Cellphone Epidemic

[sue hindmarsh]

Accessories such as the mobile phone and the BlackBerry are like ‘pets’ – people have them to “keep them company”, but end up being the ones that are kept. You need to recharge them, customize them, update them, upload them, download them, answer them, listen to them,... The difference is, you're not allowed to take your pet everywhere with you, because it might annoy others by, for example, making too much noise.

The world was definitely a lot quieter before the introduction of mobile phones, iPods, personal CD players and Walkmans. I can recall a time when people sat quietly on public transport, stood quietly in queues, and walked quietly down the street. Now, it appears, all reticence has been discarded. You take a step outside your door and you are immediately bombarded by information about other people's lives - lives that you have absolutely no need, or desire to know about.

[Philosophaster]

I can't keep talking as if I'm innocent in the larger scheme of "constant interconnectedness," though. I have to admit that I am addicted to the Internet, or very near to being so.

A few months ago, I had a week where I resolved to use the net for nothing but schoolwork, so I was on for maybe twenty minutes a day instead of several hours. Normally I'm online enough that doing this was a very strange experience for me; suddenly many hours were "free" where before they would have been occupied by boards or reading news and articles. The days seemed to crawl by, and that week still sticks out as subjectively the "longest" in recent memory.

[Alex Jacob]

When Jesus comes back
to set up his throne
Will He use a cellphone?

[Philosophaster]

More personal stuff...

I own a cell phone, but I don't use it very often. Sometimes I've thought of leaving my cell phone at home and driving straight out to do a bit of sight-seeing for a few days, just being completely alone and unreachable.

Then the "what ifs" pile up, many of them having to do with my car, which runs just fine, breaking down in the middle of nowhere, or someone I know getting into some crisis or other, even though my friends and family live safe and mostly crisis-free lives. And I find that my original idea of driving out there without any means of communication strikes me as "reckless" and somehow dangerous.

How silly is that?

Then again, maybe I could take my cell phone but leave it off unless an emergency happened.

It's funny, when cell phones first started becoming popular, that's the justification I often heard people use for getting them: "I'll only use it in case of some kind of emergency." It's what my parents said, and for a long time my dad resisted the creeping trend by leaving his cell phone off most of the time.

Rudeness no longer consists of suddenly interrupting a conversation to go to talk to someone else. Now it's considered rude to not interrupt whatever you're doing to talk to whoever wants to reach you at that moment. Whatever happened to the phrase, "If it's important, they'll leave a message"? That's what my parents used to say whenever the phone would ring during dinner. Then again, it could be an emergency, so you really should answer that phone, shouldn't you?

It's funny to me how the proliferation of technology can make something seem risky or irresponsible when only fifteen years ago people did it without a second thought.

[brokenhead]

Cell phone use in the car more dangerous than drunk driving.

I don't think that cell phones themselves are necessarily a problem, it's just that many people seem to let them dominate their lives. It's no longer considered rude to interrupt a conversation and suddenly start talking to someone else. I find it pretty annoying, at least.

Cell phones are one of many ways that people have accustomed themselves to interruptions. Many people seem to have lost the ability to pay attention to one thing for any longer than a couple minutes.

Thanks for that link, Philo. And I'm with you 100% that the phones aren't the problem - they in fact are without a doubt a great thing to have.

But the interruption thing is annoying. Consider the regular, old fashioned telephone. It rings, you answer. The caller has no idea what he or she might be interrupting. And you of course have no idea who it could be, so you stop what you are doing and you answer. More often than not, the importance of the information conveyed in a phone call is not great, and yet we cease our current activity or conversation to take the call. A phone caller automatically gets prioritized above everyone else for you attention. Now with the cellphones, it can happen anywhere, at any time.

I have had personal experience with this. On one job I was responsible for the email computers in a large pharmaceutical company. If one went down while I was on the way to work, I would get the cell phone call in my car. I drive a stick shift. How was I supposed to respond? What I would do is pull over so I could concentrate and help resolve the problem.

