The better, final version..:
[Not sure whether to repost in or move this to the AI thread...]
What Peloso is finding "troublesome" ^^^there^^^ is, simply, "humanity".
The most "troublesome" kind of thinking is considering always "humanity" as the exceptional hero, the genius (ah, "The Poet", "The Artist", "Einstein", "Mozart", "Sherlock"), the good compassive neighbour, the saint... it's not even that "Most people are evil."/"All men are wicked.", but, MUCH WORSE, that most people are mediocre and mechanical and, therefore, whatever feeds their "material and intellectual" lives (punctual exceptions included in that rule), must be equally mediocre and mechanical, and even the excellent is perceived through their own mediocrity; so, no matter how "exceptionally good" someone or something is, it is always reduced to that mechanical mediocrity, to whatever defective sense of excellence that people have in their minds: Mozart is trite and only for people who consider themselves more intelligent or, else, too mediocre because it is not convoluted enough for mediocre snobbish minds who consider intellectual excellence necessarily tied to convolutedness, like that of Wagner or of Glenn Gould... or simply "rotten old-fashioned music", and gastronomy is just overblown fancy-fartsy snobishness.
Again, the exception to that rule is excellence truly perceived and developed as geekiness concerning, for example, cars or sports or gunZ (bodily or mechanical).
So it was only a question of time (time longtime overdue) that, in the era of democracy and technological "innovativeness", machines would end up doing all the mechanical work that always, only faute de mieux, had to be done by SOME humans for the MASS of humans.
It is also worth pointing out that other "troublesome" way of considering any "intellectual production" as "immaterial": a Beethoven symphony or a novel, even an orally told tale, are not "immaterial"... not merely because they are sound or printed characters, but because their "intellectual quality" is the same as that of an indisputably very material painting, sculpture or building: that "immaterial" quality is, in all the cases, in your own mind, given rise to through a material medium. So what is "immaterial" would be your perception and opinion of them, not the material quality, the material object, that is at the origin of those perception and opinions, and is what you actually may consider "[world] heritage" worthy of preservation through the ages.
In short, people have commonly confused the CAPACITY of being excellent with some supposed "essence" of drudging, perfunctory everydayness. It's like one of the last frontiers, if not the very last, of all the fallen myths like the autonomy of conscience, the rationality of people, the centrality of the Earth, the biological origin of humanity...
"Democracy", "science" or "aesthetics" are "too good for the good of people's good", and democracy and art and science for the people would end up being torn and eaten by the people, something that elites always knew and was at the base of their contempt for the great unwashed, even in the cases in which those elites were themselves also mediocre and mechanical, since that is ultimately part of our human "essence" (not everyone is perfectly good, or 'elite', a 'genius' all the time); it is a truth usually considered through someone's particular, individual case, perceived in that primitive way that is only able to accept the particular case, and is unable to abstract, generalize and derive all the subsequent intellectual and practical consequences of that individual cases: "he dresses too well, you have too good a taste for your own good", but it derives ultimately from the fundamental "human essence", mediocrity being part of "human evil".
[Not sure whether to repost in or move this to the AI thread...]
What Peloso is finding "troublesome" ^^^there^^^ is, simply, "humanity".
The most "troublesome" kind of thinking is considering always "humanity" as the exceptional hero, the genius (ah, "The Poet", "The Artist", "Einstein", "Mozart", "Sherlock"), the good compassive neighbour, the saint... it's not even that "Most people are evil."/"All men are wicked.", but, MUCH WORSE, that most people are mediocre and mechanical and, therefore, whatever feeds their "material and intellectual" lives (punctual exceptions included in that rule), must be equally mediocre and mechanical, and even the excellent is perceived through their own mediocrity; so, no matter how "exceptionally good" someone or something is, it is always reduced to that mechanical mediocrity, to whatever defective sense of excellence that people have in their minds: Mozart is trite and only for people who consider themselves more intelligent or, else, too mediocre because it is not convoluted enough for mediocre snobbish minds who consider intellectual excellence necessarily tied to convolutedness, like that of Wagner or of Glenn Gould... or simply "rotten old-fashioned music", and gastronomy is just overblown fancy-fartsy snobishness.
Again, the exception to that rule is excellence truly perceived and developed as geekiness concerning, for example, cars or sports or gunZ (bodily or mechanical).
So it was only a question of time (time longtime overdue) that, in the era of democracy and technological "innovativeness", machines would end up doing all the mechanical work that always, only faute de mieux, had to be done by SOME humans for the MASS of humans.
It is also worth pointing out that other "troublesome" way of considering any "intellectual production" as "immaterial": a Beethoven symphony or a novel, even an orally told tale, are not "immaterial"... not merely because they are sound or printed characters, but because their "intellectual quality" is the same as that of an indisputably very material painting, sculpture or building: that "immaterial" quality is, in all the cases, in your own mind, given rise to through a material medium. So what is "immaterial" would be your perception and opinion of them, not the material quality, the material object, that is at the origin of those perception and opinions, and is what you actually may consider "[world] heritage" worthy of preservation through the ages.
In short, people have commonly confused the CAPACITY of being excellent with some supposed "essence" of drudging, perfunctory everydayness. It's like one of the last frontiers, if not the very last, of all the fallen myths like the autonomy of conscience, the rationality of people, the centrality of the Earth, the biological origin of humanity...
"Democracy", "science" or "aesthetics" are "too good for the good of people's good", and democracy and art and science for the people would end up being torn and eaten by the people, something that elites always knew and was at the base of their contempt for the great unwashed, even in the cases in which those elites were themselves also mediocre and mechanical, since that is ultimately part of our human "essence" (not everyone is perfectly good, or 'elite', a 'genius' all the time); it is a truth usually considered through someone's particular, individual case, perceived in that primitive way that is only able to accept the particular case, and is unable to abstract, generalize and derive all the subsequent intellectual and practical consequences of that individual cases: "he dresses too well, you have too good a taste for your own good", but it derives ultimately from the fundamental "human essence", mediocrity being part of "human evil".
QVC products being advertised outside the QVC channel, worse than Coronation Street, the Oscars, the 'sports' season, political careers...
