God's Eye View: Difference between revisions
(a problem we have to be aware of) |
(explaining NNPOV as disguised/anticipated GEV) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
By constrast, by the late 1990s, obvious liars could pretty much take control of most of the military power on Earth, and seriously expect to be re-elected. This suggests that [[democracy]] may actually be the worst usurper of God-view. | By constrast, by the late 1990s, obvious liars could pretty much take control of most of the military power on Earth, and seriously expect to be re-elected. This suggests that [[democracy]] may actually be the worst usurper of God-view. | ||
By contrast, the problem of [[GodKing]] on [[large public wiki]]s is not so bad, humourous, even. | By contrast, the problem of [[GodKing]] on [[large public wiki]]s is not so bad, humourous, even. When a [[sysop power structure]] agrees that something is '''not [[neutral point of view]]''' (whatever they mean by that on that day) they actually mean "we can exclude this without angering our great GodKing." That is ''all'' they mean, that is, there is no possible objective definition of "not neutral", as neutrality itself is [[factionally defined]]. Disguised or anticipated God's Eye view is of course the job of a [[priestly hierarchy]]. | ||
Revision as of 17:19, 30 June 2004
The God's Eye View is the assumption of a perspective from which one can evaluate things "objectively" and come to the "right" decision. It applies to both moral and mathematical decisions. See conceptual metaphor for an alternative way to look at these problems.
The GEV is normally considered a point of view issue in history, or subject-object problem in linguistics or unequal power relation problem in sociology.
In religious circules it may be considered to be blasphemy to make a claim that something is "true" without following some strict process. For example in 922 AD the Persian mystic Al-Hallaj was executed after many trials and counter trials. His crime? He wandered the streets in a state of mystical "fana" while uttering "I am the truth".
By constrast, by the late 1990s, obvious liars could pretty much take control of most of the military power on Earth, and seriously expect to be re-elected. This suggests that democracy may actually be the worst usurper of God-view.
By contrast, the problem of GodKing on large public wikis is not so bad, humourous, even. When a sysop power structure agrees that something is not neutral point of view (whatever they mean by that on that day) they actually mean "we can exclude this without angering our great GodKing." That is all they mean, that is, there is no possible objective definition of "not neutral", as neutrality itself is factionally defined. Disguised or anticipated God's Eye view is of course the job of a priestly hierarchy.