The public and the private: New questions raised on being observed.

reply to post by EnlightenUp

I'd rather like to think of a cat going potty, which is hardly seen. Guess they have more of a choice.

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
reply to post by halfoldman

 

The situation in the universe right now hardly seems such that it's the biggest concern for higher entities. I really doubt they're interested. It probably goes straight to the Akashic Records so that you can judge yourself on your performance when that time comes.

As below, so above.

[edit on 10/23/2009 by EnlightenUp]

Well, for some literalists everything in Leviticus and Exodus still applies. They keep on qoting that "anti-gay" verse from Leviticus about a man lying with a man like a woman being an "abomination". But it also says in these books that excrement must be covored by sand with paddles. This is thus also a commandment, and modern believers who preach these chapters should know that God watches them everytime they disobey and use flush toilets. Just one more abomination his all-omnipotence must endure DAILY.

reply to post by halfoldman


I guess that is alot like a cat! Should the ultra-fundamentalists have litterboxes instead?

Next I could say something about young boys instead of men but I'll restrain myself (Church scandal and all). Does anything mention that?

[edit on 10/23/2009 by EnlightenUp]

Do we care about a computers privacy when we watch it defrag ??

No ? Then why would a god care about yours ?

reply to post by EnlightenUp

Well no, and that is really not my interest, except to stamp it out where it currently exists. I suppose in ancient Greek and other classical cultures one found man-boy love (although these were not pre-pubescent "boys"). However, these were not considered same-sex/homosexual relationships, and even in Roman times male citizens could penetrate women, slaves and "boys", because non of them were considered men. However, liasons with young men also took on a tutorial role in teaching about war, women, civic duties. But hey, many people were slaves, the women of whom first gave birth at thirteen and died at forty (if lucky).

reply to post by GobbledokTChipeater


My question exactly. But then I also don't watch my computer copying disks, but God seems to care very much (according to several scriptures) on how we multiply and reproduce. So one can only thereby assume that God is watching to check our obedience.

reply to post by halfoldman


Well, I'm more of the kind that senses that God experiences himself through his creations. If you don't want God to watch, close your eyes.

Thinking in terms of a diety in a separate magic heaven universe, spying us like a bored security guard, is just the fool's journey prior to knowing thyself.

reply to post by EnlightenUp


Does sound a bit like the proverbial ostrich burying his head in the sand, as in "you don't see me, if I don't see you". What I do note is that the omnipotent all-seeing God people do seem to care. They just regard the issue as pre-resolved, because THEY selectively don't think about it, or shut it out.
On another note, I recently read a theory that life on earth began when aliens emptied their chemical toilets here.

reply to post by halfoldman

Just found the relevant verse in Deuteronomy 23: 12-14. It appears in verse 14 that God wants "that which cometh from thee" covered, because He wanders about the camp and doesn't want to step in it. The Good News Edition has sanitized the King James meaning somewhat. In the later GN version the paddle also becomes a stick. Can't really imagine digging sand with that.
I think a sandbox for literalists is a great idea, and I can just see it marketed on TBN by John Hagee or Rod Parsely (I think live demonstrations would be going a bit far).
Of course this is just one of a number of laws on unlean body issues.

reply to post by halfoldman


This really seems like even more to suggest alien manipulation. I mean what else would worry about stepping in your mess, besides you that is?

I mean, God walks among you and that is the only reason not to be a dirtball?

People of that time would probably be intolerably weird to us. They seem like babies that have to be changed. Most of humanity was probably like that proverbial crazy guy that lives under the freeway overpass.

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
reply to post by halfoldman

 

They seem like babies that have to be changed. Most of humanity was probably like that proverbial crazy guy that lives under the freeway overpass.

