There are two things in life that we confuse. Values and character. Values are what make us do what we do. They are freely chosen. They require acts of will to attain fruition in deeds. Then there is character which has nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with how you are seen by others and by yourself.
If we can all be said to be philosophers, my philosophy is one in which the words realist and idealist are prominent. I am never quite sure what either means but I know they are not dualist or nominalist and that is good enough for me. In essence I am a universalistic quasi-mystic iconoclast which I suspect is close to the norm. Why shouldn’t it be. After all, we are human and to be human, I believe, means that we come with universalism as our default and we also come with ontological values which are the default. These inner realities, they might be seen as a spark of life, get skewed by what the Bible calls principalities and powers whose weapons include division (dualism) and obfuscation. All this is pretty obvious and not far from where many are. So why write it. Only to quest for a bit of clarity as we survey the wall of stuff out there.
What is interesting to me is the spectrum of consciousness whereby a person who might become fearful and even paranoid in one setting would be completely at ease in another. I tend to feel that the more we begin building from the ground up the society which is more face to face, more trusting and more integral, the more hope can be kindled. The matrix we are in now needs to be shaken a bit so that something new can take its place. Something greener and more environmentally savvy. Something fairer. Something more attuned to the values of Abba’s way.
Dualism divides everything into twos. Thinking naturally moves to threes unless one has been convinced that there are never more than two options and that there is no way forward.
These are from my Complete History of Adam Panflick – a Semi-fictional Memoir.
Fraternity System Rejects Adam and Then Accepts Him 1955 – Associated Content from Yahoo! – associatedcontent.com: “Yes. Well. We shall see how important this Williams College rushing and fraternity thing was.”
Slowly but Surely Adam is Becoming Alienated 1955 – Associated Content from Yahoo! – associatedcontent.com: “For for a while, Adam bought into the good cheer. And to the prospect that he, like Peter Marshall, might become an admirable fellow, beloved by the people. Flourishing. In a loving, upbuilding relationship. Without the coronary.”
Adam Starts at Williams College His Room is Trashed 1954 – Associated Content from Yahoo! – associatedcontent.com: “Adam came to Williams College with an unusual thought. He was going to study. To apply himself. Make Dean’s List. Prove to himself that he could do it.”
A NYT editorial opines that Google should be investigated across the board. And then in typical right hand left hand fashion says Google is justified in downgrading “low quality sites” like so-called content farms.
A year ago, I moved to one of the platforms that Google has besmirched and otherwise almost put out of business by publicly designating them as low in quality. Associated Content aka Yahoo Contributor Network. I have explained why I made the move and consistently published proof of Google’s errors in discerning what sort of content is useful and what is not.
My main argument has been that Google has no right or call to attack and zap entire domains. But this is just what Google enables with its Chrome browser, with clear prodding from its chief technologist Matt Cutts.
I moved to AC from WordPress and from Huffington Post. I am a writer in good standing with many books commercially published and expertise in politics and religion going back to my acquisition of a double major – the first – at Williams College. I am naturally offended to have made what I felt was a rational move only to find that the only thing in my life that is now a consistent source of harm and daily bother is Google.
I write this to insist that the Justice Department not buy Google’s evident defense of its search policies on the basis of its animosity to sites it regards as low grade.
It takes miniscule attention to all Google search results to perceive consistent reasons for criticizing its choice of what is relevant and what is not. Those who delve the first five pages of results know for a fact that this is the case.
I have little doubt that a more useful solution to search is among the most likely developments on the Web. I have done pioneer work in the matter of developing models for how such a search service might develop. Namely, by confining its results to things that can bee freely accessed on pages that contain the entire text of whatever someone is looking for.
It would make access to Google books, Wiki sites and other omnipresent Google selections optional.
No, I do not aim to compete with the giant. But I do claim to know just as much as they do about what makes for decent and useful search. This is not a technical question. It has to do with intelligence and an integral approach to things.
The New York Times should be mildly ashamed when it is pointed out that they most likely accepted Google’s rap on content farms without doing their own investigation of the issue. Lazy journalism. Errant conclusion.
It seems of a piece with the times we live in.
The following was indexed immediately from my Blogger blog Short Form Content at Blogger:
Short Form Content at Blogger: Mildred Purse hails Sarah Palin’s decision not to run: “Mildred Purse hails Sarah Palin’s decision not to run”
The following from Associated Content Yahoo Contributor Network was promoted and has not been indexed:
Sarah Palin Says She Will Not Run – Associated Content from Yahoo! – associatedcontent.com: “Sarah Palin Says She Will Not Run”
It is not unusual for Google to get around to indexing Associated Content material if I post it here.
Needless to say this is a tendentious process and would be unnecessary if Mr. Cutts and company would relent and find a different way to ensure quality content without zapping and downfrading entire domains, particulary of competitors.