m-w.com defines technocratic as of, relating to, or suggestive of a technocrat or a technocracy, where a technocracy is government by technical experts. And a technocrat is either (i) an adhrent of technocracy, or (ii) a technical expert, especially one in a managerial position.
So what's a technical expert then? Well actually technical is kind of redundant, as it sometimes only means skilled, and if someone is an expert then surely they are skilled at something. More specifically, it usually refers to being skilled in a practical subject organized on scientific principles - whatever that means. Thus a political scientist may well be more of a technical expert than a mathematician or theoretical physicist.
So, technically, a system such as Plato's Republic, where the polis is governed by politically trained philosophers, is a rather good example of a technocracy. I'm pretty sure such a system would initially work pretty well. I've my doubts on how effecitive his republic would be in the long term though, but the Republic was never really a blueprint for a practical poltical system. Government by the relevant experts would at least at first glance result in better decisions than government by selfish politicians chosen by the mostly ignorant masses.
In general, I'm not sure how you'd choose your technical experts though. Online, a popular (pipe) dream might be some sort of government by the geeks but I can't really see that working. Your average geek might be somewhat interested in politics, but I don't think they have much of a grasp on the pratical running of a state, and why waste there talents doing that where there are others who might do a better job.
Maybe the best technical expert, is some sort of a computer... to that all I can say is The Computer is my friend.
Of course right now there isn't much need to theorise about politics with all the political craziness that's been happening in the real world! [I might post about that tomorrow, but we'll see how it goes]
Also woot, it looks like we won the cricket again.
Okay, Writtenl fight club time, I was going to do this much sooner, but that never happened. I was going to be really clever and do a whole summary of what each person said, but I can't be bothered. Furthermore the value of the argument, and thus of my view have probably depreciated somewhat, but still here we go.
AFAIK Ben's basic statement was something like "girls just can't get Fight Club" which when filter it through a dedrunkenfying filter, it something like "With no offense intended, females are less likely to get Fight Club than males", with perhaps a side issue of Arc's "You're average movie goer isn't going to get it at all".
Now having talked about with Arc for at least 1.5 conversations, I gotta disagree with both these positions. although it depends a bit on what the language used actually means.
We'll begin with the second statement. Now Fight Club is an admirable movie, and you come away from it with a lot of questions, which is I think, a good thing. In a way, it's also rather simple. You don't need deep knowledge in order to understand what's going, and, the plot is pretty much linear. There's of course the twist in the tail, and while that adds to the entertainment and entrallment factors, it doesn't really change the themes of the film. Thus I'm going to suggest it doesn't take a genius to understand the core issues of the film. Sure, there's additional material to take in at several other levels, but I don't think you really need that stuff to "get" the film.
As to which sex are more likely to get it or not, I'd just about say, that females are in fact more likely to get it than males, assuming that they stay around to see the whole film. Of course, they would probably be more likely to get turned off by the title, marketing (which Arc tells me was pretty bad. casting it as a "Fighting Film"), and initial sequences (although I think it's fairly clear right from the start that it isn't your typical film), and so not in fact see it in the first place. That said, a lot of males might feel the same way, and it did have quite an underground following.
Which leads us onwards to the tie-in discussion to do with gender indentification and societal expectations. I put it that way because there is a whole lot of stuff on this in Arc's guestbook.
Firstly Maddy's right, there's more to gender than just the female/male dichotomy, and to use those words in the way I have above or the way others have is applying a crass stereotype that is offensive to many people. However, that is the way that a lot of people see the world, unfortunate as it is. So, I'm going to still use those labels, as bad as they are for a typical exemplar of the sexes [which moots the question of what one of those is]. Of course, going with those stereotypes is precisely what leads to the demonisation of people who hold heterodox opinions on things like human sexuality, but that is only really tangential to the discussion at hand.
Now onto the hook, violence or otherwise. Violence is the hook that they draw you into the other world of the fight club. Here I've got to agree with Ben, violence is far more likely to draw a male in to the club and the film, than a female. As a hook, it is effective, it's an "antisocial" activity, with obvious outward signs, that would lead others to question what have they been up to. However other hooks also exist, like say consensual group sex. Such clubs do no doubt exist and are probably sufficently antisocial. Alternative one could look at alternative worlds, like those of (from my recent reading/viewing)Pleasantville, Fahrenheit 451 or The Handmaiden's Tale, where far more mundane (by our standards), things would qualify.
Now said hook is beneficial, it gives you something to grasp on in an attempt to understand the film, but it could also be detrimental, as it could distract you from the message of the film, as I tried to conclude above.
It is interesting that there are no female members of the fight club, when having some could've perhaps added to the value of the film. My gut speculation is that the creators of the book/film avoided doing so mainly because it was a perspective they found hard to identify with and thus write.
Ben makes an interesting comparison between male and females when it comes to sport, particularly contact sports, and here I think I've gotta say its mostly a matter of perception, and historical societal norms, ie historical women weren't encouraged to participate in sport, especially contact sports. That said, I think you'll find netball, these days is as every bit a vicious non-contact sport as soccer.
Well there we go, I'm sure it's pretty crazy and bordering on incomprehensible. but it's done.
Okay. I was going to comment on like stuff, but it doesn't look like I've got the time to write anything much in the next few days. So my opinion of Fight Club will just have to wait.
I do have time however to post a few quick links.
Firstly, via this K5 story on Tibetan Orthography that I randomly stumbled on, we have the marvellous Omniglot.
Secondly, via Mark, and Ben, and perhaps half the western world we have
Pointless Waste of Time's movie trilogy comparison!, also of note for some of their other "articles".
Finally, we have Fark's Google holiday logo photoshop.
That is all.
Okay, just a wee quickie.
Party was good, but you know that.
Riccarton Mall is odd. Or at least was odd, the last two times I saw it from the bus.
[It's also probably pretty crazy inside, but I haven't been there for an age]
Anyhow, last night, as was cruising home on the last bus of the day, when we got to the mall, we ran into a big freakin' house. Not sure where they were moving it to, but it took up most of Riccarton Road.
And secondly, when I went past this morning, everyone was milling around outside rather than purchasing up large inside. Looks like it might have been a fire alarm. I guess it could have something a bit more consipiratory, but the fact that we passed a fire-engine a few minutes later is somewhat suggestive.