1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 I am frequently told that I waste time reading and viewing the news, especially the bad news. I admit to wasting my time, but not with the news. The news may be a waste of time for others. But, I could become MUCH more efficient (reesee) in my news processing.

2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 My news (which is special to me) is my window into the story of reality.  It is like viewing an exciting video drama or reading a novel you can’t put town.  There are many, many stories within stories with stories accessed through the news. The news is a gateway.

  • 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0
  •     My news are the new items of information I access each day. Some from radio, TV, printed paper, The Internet, and other persons.
  •     I attend to the news with the same interest I have when watching a video drama or reading a book. Follow the stories, real and imagined.

4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 We are living in a most exciting drama, with every possible dimension that can be found in literature. And all the characters are excellent as they are only being themselves. These are stories told of real worlds and real persons, living and who have lived on this awesome planet.

5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 The news is never just about recent events, or at least my news is not. Many news stories I encounter report on historical events with new insights. I learn how others envision their futures. Many news stories report on discoveries that lead back to other stories. News often reports of ongoing mysteries, of great conflicts, of people heroically facing challenges, interesting lives lived. Every story lived is potentially accessed through the news. The news is timeless, not only of the moment.

6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 The stories I access through the news are reports of happenings and thoughts of persons – from the past, even if only a few seconds when it is live video. I don’t automatically believe that the reports are accurate.  I collect conflicting reports and compare them – but the objective reality is never 100% certain from the news.

7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0 I skim headlines (story titles) and abstracts (story plots) increasing my positive ignorance of what I don’t yet know or comprehend, or can’t yet do or appreciate. It is often difficult to avoid reading what would be of special interest but where other stories of greater relevance call. My strategy of accessing the news evolved over the decades as the nature of the news changed.

8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0 Reports are interpreted in the contexts of other reports – a nearly infinite web of semiotic structures, or sems – as I call them. There are stories about stories, how they are created, distributed, responded to, censored – and how the processes and structures of stories are changing with technology (which is itself an exciting story).

9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0 An entire species, humankind, is facing a crisis-of-crises – far beyond the scope of any epic novel – some with many levels of intrigue and plays at deception interrupted by occasional bursts of brilliant insights.

10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0 There is no part of the story that doesn’t interest me – but I can only sample an infinitesimal part, so I must be very selective. But not too programmed that I become blind to domains of great relevance (of my accurate assessment of the unfolding story and how I and we might begin to influence/compose this story with more {you provide the term}).

11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0 This was a recent insight. I no longer feel guilty when devoting time each day learning about the story I am living within and how I might learn to better contribute to that emerging story.

12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 0 Larry/nuet  4/17/2014 12:05 AM

One Responses

  • Two lists are found here: http://nuet.us/collections/email-listserves-and-urls-larry-accesses-regularily-as-news/

    From these site I receive daily emails with many urls. Some are from progressive or environmental (left) sites. Others are from the far right or Tea Party. I also skim the TV news and sometimes view RT and PBS programs. I sample speeches from “leaders” to see what they say, and not say.

    I attempt to not imply objective reality from anything I read. I do rank reports as to constituency and coherence with other reports. Blatant deception is obvious, which only says that some claims are not true – not what is true. Even reports that are backed by “evidence” don’t insure the truth of interpretations (that depend on contexts often not verified). Reality is much more than a set of evidence-backed reports. Yet, such reports ARE THE EMPIRICAL BASIS for our constructed conceptual realities. Our immediate conscious experiential “realities” is something quite different. They are private to each experiencer and we know somethings of other’s experiences from their reports.

    At this moment I am flashing an insight: DECEPTION CAN BE MUCH WORSE THAN MURDER.

    DECEPTION kills species and whole human populations.

    Why is there freedom to deceive?

    We may have the “right” to move our bodies and utter sounds – so long as they don’t have a negative impact on others. We can’t guard for accidental negative outcomes (collateral damage) to our actions, but we should be blocked from actions whose intent is unnecessary harm to others. Persons who make a habit of this should be “quarantined” from the ability to spread their effects. The real cost of “quarantine” should determine its nature.

    But, it is not so easy. Might this apply to me and my proposed UPLIFT? I do not act with the intention to harm; but to reduce harm being done and to open us to more positive doings. Yet, a consequence of UPLIFT would be the removal of power from those who intend harm (although they may claim their intentions are “good” – and who is to judge?) and they would probably view restrictions on their behavior as “harm”.

    Also, whenever a major shift occurs the turbulence that accompanies shifts will cause some accidental harm to “innocents”. But, harm continues when not attempting shifts to an intended better world with less harm. But, this “better world” is not guaranteed.

    It is my assessment that UPLIFT would immediately reduce the net harm experienced by humankind – but it might redistribute the harm. Only if UPLIFT were brutally suppressed and populations punished for attempting significant change, might the actions of UPLIFT increase harm. However, the accelerating harm projected into the future by the continuation of established systems demand we must take the risk. Our actions should minimize the potential for suppression while optimizing success.

    How do we decide? We can use scientific methods to evaluate relative risks. How are the methods approved and by whom? There is a strong movement today to discredit science. Scientifically we can trace this movement to the intentional actions of those with the most power today – so as to preserve their status – and they indoctrinate susceptible populations to follow their lead. Merchants of Doubt.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *