Re: e: Hell II (Was: Rational thought etc.)

Mark T wrote:
 
> "**Rowland Croucher**" wrote:
>   
>>>> Whatever else Morkie may be, at least he's more reasonable than you,
> 
>>>> at least these days.
>>>>         
>> I'd noticed that too... and when Mark says the following, although it's

>> tongue-in-cheek, I read him as being serious:
>>     
>>> Aw ... I wuv you too. ;-)
>>>       
>
>
> Aw ... let's all have a group hug .... no greeting each other with a
kiss 
> .... even if it's in the bible Romans 6:16; 1Corinthians 16:20; 2 
> Corinthians13:12; I Thessalonians 5:26; 1 Peter 5:14.)
>
>
>   
 
:)
 
 
Human contact a cyber failing
Article from: Herald Sun
 
May 12, 2008 12:00am
 
IN America, you can attend a Cuddle Party. This is where a group of 
strangers pay to hug each other.
According to cuddleparty.com, it's "a place for people to rediscover 
non-***ual touch and affection".
 
Only in America right?
 
Wrong. Cuddle Parties are taking off in Australia, too.
 
These parties are clearly a fad, and I'm sure they attract more than 
their fair share of Harry Potter-reading, pyjama-wearing weirdos, but 
they're also perhaps an early indication of the fact that an increasing 
number of people, many of whom now live alone, crave the sensation of 
being physically held and touched.
 
Like many fringe ideas, it may also represent an unmet need - in this 
case a remedy for sadness or loneliness.
 
These Cuddle Parties represent a safe form of intimacy-on-demand that 
appeals to singles and married couples alike, many of whom are either 
too busy or tired to become involved with any other form of shared 
physical activity.
 
On one level this craving for instant intimacy is ironic because in many 
other areas we are being told to accept as "normal" behaviour that is 
exactly the opposite.
 
Physically touching a colleague at work (and I'm talking here about 
affectionate hugs) is now strictly verboten.
 
Research by Manchester Metropolitan University also says there is a 
growing anxiety in childcare circles about touching children.
 
Recent panics include a male teacher who instructed a small child to 
apply a plaster himself because the teacher was too afraid to touch the 
child.
 
This is clearly insane but the madness isn't restricted to loony 
politicians and pediatricians.
 
Organisations are also trying to convince us that reducing human contact 
is a good thing because it saves us time and money.
 
It's the new economy dude. Society 2.0. They are liars. Reducing human 
contact saves them time and money.
 
It's the same with social networking sites. Some people claim that we 
have never been better connected.
 
Apparently, people on Facebook have an average of 150 friends.
 
But these are digital acquaintances.
 
These are superficial friends and we are confusing familiarity with 
intimacy. Hence our growing need for physical contact.
 
Even the environment has been roped in to help sell us the lie that less 
human contact is healthy.
 
There are organisations out there right now encouraging us to hold 
meetings in cyberspace because this reduces carbon emissions. Really?
 
I thought that computers were powered by electricity from burning oil 
and coal, so where's the logic in that?
 
But even if these e-vangelicals are right they are still wrong.
 
For instance, sociologists at the University of Arizona and Duke 
University North Carolina have found that Americans have fewer real 
friends than they used to.
 
In 1985, the average American had three people to talk to about their 
problems.
 
Now the figure is just two. Why?
 
Longer working hours are one reason but the real culprit is technology.
 
Use of the internet and mobile phones has reduced face-to-face contact.
 
People need to intimately connect with other people.
 
If they don't, there is a danger that they will spend too much time 
inhabiting virtual worlds like Second Life.
 
This is not good for them and is not good for the planet either.
 
People need people because happiness comes from intimate interactions 
with friends and family.
 
Moreover, as everyone instinctively knows, new ideas are born 
serendipitously in places like stairwells and over lunch, not at overly 
orchestrated brainstorms or government summits where most of the 
solutions are so small that they could be mistaken for homeopathic
remedies.
 
We need to establish an intimate relation****p with the thought that a 
life lived remotely, or at a physical distance from others, is 
ultimately unbearable.
 
Time, in other words, for a physical revolution.
 
- Richard Watson is the author of Future Files: A History of the Next 50 
Years.


-- 
rgds,

Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'I'm not young enough to know everything' -Oscar Wilde