<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Emergent Culture</title>
	<atom:link href="http://emergent-culture.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://emergent-culture.com</link>
	<description>Making Sense of the Human - Planetary Condition: Demystifying the Past, Unraveling the Present &#38; Anticipating the Future</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 03:43:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Alice and the Rabbit Holographic Universe by Rohaan Solare</title>
		<link>http://emergent-culture.com/alice-and-the-rabbit-holographic-universe/comment-page-1/#comment-108695</link>
		<dc:creator>Rohaan Solare</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 03:43:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergent-culture.com/?p=6112#comment-108695</guid>
		<description>@Steve,  JC refers to the Judeo-Christian culture complex and it also happen to be the same set of initials as the mythological Jesus Christ.  How synchronistic is that to use you numerical example of synchronicity.  You attempt to refute my statement that a &quot;JC free will universe asserts an independence that we know well does not exist&quot; with a series of statements about a mythological setting.  We are talking about two very different things. I&#039;m talking about knowledge that is empirically derived and universally applicable. You come back with an &quot;appeal to authority&quot;, and not just any authority, but a mythologically based authority which is no authority at all.  In other words you can&#039;t expect to refute evidence based arguments with faith based ones. We are in two different arenas playing two entirely different games.  The following links should help shed some light on the evolving notion of free will and the meaning of mythology. 

&lt;strong&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://mindhacks.com/2011/11/14/the-free-will-rebellion/&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The free will rebellion &lt;/a&gt;

&lt;a href=&quot;http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com/2008/04/libet-redux-free-will-takes-another.html?utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BpsResearchDigest+%28BPS+Research+Digest%29&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Libet Redux: Free will takes another hammering&lt;/a&gt;

&lt;a href=&quot;http://mindblog.dericbownds.net/2011/09/free-will-neuroscience-vs-philosophy.html?utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Mindblog+%28MindBlog%29&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Free Will: Neuroscience vs. Philosophy  &lt;/a&gt;

&lt;a href=&quot;http://bit.ly/fUuuzW&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt; Why free will may be an illusion 
&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://su.pr/2jIWfA &quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt; Free will similar in animals, humans - but not so free&lt;/a&gt; -  

&lt;a href=&quot;http://bit.ly/6CTFcg&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;
Free Will: The Last Gasp of the Unenlightened Mind&lt;/a&gt;

&lt;a href=&quot;http://http://t.co/nuKaA1S&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mythology Demystified &lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Steve,  JC refers to the Judeo-Christian culture complex and it also happen to be the same set of initials as the mythological Jesus Christ.  How synchronistic is that to use you numerical example of synchronicity.  You attempt to refute my statement that a &#8220;JC free will universe asserts an independence that we know well does not exist&#8221; with a series of statements about a mythological setting.  We are talking about two very different things. I&#8217;m talking about knowledge that is empirically derived and universally applicable. You come back with an &#8220;appeal to authority&#8221;, and not just any authority, but a mythologically based authority which is no authority at all.  In other words you can&#8217;t expect to refute evidence based arguments with faith based ones. We are in two different arenas playing two entirely different games.  The following links should help shed some light on the evolving notion of free will and the meaning of mythology. </p>
<p><strong><br />
<a href="http://mindhacks.com/2011/11/14/the-free-will-rebellion/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">The free will rebellion </a></p>
<p><a href="http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com/2008/04/libet-redux-free-will-takes-another.html?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BpsResearchDigest+%28BPS+Research+Digest%29" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Libet Redux: Free will takes another hammering</a></p>
<p><a href="http://mindblog.dericbownds.net/2011/09/free-will-neuroscience-vs-philosophy.html?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Mindblog+%28MindBlog%29" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Free Will: Neuroscience vs. Philosophy  </a></p>
<p><a href="http://bit.ly/fUuuzW" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"> Why free will may be an illusion<br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://su.pr/2jIWfA " target="_blank" rel="nofollow"> Free will similar in animals, humans &#8211; but not so free</a> &#8211;  </p>
<p><a href="http://bit.ly/6CTFcg" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><br />
Free Will: The Last Gasp of the Unenlightened Mind</a></p>
<p><a href="http://http://t.co/nuKaA1S" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Mythology Demystified </a></strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Alice and the Rabbit Holographic Universe by Rohaan Solare</title>
		<link>http://emergent-culture.com/alice-and-the-rabbit-holographic-universe/comment-page-1/#comment-108682</link>
		<dc:creator>Rohaan Solare</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 01:54:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergent-culture.com/?p=6112#comment-108682</guid>
		<description>@Wes We can indeed say that humans communicate and cognitate with more sophistication, but I am not arguing that aspect. I am looking at the common denominator traits that all creatures have in common.  So I used the example of communication. Bacteria communicate and so do humans. You keep pointing out that humans are more sophisticated in their ability communicate and cognitate and that is not what I am arguing. I&#039;m saying all creatures communicate, and the challenge I posed to the reader was to&lt;strong&gt; name a trait unique only to humans&lt;/strong&gt;, not the degrees of difference between a shared trait. 

