Dear Timothy,


> Timothy -> I really don't know of a better term for synergy.
>
> I found the following in Merriam-Webster's Colligiate
> Dictionary:
>
> Main Entry: syn.er.gy
> Pronunciation: 'si-n&r-jE
> Function: noun
> Etymology: New Latin synergia, from Greek synergos working
> together
> Date: 1660
> Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
> 1 : SYNERGISM; broadly : combined action or operation
> 2 : a mutually advantageous conjunction or compatibility of
> distinct business participants or elements (as resources or
> efforts)
>

It should be pointed out that the (apparent) moral component of your
pov is not a necessary component of Synergy: (If there is
any 'moral' dimension to Synergy,) it is strictly limited to the
virtue of economy (in action).

Better term? Synergetic LoveWill. (But note that the 'Synergetic'
qualifier is fully redundant and is here only for your pleasure
alone.)

> As for the terms energy-binding, space-binding, and
> time-binding originated by Korzybski, these are new scientific
> terms created to operationally define a process being
> described. Scientific innovation is often only the creation of
> such *new* terms.

Perhaps you mean scientific 'speculation' "is often only the
creation of such *new* terms"? The empirical basis
of 'Science' can at most provide new terms, corresponding to a new
understanding, of (pre-existing) observable phenomena. Anything
beyond that is no longer 'science'.

>
> However that said, I certainly do agree that neo[lo]gisms for
> the sake of newness is usually not helpful.

But that is not my point at all. Words are like names and numbers.
They are significant differentiators. There is _nothing_ wrong with
generating new words, if the willful intent is critically informed by
the intended shift in meaning. So thoughtful neologisms are either
(1) significant of the 'new', and/or (2) a critique of the no-longer-
useful 'old'.

Synergy masking the long-standing Spiritual Truths is either a
willful (though imo groundless) critque, or an indiscriminate use of
the instrument of language.

(Note that I do not include the other possibilities that arise for
the Contingent Animals, or the Metaphysical Materialists. Based on
our notes last week, I assume you do not consider yourself as either.)

..

I had asked "What has contributed to the demise of the family in the
West?" You answered in part "that our Western commitment to
Neutrality with its strong belief in individual independence has
played a big role here."

Since this "strong belief" did not suddenly
spring wholly formed from the Psyche of the western man, and given
the fact that even in the West, the attack on the Family is a
relatively recent phenomena, permit me to resolve the posed question
to 'What has contributed to the shift in the belief system of the
Western man?'.

In other words, what contributed to the 'unnatural' reorientation of
the West?


I further asked "Has telecommunication technology played a role in
this demise?" You replied in part "Yes and no. As the proponents of
guns argue, people kill people".

I don't accept that the moral neutrality of the Machine in 'repose'
in any way relieves us of the responsibility for the consequences of
the motivated mechanism.

In cases where the Mechanism is too complex and poorly understood by
the members of the host social context, this responsibility is the
Technologists' alone. (Who is responsible when a house is burned
down by a 'toddler' who is given a torch?)


You continued to say that "communication technology so far
in our human history has simply served the prevailing values."

Communication systems convey 'information'; thus communication
technologies rarely "[serve] the prevailing values". Rather, they
are instrumental in 'shaping' the new, and 'directing' the existing,
social value set. To the extent that a group member has internalized
the group value system, the propagation of these 'values' in the
social space carries little 'information' and is of little
significance.

When communication technology is used to propagate 'values', you can
be sure that you are witnessing either a desperate attempt
to 'support' a _failing_ value system which group members fail (or
refuse) to internalize, or, that the initial attempts in 'forging' a
new social consensus is underway by an interest.

Clearly, a component of the prevailing value system (even here in the
West) remains the 'family'. But surely the family is most
poorly "served" by the communication networks, don't you think?

It can also be pointed out that the prevalent social critique
propagated by the Homogenous National Networks can hardly be
characterized as 'directing' the existing social value system. This
point is further supported by the fact of the sharp cultural divide
in the USA.


I would like to ask group members to reflect on the Networks'
topology and business model. The gross failures in the social and
political spaces of the Americans can be directly informed by these
considerations.

Peace,

Joubin