Strangely, in our Western culture, the homeless guy on the motorway is one of the outcasts who don't care about being observed by anyone.
In the history of counter-culture we have this idea of cynics, or hippies doing everything corporeal in the open. It's giving back to nature, and so forth. And even the older churches allowed carnival days, where taboos of clean/unclean; private/public where overturned. The "fool" is a figure who may even poke profane fun at the sacrosanct. That is, I think, the fool recognizes the hypocrisy about these things. So God must endure these sights of what comes naturally to humans, but other humans find it offensive. Ergo, humans find offense where God doesn't. That places a huge question mark over the ability of priests, pastors, gurus to interpret sriptures in lieu of God.
So perhaps privacy/public has to do with ownership of property. If you don't have four walls, you cannot really be private. But that form of "homeless" display is classed as "animal" rather than voyeurism.
For most, the question becomes, when technology becomes all-seeing, doesn't it become LIKE God - omnipotent. So while middle-class citizens don't mind a trustworthy "being" watching, when the watchers become "human", who will watch the watchers?

reply to post by halfoldman


You said it: "Humans find offense where God doesn't."

Which is actually the opposite of what human interpretations would attempt to push.

So, that is why it makes a difference if it is God's or a technological all seeing eye.

Am I just condensing your point? I'm not sure.

reply to post by EnlightenUp

Good point for thought. Perhaps one could take the train of logic a bit further? Does the tacit acceptance of an omnipotent being(s) observing our most private moments CONDITION us for greater human/machine surveillance?
We already accept it to a philosophical/confessing/counselling degree, and also to fight crime (I'm sure the camera in my cubicle makes the gangs and mafias shake in its boots). At what point does the camera become God, or god-like?

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by EnlightenUp

 

Does the tacit acceptance of an omnipotent being(s) observing our most private moments CONDITION us for greater human/machine surveillance?

Relating the concepts is valid but it is not conditioning for this step but a substitution of the previous way. It was probably a lucky break for those who wished to continue monitoring society. The tech was a gift beyond all measure. This view of God as a judgemental peeping Tom is merely the ancient equivalent of video surveillance.

This image of a creator and its use for behavioral control hinges on the idea that that conditioning would remain effective. Once the minds no longer accept it, out of atheism or a more enlightened view of the divine, more mundane measures must be substituted.

At what point does the camera become God, or god-like?

In actuality, when it's just a camera and monitor and the camera is watching the monitor.

reply to post by EnlightenUp


Mmm, need to think about that one a bit more. What it does prompt me to say so far relates to the work of the French deconstructionist philosopher Michel Foucault. In his work on history he spoke about the Penoptikon (unsure spelling), a circular prison that needed very little staff, because all the cells could be monitored from a central tower 360 degrees. Often there were no gaurds, yet the prisoners still behaved, believing that the tower had gaurds.
Later Foucault went into issues like the replacement of corporal punishment with mental anguish (solitary confinement). He believed that power existed in its own right, and citizens, even prisoners enforce "social justice" that reflects wider power. For example , in prisons the state exercises power through gangs and the violence they inflict on other prisoners. It is not a direct, but capillary and widely accepted form of abuse. So the right of power is to observe us, whether justified by religion or society, just as it was once the right of power to whip and dismember us. Thus, as a short reply, the camera and the eyes of the church are not replacements of one another, they are different ends to the SAME means.

reply to post by halfoldman


Panopticon

The Panopticon is a type of prison building designed by English philosopher and social theorist Jeremy Bentham in 1785.

It is a substitution of means to the same end, necessitated out of a change in beliefs and made possible by advances in technology. Why do those that believe people have abandoned God wish to be in those people's bedrooms and use coersion to enforce their values?

I think it's a reflection of what people wish to do to each other. Imagine if one prisoner were apparently not concered whether or not he's being watched and getting away with all kinds of thing noone is "allowed" to do? Would the other prisoners ignore it or demand tighter controls?

The weakness is that the cells aren't really locked but it's their belief that makes them not even try the door. Everyone could join as one and walk right out of their cells, overpowering any guards. Like you said, there might not even be any.

The Big Secret (TM) is that the people themselves are their own PTB no matter who is prancing around in the uniforms and putting on a show.

It seems you already are privy by mentioning the self-regulation of inmates. Naturally this subculture reflects the values of its constituents and the practical aspects of their shared circumstance.


[edit on 10/25/2009 by EnlightenUp]