You mentioned contemplation in your first comment. And I believe I showed that contemplation relates to cognitive processes we call thinking. Thinking is computing of one kind or another as far as brain processes go. The DNA itself has been shown to be a computer of sorts.  In you latest comment you refer to &quot;meaning&quot;.  And what is meaning? Meaning is about the varying degrees of connectivity and relation between ideas and perceptions. Meaning is about &lt;em&gt;associations&lt;/em&gt; in other words.  Pavlovian learning tells us that animals also to know to associate one idea or perception to mean something else or something more.  The sound of the masters car as it enters the garage &lt;em&gt;means&lt;/em&gt; to the awaiting home bound dog that his master will soon come through the door to pet and feed him. The sound is translated to mean other things to the dog and it reacts accordingly upon hearing the sound.  So when I use the term qualitative I mean a quality such as a well defined trait or defining attribute. Not the qualitative differences with a given trait.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Wes We can indeed say that humans communicate and cognitate with more sophistication, but I am not arguing that aspect. I am looking at the common denominator traits that all creatures have in common.  So I used the example of communication. Bacteria communicate and so do humans. You keep pointing out that humans are more sophisticated in their ability communicate and cognitate and that is not what I am arguing. I&#8217;m saying all creatures communicate, and the challenge I posed to the reader was to<strong> name a trait unique only to humans</strong>, not the degrees of difference between a shared trait. </p>
<p>You mentioned contemplation in your first comment. And I believe I showed that contemplation relates to cognitive processes we call thinking. Thinking is computing of one kind or another as far as brain processes go. The DNA itself has been shown to be a computer of sorts.  In you latest comment you refer to &#8220;meaning&#8221;.  And what is meaning? Meaning is about the varying degrees of connectivity and relation between ideas and perceptions. Meaning is about <em>associations</em> in other words.  Pavlovian learning tells us that animals also to know to associate one idea or perception to mean something else or something more.  The sound of the masters car as it enters the garage <em>means</em> to the awaiting home bound dog that his master will soon come through the door to pet and feed him. The sound is translated to mean other things to the dog and it reacts accordingly upon hearing the sound.  So when I use the term qualitative I mean a quality such as a well defined trait or defining attribute. Not the qualitative differences with a given trait.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on A COSMIC PULSE? Does the Universe have a Heart Beat? by Rohaan Solare</title>
		<link>http://emergent-culture.com/a-cosmic-pulse-a-deeper-review-hyper-day-phenomena-synchronicity-tzolkin-mayan-calendar/comment-page-1/#comment-108676</link>
		<dc:creator>Rohaan Solare</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 01:01:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergent-culture.com/?p=9701#comment-108676</guid>
		<description>Thank you !!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you !!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on A COSMIC PULSE? Does the Universe have a Heart Beat? by Keith</title>
		<link>http://emergent-culture.com/a-cosmic-pulse-a-deeper-review-hyper-day-phenomena-synchronicity-tzolkin-mayan-calendar/comment-page-1/#comment-108502</link>
		<dc:creator>Keith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 May 2012 14:05:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergent-culture.com/?p=9701#comment-108502</guid>
		<description>Pretty impressive data/research. Keep it up! I think you are onto something here.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pretty impressive data/research. Keep it up! I think you are onto something here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Alice and the Rabbit Holographic Universe by Steve</title>
		<link>http://emergent-culture.com/alice-and-the-rabbit-holographic-universe/comment-page-1/#comment-108125</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 18:42:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergent-culture.com/?p=6112#comment-108125</guid>
		<description>Meant to write, I assumed what you meant by JC. I saw your spiral images. I have way more for you than that comparison if interested. Might surprise you, in fact, it will, guaranteed. Spirals, whirls, attraction and charge are other factors. Check out Jakob Boehme.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Meant to write, I assumed what you meant by JC. I saw your spiral images. I have way more for you than that comparison if interested. Might surprise you, in fact, it will, guaranteed. Spirals, whirls, attraction and charge are other factors. Check out Jakob Boehme.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Alice and the Rabbit Holographic Universe by Steve</title>
		<link>http://emergent-culture.com/alice-and-the-rabbit-holographic-universe/comment-page-1/#comment-108124</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 18:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergent-culture.com/?p=6112#comment-108124</guid>
