David

“The known, our current story, protects us from the unknown, from chaos—which is to
say, provides our experience with determinate and predictable structure. Chaos has a
nature all of its own. That nature is experienced as affective valence, at first exposure, not
as objective property. If something unknown or unpredictable occurs, while we are
carrying out our motivated plans, we are first surprised. That surprise—which is a
combination of apprehension and curiosity—comprises our instinctive emotional
response to the occurrence of something we did not desire. The appearance of something
unexpected is proof that we do not know how to act—by definition, as it is the production
of what we want that we use as evidence for the integrity of our knowledge. If we are
somewhere we don’t know how to act, we are (probably) in trouble—we might learn
something new, but we are still in trouble.”
― Jordan B. Peterson, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief

“Condorcet suggested that ‘force cannot, like
opinion, endure for long unless the tyrant extends his empire far enough afield to
hide from the people, whom he divides and rules, the secret that real power lies
not with the oppressors but with the oppressed’. The ‘mind forg’d manacles’, as
William Blake called them, are as real as the hand-forged ones.”
― Yanis Varoufakis, The Global Minotaur: America, the True Origins of the Financial Crisis and the Future of the World Economy

“When an inscrutable technology becomes an invisible technology, we would be wise to be concerned. At that point, the technology's assumptions and intentions have infiltrated our own desires and actions. We no longer know whether the software is aiding us or controlling us. We're behind the wheel, but we can't be sure who's driving.”
― Nicholas Carr, The Glass Cage: How Our Computers Are Changing Us

“When the British invaders confronted the Iroquois on the east coast of North America, the British were able to draw upon technology, science, and other cultural developments from China, India, and Egypt, not to mention various other peoples from continental Europe. But the Iroquois could not draw upon the cultural developments of the Aztecs or Incas, who remained unknown to them, though located only a fraction of the distance away as China is from Britain. While the immediate confrontation was between the British settlers and the Iroquois, the cultural resources mobilized on one side represented many more cultures from many more societies around the world. It was by no means a question of the genetic or even cultural superiority of the British by themselves, as compared to the Iroquois, for the British were by no means by themselves. They had the advantage of centuries of cultural diffusion from numerous sources, scattered over thousands of miles.”
― Thomas Sowell, Conquests and Cultures: An International History