Book Discussion on "Technopoly - The Surrender of Culture to Technology" by Neil Postman

Рет қаралды 5,230

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 17

@मयंककुमार-छ2झ 7 ай бұрын

The Shankaracharya of Govardhan Math in Puri also talked about the same thing. I suggest everyone to listen the pravachan that Shankaracharya gave in IIT Kanpur.

@kausikgangopadhyay9326 7 ай бұрын

Essentially anything cannot be all good or all bad. For far too long, we have considered technology to be only good. Recently with the understanding of looming unemployment, we are sobering up on that front. Great discussion!

@gregjs9665 8 ай бұрын

Thanks for another excellent discussion of a book that I have learned a lot from. A meta-critique I would make of the book (but which I think is in the spirit of Postman’s overall argument) is that the very way he categorizes cultures and history might itself owe too much to the technopolists’ warped mentality. As useful as his approach may be for shedding light on some aspects of modern life, categorizing people in terms of their usage of technology might actually mask even more than it reveals. For example, “tool-using peoples,” precisely because they are not technocratic, would probably never think to call themselves “tool-using peoples” or anything equivalent to that. They would probably not use any classification system (another example would be “stone age, iron age, bronze age,” etc.) that makes technology THE central feature of human life. I suspect that older, more traditional cultures divide history in quite different ways. How about “high-relational cultures,” “declining-relational cultures," and “collapsing-relational cultures”? A classification system like this would retain what Postman is saying, but without falling into the technopolist trap of centering technology. It would emphasize that the increasing dominance of technology is secondary to a declining capacity for relatedness/community. Isn’t this the real issue? But this is precisely what tends to get overlooked in any techno-centric classification system. In this way, techno-centric systems further the covering up of our collective memory traces of the very thing that technopoly undermines and replaces. Again, I’m not saying Postman’s approach has no value. But those of us locked within the technocratic mindset have trouble seeing what lies outside it-or seeing that anything that lies outside of it might be incredibly valuable. Techno-centric systems risk subtly reinforcing this blindness-which is the very opposite of what Postman is aiming at. Maybe this is an example of the “framing of questions” problem-the self-perpetuating ideological bias of language-that you discuss around 1:23:00?

@vaibhawc 7 ай бұрын

Very good discussion. I look forward to reading this book for details now.

@hyugakarn 8 ай бұрын

What a beautiful talk

@puneet7768 7 ай бұрын

please discuss this book with rajiv malhotra, he has already written books on AI

@shravyaamin8346 8 ай бұрын

Such interesting discourses we see on this channel.....

@dvikauglaumishrauca 7 ай бұрын

This was a good dicussion on technopoly. Can you do one on "Artificial Intelligence and Future of Power" by Rajiv Malhotra?

@harshgohil4367 8 ай бұрын

If rajiv malhotra were here in discussion, there could have the valuable inputs to this discourse

@kashba 8 ай бұрын

amazing discussion 🙌

@JeetBarai-p4v 13 күн бұрын

@upword - 9:30 - Which books is Ashish Dhar referring to ?

@ajaypalsrivastava6945 8 ай бұрын

Consciousness is the most important thing that keeps a person attached to it's traditions and customs As we all use technology nowadays, I am commenting through mobile on this video which is uploaded through KZbin and many Hindus (Both Trads & BJP supporters) use AI generated images now

@snehashispanda4808 8 ай бұрын

Monotheism (the doctrine or belief that there is only one God) is blamed as the instigator of ignorance, oppression, and violence. Monotheism has been a "totalizing discourse", often co-opting all aspects of a social belief system, resulting in the exclusion of "others". Monotheism is less pluralistic and thus less tolerant than polytheism, because monotheism stipulates that people pigeonhole their beliefs into one tenet. "Monotheism is irreconcilable with the existence in our nature of the instincts of benevolence" because it compels followers to devote themselves to a single Creator. The logic of monotheism ... yields little basis for tolerating other religions". Monotheism anesthetize the sense of wonder as if one were committed to a single line of thought by a cosmic legal contract".