieval period gyrations; and then, with the crusades and the
      translations of Greek and classical civilization books in Spain around
      1000 A.D., Bolongna was at the center of it all again. Petrarch is one
      early pre-Renaissance(1500s) name. Cardano also learned and taught
      medicine there. Today, Bolongna is considered one of the five top
      cities of the world! Not bad historical and contemporary value to say
      the least! Why all this about Bologna though?

      Well, this!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtI-hWUQI7w&feature=related

      i thought i'd give that link first since it is the start of the show!
      But, really, what I'm poining out is in the second part of this youtube!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCGEE1FzhCQ&feature=related

      Well, between the history of mathematics I read and this video, I took
      a little bit of an interest in Bologna; and, I noticed the
      correspondence between some of what James Burke says about Bologna in
      this second part(the second link above) and CRN's "System of Three
      Ethics." As James Burke says it, around 1050, Bologna was growing
      again, and they were amongst the first to his the problem; he stands in
      I'm guessing a(possibly 'the') major social/political center of
      Bologna; and he points out how the place is set up; i mena he's
      standing in a square concrete center with fountains and all . . . and
      various great buildings which as James Burke points out correspond to a
      division of various social/political concerns of a given city-state;
      there is the emperor building, the town council building, church, and
      merchant building(notice, there's no university building(s)! As he
      says, all of them wanted to run the place, nobody was strong enough to
      do it by themselves; so, with all this political back and forth,
      humdrum concerns like "who threw the boiling oil" took precedence!

      As Mr Burke says, the trouble was they were trying to run before they
      could walk; they didn't understnad things; they didn't have education!
      (not to mention, they were all split up; you can't funciton when you're
      all split up!)

      I'm not argueing against the 'System of Three Ethics'; i'm arguieng
      that the points about the 'system of three ethics' is incomplete; who's
      in charge? The military? THe scientists? Or, the business people?
      CRN and really the founding fathers of the U.S.A, prove the system of
      three ethics; but, I'm thinking we have a choice amongst the three(or
      four, if your counting the religion!) activities of . . .
      civilization. Let me point out that Nano-manufacturing and its
      associated nanotechnologies allows a given person or group(I would
      think a given person would chose not to be lonely) to do away with
      economics. Military? If you need it. Let me point out something else;
      who's going to maintain all this potentially wonderfull technologies?
      Nano-manufacturing allows a given person(s) to forget about the world;
      a given person(s) could grow rather forgetfull of the science and
      technology we as human beings need to survive in this world; we are the
      technologically dependent species; we forget that, and the
      nanotechnologies break(including the nanomanufacturing system) the
      nanotechnology dependent humans . . . become extinct!

      In a previous post, I've pointed out that at the same time a given
      state comes up with a primitive nanomanufacturing system, all the stats
      of the world will have sufficient nanotechnologies to surive on their
      own. There are two possibilities here. One, soembody thinks they've
      got to conquer the world to prevent nano-wars(and to feed all the poor
      people of the world . . . finally); the other is to not because you
      don't need to; you have all the necessities of the world and nobody is
      going to bother with you(except that your living in the same land as a
      previous nano-era state). The previous possibility leads to world war
      three; not just a nuclear war anymore; a nano-war; in this war, you
      have no idea who's going to win out because you don't know what the
      other side knows. The second possibility could lead to wars; but will
      it lead to the extermenation of the whole species? I think not.

      There will be great pressure to just expand out in space because nobody
      knows what hundreds of nanotechnology states are going to do. I for
      one prefer this second possibility. Why? Because in this world,
      nobody can conqure the rest of the world, and two, nobody becomes
      complacent with their nanotechnologies. I don't think the majority of
      the nanotechnology states will wage war; and really, I have an interest
      in space; i'm not going to worry about nano(and nuclear) wars, because
      I'm going to be billions if not trillions of miles away. My only
      concern is not having others to give insights that I cannot(becaue
      everybody has insights others can't have); i'm more worried about not
      having a social group that enjoys exploring the universe with me. I
      know that all knowledge is incomplete and that we are dependent on
      learning ever more. My goal is to set up an Isaac
      Asimovian 'Foundation.' And, I'm not worried about all these other
      nanotechnology states expanding in opposite directions because I know
      that even if they are anti-my Jacob Bronowski scientific humanism
      because they are dependent on that science and technolopgy and over
      time due to the pressures of existence in this universe and the fact
      that they are human beings, they will change over time.

      My worry is world war three with nanotechnology and nuclear
      weapons . . . and roman republic/and empire and Nazy Germany stuff;
      Republics and Democracies that vote out democracy and science.

      I'm propsing an Isaac Asimovian 'Foundation" which chooses science
      amongst the system of three ethics with Arthur Kantrowitz's science
      courts to keep those military, economic, and supernatural/vagueness
      gmaing religious influences form steering my Isaac
      Asimovian "Foundation" from going wrong. We should be collecting,
      analysing, and synthesizing the world's knowledge in an Isaac
      Asimovian "Foundation" before the nano-era really kicks in; and if some
      of our group concludes the data differently, they can exapond out in
      space in opposite directions . . . and we'll see who's right or wrong
      about the data because those who are wrong will run into one
      contradiction after another; the moral thing to do is in their court;
      to change their ways.

      By means of this poocess, humanities(and intelligence in the universe)
      is secured in the universe; because 1) dogma does not take over and
      complacency does not blidn us the breakdown of the bewildering
      nanotechnologies that nobody is ever going to understand it all, and/or
      number two, supernova and other astronomically energetic events
      doesn't wipe us out because we have all our eggs in one basket here on
      Earth.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.