In the link that Philo posted above, it makes no difference whether the device is hands-free or not. The important thing is where your attention goes. I have to say that annoying isn't the word for the situation I just mentioned. The word is hazardous. There was no way I could drive and at the same time properly devote my attention to the IT problem at hand on my job. I needed to visualize what the caller was saying in order to help him; therefore I would not be able to sufficiently "visualize" the traffic I was in.

Cellphones are relatively new. With use, you're going to get some abuse. Find out what Hubby wants for dinner before you get behind the wheel.

[samadhi]

Dan,

sam: Enlightenment is not about being cranky, pointing fingers and whining.

Dan: Which is why hardly anything you say is ever about enlightenment. You're such a hypocrite, Sam. And since when have sane mental states not been relevant to enlightenment?

Good to have you back! Gee, you're just as cranky as ever! ;)



Carl,

Let's not go back and forth over so trivial a matter. You don't like cellphones, I get it. Just don't make it about others is all I'm saying. And please note, I wasn't singling you out when I made my comments. You just happend to be the one who responded.

[brokenhead]

The world was definitely a lot quieter before the introduction of mobile phones, iPods, personal CD players and Walkmans. I can recall a time when people sat quietly on public transport, stood quietly in queues, and walked quietly down the street. Now, it appears, all reticence has been discarded. You take a step outside your door and you are immediately bombarded by information about other people's lives - lives that you have absolutely no need, or desire to know about.

Finally Sue and I agree on something!

[Blair]

A young woman strides through the train station, then suddenly, trips, she sprawls flat on her face.

What does she do next, prince wonders?

her hands dart through her bag, she pulls out...her cellphone! making sure its ok. Yeah, it still works.

Phew, next, check the heel on the shoe. Not broken. All is well with the world. She limps off, intensely embarrassed by being seen by prince falling over.

Prince observed on the bus, a married couple with a child in a carrier, they were sitting right behind each other, but, heres the kicker, they were texting each other! less than two feet away.

Prince has compassion.

[Dan Rowden]

Dan,

sam: Enlightenment is not about being cranky, pointing fingers and whining.

Dan: Which is why hardly anything you say is ever about enlightenment. You're such a hypocrite, Sam. And since when have sane mental states not been relevant to enlightenment?

Good to have you back! Gee, you're just as cranky as ever! ;)

Nah, you're just as stupid as ever, as evidenced by your reply to Carl. That effort was clearly an attempt at making a virtue out of stupidity:

You said to Carl:

Let's not go back and forth over so trivial a matter.

It's not trivial. It's only trivial to you because you're too dense to understand its import. Since when has human behaviour been a trivial matter?

You don't like cellphones, I get it.

It's a shame that you have to pretend that others are being petty for you to look better. It's kind of pathetic, actually.

Just don't make it about others is all I'm saying.

It's about the behaviour of others so it has to be about others. Is an Adya satsang about others or about him?

And please note, I wasn't singling you out when I made my comments. You just happend to be the one who responded.

Who cares. Your response was doltish whomever it was intended for.

[brad walker]

Isn't this a "Worldly Matters" kind of thread...?

Dan better call in backup before a riot breaks out.

[Dan Rowden]

Nah, I can take 'em.

[Ataraxia]

Accessories such as the mobile phone and the BlackBerry are like ‘pets’ – people have them to “keep them company”, but end up being the ones that are kept. You need to recharge them, customize them, update them, upload them, download them, answer them, listen to them,... The difference is, you're not allowed to take your pet everywhere with you, because it might annoy others by, for example, making too much noise.

The world was definitely a lot quieter before the introduction of mobile phones, iPods, personal CD players and Walkmans. I can recall a time when people sat quietly on public transport, stood quietly in queues, and walked quietly down the street. Now, it appears, all reticence has been discarded. You take a step outside your door and you are immediately bombarded by information about other people's lives - lives that you have absolutely no need, or desire to know about.

As is invariably the case,you hit the nail on the head,Sue.

People don't just sit and think since the advent of these mobile pets. There's very little 'being' being be'd

[samadhi]

Dan,

sam: Good to have you back! Gee, you're just as cranky as ever! ;)

Dan: Nah, you're just as stupid as ever, as evidenced by your reply to Carl. That effort was clearly an attempt at making a virtue out of stupidity:

That's it Dan, blame me! Lol, a truly enlightened tactic!

sam: Let's not go back and forth over so trivial a matter.