		<description>A JESUS CHRIST free will universe asserts an independence that we know well does not exist.. I think that is a false statement entirely. If one reads it, man had a choice to start with. And in fact, that is why or one of the reasons He as God came, to get us back on track..because men was screwing with the system.  In a perfect world it was to be, but there were other forces that screwed it up at hand, now whether that story in the Garden actually happened as a myth or in a Spiritual realm is a different matter, but either way it does show the ROOT cause, it would have to be Spiritually oriented...everything today is a ripple effect and so it continues from generation to generation exactly as Jesus said it would. But it does show why it SEEMS it is not true to those who have not explored the Bible well enough, to see how history seems to repeat itself even there. From that point on of the opening state there is this regard, any logic is a fallacy . Otherwise, there is definitely a thing going on with NUMBERS that link right into the Bible and Spiritual Significance of Numbers (search that). It will keep you busy for a long long time. I am on the verge of thinking that like sound, time travels in waves as well. When two waves overlap in a single surge or set of waves, and one is attuned to it..synchronicity occurs from over lapping time waves, just as two waves in the ocean combine or two ripples in a pond or two sound waves combine to make a bigger sound, we witness a bigger event..sometimes I have noticed things happen in threes...this is another &#039;theory&#039;. ..which I will not expound on...think about it 12 disciples as chosen by Jesus, 12 hours in the day, 12 months in the year...and seven..Spiritual Completion . That will keep one busy for a very long time, since 5 loaves and 2 fish add up to Seven...so why do we use seven so often...and 12..the roll of the dice.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A JESUS CHRIST free will universe asserts an independence that we know well does not exist.. I think that is a false statement entirely. If one reads it, man had a choice to start with. And in fact, that is why or one of the reasons He as God came, to get us back on track..because men was screwing with the system.  In a perfect world it was to be, but there were other forces that screwed it up at hand, now whether that story in the Garden actually happened as a myth or in a Spiritual realm is a different matter, but either way it does show the ROOT cause, it would have to be Spiritually oriented&#8230;everything today is a ripple effect and so it continues from generation to generation exactly as Jesus said it would. But it does show why it SEEMS it is not true to those who have not explored the Bible well enough, to see how history seems to repeat itself even there. From that point on of the opening state there is this regard, any logic is a fallacy . Otherwise, there is definitely a thing going on with NUMBERS that link right into the Bible and Spiritual Significance of Numbers (search that). It will keep you busy for a long long time. I am on the verge of thinking that like sound, time travels in waves as well. When two waves overlap in a single surge or set of waves, and one is attuned to it..synchronicity occurs from over lapping time waves, just as two waves in the ocean combine or two ripples in a pond or two sound waves combine to make a bigger sound, we witness a bigger event..sometimes I have noticed things happen in threes&#8230;this is another &#8216;theory&#8217;. ..which I will not expound on&#8230;think about it 12 disciples as chosen by Jesus, 12 hours in the day, 12 months in the year&#8230;and seven..Spiritual Completion . That will keep one busy for a very long time, since 5 loaves and 2 fish add up to Seven&#8230;so why do we use seven so often&#8230;and 12..the roll of the dice.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Alice and the Rabbit Holographic Universe by Wes Rackley</title>
		<link>http://emergent-culture.com/alice-and-the-rabbit-holographic-universe/comment-page-1/#comment-107876</link>
		<dc:creator>Wes Rackley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 06:58:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergent-culture.com/?p=6112#comment-107876</guid>
		<description>This is really a small point of contention for me in an otherwise thoroughly rewarding read. It just happens to be the rationalist impediment to what I see as truly free thought that I&#039;ve been stumbling over a lot lately. It&#039;s something that just doesn&#039;t make any sense to me; but as decorous modesty. Free thought is a high price to pay to give credit where credit isn&#039;t due.The other organisms don&#039;t care..really. :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is really a small point of contention for me in an otherwise thoroughly rewarding read. It just happens to be the rationalist impediment to what I see as truly free thought that I&#8217;ve been stumbling over a lot lately. It&#8217;s something that just doesn&#8217;t make any sense to me; but as decorous modesty. Free thought is a high price to pay to give credit where credit isn&#8217;t due.The other organisms don&#8217;t care..really. <img src='http://emergent-culture.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Alice and the Rabbit Holographic Universe by Wes Rackley</title>
		<link>http://emergent-culture.com/alice-and-the-rabbit-holographic-universe/comment-page-1/#comment-107871</link>
		<dc:creator>Wes Rackley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 06:03:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergent-culture.com/?p=6112#comment-107871</guid>
		<description>Lets define qualitative. When you say qualitative. I &#039;think&#039; of the things that separate us from other organism, the most immediately obvious being this conversation. You point out that many animals communicate, in a rough approximation to ours, I strongly disagree, I believe our way of relating is fundamentally and definitively, qualitatively different. We attribute meaning. And just to complicate that astounding attribute. Other people &#039;get it&#039;! That is a qualitative difference imo that makes all other difference observed pale in comparison. In fact there is nothing more qualitatively different. it is literally all the difference in the &#039;world&#039; (extent of our understanding thought or un-thought).

