Member 2808
3 entries
4756 views

 RSS
Arian Ghousi (M, 33)
New York, US
Immortal since Dec 15, 2010
Uplinks: 0, Generation 3
I'm an Iranian Industrial Designer and a K-12 coach
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • Now playing SpaceCollective
    Where forward thinking terrestrials share ideas and information about the state of the species, their planet and the universe, living the lives of science fiction. Introduction
    Featuring Powers of Ten by Charles and Ray Eames, based on an idea by Kees Boeke.
    Mastery comes with a master, the subject of mastery and also a tool. In case that the subject of mastery is nature, Technology can be a tool that we (the masters) have used during history in different levels to govern and to dominate the nature. Like any other tool, we need to find out the optimum way of using it. in order to not harming ourselves (hitting the hammer on our own finger). So, I really like the notion of not being overexcited about new tools and just leave them by their own when we they don’t seem to work, but to revise them, look them in new lights and to discover how it can work. Or in other words give the interaction between our tools and ourselves another chance.

    You can find the article here
    Mon, Jul 16, 2018  Permanent link

      RSS for this post
      Promote
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     
    What makes genes so exciting? In part of the text we read that understanding gene results in understanding the individuals and understanding individuals, makes understanding societies, cultures, etc. easier. In other parts of the text, we read that science is also an instrument for better manipulating our environment for our benefit.

    I am wondering If all the hype about genes comes simply from the fact that we want to manipulate societies and we think that genes are the source. We seem to believe that there should be a starting point that gives us more power to maneuver. And that is genes as controllers of individuals and as a result society. But what if genes are simply another body part? What if we are not truly controlled by them?

    What if we are misled by the idea that the smaller parts are responsible for the qualities in a larger scale?

    I was amazed to be the notion of our scientific processes being affected by our general ideologies. Like for example how when we observe a cell, we usually tend to assign some humane qualities to it and try to find out behaviors that “make sense” to us. What if we are missing things just because we are not used to be looking for them and as a result continue to reproduce the same ideas?

    Part of the book is brought here.
    Sat, Mar 24, 2018  Permanent link

      RSS for this post
      Promote
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     
    Somewhere in the book the author mentions: “Human body as a republic of cells”

    During this part of the text, the cells are addressed with qualities such as selflessness. I think the same way we formed societies for our own individual benefits different cells of the human body might “know” that this is for their own good to collaborate within the context of the human body. But the concepts of cells being of different “character” really amazes me! How for example cells from the brain when cultured form networks and cells form the skin try to form skin even when they’re apart from their natural habitat! Might they belong to different stereotypes as we humans do? Are stereotypes a “natural” thing as a result?
    How come these cells came along in the first place? Wandering in space they found each other randomly and based on their different characteristics discovered that they could work together as a body?!
    Or they were there and in the context of their “social” life within the human body, little by little they changed just like couples do?
    Mon, Jan 29, 2018  Permanent link

      RSS for this post
      Promote
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     
          Cancel