Dan: It's not trivial. It's only trivial to you because you're too dense to understand its import. Since when has human behaviour been a trivial matter?

Oh please, chatting on cellphones is so important to you? Are you going all feminine on us now?

sam: You don't like cellphones, I get it.

Dan: It's a shame that you have to pretend that others are being petty for you to look better. It's kind of pathetic, actually.

A discussion dissing cellphone chat is about as petty as it gets, in case you haven't noticed.

sam: Just don't make it about others is all I'm saying.

Dan: It's about the behaviour of others so it has to be about others. Is an Adya satsang about others or about him?

Do you think enlightenment is about complaining of others' behavior? Please.

sam: And please note, I wasn't singling you out when I made my comments. You just happend to be the one who responded.

Dan: Who cares. Your response was doltish whomever it was intended for.

Gee, I never thought cattiness was a trait you pursued, Dan. What ever happened to enlightenment?

[Dan Rowden]

Sam,

You are too clueless to be worth the effort. If you can't see the ego-borne need that manifests as the sort of behaviour that is being discussed here, then I suggest you go and ask Adya to explain it to you.

[samadhi]

Yes, egos exhibit ego behavior. Wow, profound. Continue your good work pointing that out. Where would we be without such leadership from Dan and the geniuses!

[Dan Rowden]

Man, you are truly a sanctimonious git! It's worth pointing out to people because not everyone is aware of the real source and nature of such behaviour (or, to be more precise, certain aspects of cell phone behaviour - it's not all nuts, clearly). I presume you don't believe in helping people understand things.

[sue hindmarsh]

Sam's appreciation of reasoning is like that of Aesop's Fox who lost his Tail: when he had lost his, he would have all his fellow foxes cut off theirs as well.

[sue hindmarsh]

Brokenhead wrote:

Sue: The world was definitely a lot quieter before the introduction of mobile phones, iPods, personal CD players and Walkmans. I can recall a time when people sat quietly on public transport, stood quietly in queues, and walked quietly down the street. Now, it appears, all reticence has been discarded. You take a step outside your door and you are immediately bombarded by information about other people's lives - lives that you have absolutely no need, or desire to know about.

Finally Sue and I agree on something!

Appears we do! Though there also be nothing wrong with we two holding one another's noses to the grindstone hard.

[mansman]

240 billion text message in 2007, thats very much button pushing. Yes in the car too.
State of Washington made illegal to DWT, drive while texting, police can pull you over.
I not allow my children to take into bedroom, must leave by door, this way they become used to separation some hours for sure and reduce addiction threat. We also use on porch usually to encurrage this behavor. Not want them turn into like so many American kids I see, they show off also with them feel big shot, also give impression very popular if receive many rings, calls, impress opposite sex another one reason, feel important person with cell, better than cigarettes anyway, right?
Oh, also can fix to provide specific vibration thrill popular with the ladies, ha.
What a crazy country this is!!!

[samadhi]

Man, you are truly a sanctimonious git!

Oh please. You jump down my throat for no reason and then tell me I'm sanctimonious? Get off your high horse.

It's worth pointing out to people because not everyone is aware of the real source and nature of such behaviour (or, to be more precise, certain aspects of cell phone behaviour - it's not all nuts, clearly). I presume you don't believe in helping people understand things.

I doubt anyone reading here is interested in learning about cell phone manners from the geniuses.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Dan,

You are too clueless to be worth the effort. If you can't see the ego-borne need that manifests as the sort of behaviour that is being discussed here, then I suggest you go and ask Adya to explain it to you.

I agree, I don’t believe this is the right place for Sam, I think he should move on to another forum, perhaps a forum that is more tolerant of incorrigible mediocrity. My biggest problem with Sam is that he seems to happily enjoy being hypocritical, irrational and nonsensical, which reveals just how shallow his view of the world actually is.

Sam's mental contributions lowers the bar on GF.