 I had a couple more paragraphs but I&#039;ve thought better of posting them. I&#039;m still in the middle of this chase, but the above I feel comfortable posting. Thanks for the recommending David Bohn, a kindred spirit. You would probably enjoy E. Schrodinger&#039;s thoughts on our uniqueness in &quot;My View of the World&quot; (he builds a solid case in a few pages) if you&#039;ve not read it already. 

In reality, life is poetry, a tapestry of shared meanings, and reason is only a usefully insightful metaphor. The opposite of what one might presume living in the mechanistic, rationalist state of play we are currently in.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lets define qualitative. When you say qualitative. I &#8216;think&#8217; of the things that separate us from other organism, the most immediately obvious being this conversation. You point out that many animals communicate, in a rough approximation to ours, I strongly disagree, I believe our way of relating is fundamentally and definitively, qualitatively different. We attribute meaning. And just to complicate that astounding attribute. Other people &#8216;get it&#8217;! That is a qualitative difference imo that makes all other difference observed pale in comparison. In fact there is nothing more qualitatively different. it is literally all the difference in the &#8216;world&#8217; (extent of our understanding thought or un-thought).</p>
<p> I had a couple more paragraphs but I&#8217;ve thought better of posting them. I&#8217;m still in the middle of this chase, but the above I feel comfortable posting. Thanks for the recommending David Bohn, a kindred spirit. You would probably enjoy E. Schrodinger&#8217;s thoughts on our uniqueness in &#8220;My View of the World&#8221; (he builds a solid case in a few pages) if you&#8217;ve not read it already. </p>
<p>In reality, life is poetry, a tapestry of shared meanings, and reason is only a usefully insightful metaphor. The opposite of what one might presume living in the mechanistic, rationalist state of play we are currently in.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Alice and the Rabbit Holographic Universe by Rohaan Solare</title>
		<link>http://emergent-culture.com/alice-and-the-rabbit-holographic-universe/comment-page-1/#comment-107379</link>
		<dc:creator>Rohaan Solare</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 May 2012 20:04:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergent-culture.com/?p=6112#comment-107379</guid>
		<description>Hello Wes, Thank you for appreciating and for taking the time to comment.  My statements on the subject in question were not based in &quot;decorous modesty&quot; modesty I assure you.  I think I need to clarify what I wanted to say.  

The passage in question reads &lt;em&gt;&quot;Our DNA behaves according to a determined set of rules defined by electro-chemical principles. Every single organism obeys the same rules we do and we do not say that animals have a will, but that they are instinctually driven. When it comes down to it we are qualitatively indistinguishable from other organisms.

And if someone can show me show how we are qualitatively different from other organisms then by all means please leave a comment to that effect. One of the most cherished claims about human uniqueness is language. Language is just a name for sonic communication. All organisms communicate and many do so with sounds.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;

In your comment you bring up the aspect of &quot;contemplation&quot; by stating &lt;em&gt;&quot;Your intellect and desire to understand ‘truth’ by choice (free-will) separates you from say…my Shih tzu, for example, whom as far as I know, has n&lt;em&gt;ever contemplated much of anything&quot;. &lt;/em&gt;

A dictionary defines contemplation as
• think about 
• [ intrans. ] to think profoundly and at length; meditate

Thinking refers to cognitive processing of sorts. Surely anything with a brain has cognitive processes.  We know animals are problem solvers. If a certain animal has learned how to obtain what it wants by employing a series of actions then we know its actions were calculated to obtain a certain result and that amounts to thinking and thinking equals contemplation.   The key qualifier for my statement was that we are &lt;em&gt;&quot;qualitatively&lt;/em&gt; indistinguishable form other organisms&quot;.    You pointed out a &lt;em&gt;quantitative&lt;/em&gt; distinction.   &quot;Contemplating infinity&quot; or seeking &quot;truth&quot; as you say requires more cognitive processing capability, and not a new capability not found in simpler organisms.  

Qualitatively speaking a personal computer does exactly what a super computer does. They both compute data points.  But the difference in computing power enables a supercomputer to model the dynamics of black holes or the weather for example.   The supercomputer can &quot;contemplate&quot; a black hole because it first and foremost has the quantitative wherewithal to do so.  I hope that clarifies what I meant to say?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello Wes, Thank you for appreciating and for taking the time to comment.  My statements on the subject in question were not based in &#8220;decorous modesty&#8221; modesty I assure you.  I think I need to clarify what I wanted to say.  </p>
<p>The passage in question reads <em>&#8220;Our DNA behaves according to a determined set of rules defined by electro-chemical principles. Every single organism obeys the same rules we do and we do not say that animals have a will, but that they are instinctually driven. When it comes down to it we are qualitatively indistinguishable from other organisms.</p>
<p>And if someone can show me show how we are qualitatively different from other organisms then by all means please leave a comment to that effect. One of the most cherished claims about human uniqueness is language. Language is just a name for sonic communication. All organisms communicate and many do so with sounds.&#8221;</em></p>
<p>In your comment you bring up the aspect of &#8220;contemplation&#8221; by stating <em>&#8220;Your intellect and desire to understand ‘truth’ by choice (free-will) separates you from say…my Shih tzu, for example, whom as far as I know, has n</em><em>ever contemplated much of anything&#8221;. </em></p>
<p>A dictionary defines contemplation as<br />
• think about<br />
• [ intrans. ] to think profoundly and at length; meditate</p>
<p>Thinking refers to cognitive processing of sorts. Surely anything with a brain has cognitive processes.  We know animals are problem solvers. If a certain animal has learned how to obtain what it wants by employing a series of actions then we know its actions were calculated to obtain a certain result and that amounts to thinking and thinking equals contemplation.   The key qualifier for my statement was that we are <em>&#8220;qualitatively</em> indistinguishable form other organisms&#8221;.    You pointed out a <em>quantitative</em> distinction.   &#8220;Contemplating infinity&#8221; or seeking &#8220;truth&#8221; as you say requires more cognitive processing capability, and not a new capability not found in simpler organisms.  </p>
<p>Qualitatively speaking a personal computer does exactly what a super computer does. They both compute data points.  But the difference in computing power enables a supercomputer to model the dynamics of black holes or the weather for example.   The supercomputer can &#8220;contemplate&#8221; a black hole because it first and foremost has the quantitative wherewithal to do so.  I hope that clarifies what I meant to say?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on WHY THE US GOVERNMENT Hates and Fears The Internet by Jeb</title>
		<link>http://emergent-culture.com/why-the-us-government-hates-and-fears-the-internet/comment-page-1/#comment-107239</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 May 2012 22:01:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emergent-culture.com/?p=2346#comment-107239</guid>
		<description>How can you say that the internet, the personification of free speech, is a threat to conservatives? Conservatives, like you said, attempt to conserve principles within an organization, in this case the United States. How are you able to completely overlook the Bill of Rights, namely the first amendment, which conservatives constantly trumpet and defend? Your argument is flawed and teetering on the fringe. Have you stopped to consider who it is your talking about? Two old men who were thrust into the age of the internet and expected to assimilate- oh yes, they want to control the internet. Chances are they dont know half as much about the internet as a 10 year old kid. They simply know the value of information and are aware of how freely it it passes hands on the internet. You mentioned that they were military men; does that not further support my point that these men know the value of information? Their jobs were to protect the United States, her people, and her secrets. Can you not see that that is what they are doing? God forbid you lose an ounce of what you call freedom in the virtual world for the sake of a nation, and your own nation at that. And honestly, the internet is responsible for a decline in intelligence and useful knowledge. But that&#039;s a topic for another day.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How can you say that the internet, the personification of free speech, is a threat to conservatives? Conservatives, like you said, attempt to conserve principles within an organization, in this case the United States. How are you able to completely overlook the Bill of Rights, namely the first amendment, which conservatives constantly trumpet and defend? Your argument is flawed and teetering on the fringe. Have you stopped to consider who it is your talking about? Two old men who were thrust into the age of the internet and expected to assimilate- oh yes, they want to control the internet. Chances are they dont know half as much about the internet as a 10 year old kid. They simply know the value of information and are aware of how freely it it passes hands on the internet. You mentioned that they were military men; does that not further support my point that these men know the value of information? Their jobs were to protect the United States, her people, and her secrets. Can you not see that that is what they are doing? God forbid you lose an ounce of what you call freedom in the virtual world for the sake of a nation, and your own nation at that. And honestly, the internet is responsible for a decline in intelligence and useful knowledge. But that&#8217;s a topic for another day.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