Sam,

I doubt anyone reading here is interested in learning about cell phone manners from the geniuses.

The entire point of this forum is analyzing human behavior through many different themes, and developing ones mind as a result, so if you're not interested in psychology and philosophy, get lost.

[samadhi]

I agree, I don’t believe this is the right place for Sam, I think he should move on to another forum, perhaps a forum that is more tolerant of incorrigible mediocrity. My biggest problem with Sam is that he seems to happily enjoy being hypocritical, irrational and nonsensical, which reveals just how shallow his view of the world actually is.

This is great. Every time we have debated, you have shown what a fool you are and because of that now you want to ban me. Aren't you the one who was preaching that philosophy needs to be confrontational? Yet as soon as I confront your mindless drivel, you run to Dan and plead for him to ban me. Look in the mirror if you want to see the hypocrite, Rybaby.

sam: I doubt anyone reading here is interested in learning about cell phone manners from the geniuses.

Rybaby: The entire point of this forum is analyzing human behavior through many different themes, and developing ones mind as a result, so if you're not interested in psychology and philosophy, get lost.

All you want to do is judge others and parade around about how "wise" you are when you do that. It's disgusting. Some needs to call you on it and I am doing that. Sorry if it upsets you but confrontation is your thing, isn't it? Don't like you toes getting stepped on? Poor baby, run to Dan and maybe he'll kiss it and make it better. What a f***ing loser you are.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Sam,

All you want to do is judge others and parade around about how "wise" you are when you do that. It's disgusting. Some needs to call you on it and I am doing that. Sorry if it upsets you but confrontation is your thing, isn't it? Don't like you toes getting stepped on? Poor baby, run to Dan and maybe he'll kiss it and make it better. What a f***ing loser you are.

No, the truth is that you believe any sort of conscious judgment is disgusting, and it is reflected how you continuously attack anyone who criticizes behavior. Any time anyone on GF criticizes human behavior in a way that hits too close to home, you come in with your smug dismissive comments. You mistake my universal criticisms of human behavior as arrogance, but its not. It just shows that you lack masculinity in your character.

And I’m not upset, I don’t get upset, I'm beyond that, that is part of enlightenment - transcending being upset. I was only pointing out that this forum is not the place for you, as it is clear that you are not interested in any of the values here, you protest whenever anyone speaks a bit of truth, and your posts only distract some of the more regular posters.

I think you are wasting your time. I'm only suggesting that you move on because I'm unable to see how you can really benefit from this place. Its not a personal grudge I have with you or anything. I just don't believe you can benefit from the wisdom of GF, as you protest to anything that the advanced thinkers deem as rationality. You post for your own amusement rather than the cause of profound seriousness. What more can you achieve here besides being an annoyance to some of the enlightened regulars who regret posting to you because we know that you do not share the values here, and you never will.

[Dan Rowden]

Man, you are truly a sanctimonious git!

Oh please. You jump down my throat for no reason and then tell me I'm sanctimonious? Get off your high horse.

Have you suffered some form of retardation recently, Sam? You give that impression. You have a nasty habit (I'm being kind in calling it a habit) of impugning the motives people have in examining certain behaviors - for no greater reason than to be able to look good and moral and wise. You try and dress it up as making some point about relevance and judgement and so forth, but your bullshit is entirely transparent.

It's worth pointing out to people because not everyone is aware of the real source and nature of such behaviour (or, to be more precise, certain aspects of cell phone behaviour - it's not all nuts, clearly). I presume you don't believe in helping people understand things.

I doubt anyone reading here is interested in learning about cell phone manners from the geniuses.

It's not about "manners", exactly - that's a side issue, albeit an interesting and relevant one (if not explicitly for enlightenment then for life in general, but then even that has relevance because it speaks to psychological realities, and despite what you seem to think, they're important); it's about the things I alluded to, which you have not acknowledged. Get off your own high horse - it's clearly making you dizzy.

[Philosophaster]

Sam occasionally likes to cast himself as "defender of the regular guy." I have a feeling that if the thread were about the wisdom of voting Republican, Sam would be saying, "People like to vote for George Bush. Get over it."