Archives For author

There’re no blinder people
than those who don’t want to see…

Attempting to determine who ‘made that’ is similar to trying to find out which came first.
The chicken or the egg…
As if one was possible without the other…

Yeah, it’s labor which makes each thing.
And it’s capitalism which makes things possible…

Capitalism is a setting. A way of doing business.
Labor is a process. Through which some things – ideas included – are transformed into solutions.

If you want to plant a tree, you have to dig a hole.
If there was no shovel around – no capital available – you’d have to dig the hole using your bare hands. And dig the sapling out from the forest. Still bare handed.
If you happen to live in a capitalist setting – you may borrow a shovel and a sapling, if you didn’t have them already. And start an orchard.

The interest is too high? Capital has become too concentrated/expensive?
It happens from time to time. Usually just before a major crises.

Is there anything that might be done? To mitigate this boo-bust cycle?
Make sure the market remains actually free. That no one becomes too powerful.
Too powerful for our own good.

The Sherman Antitrust Act “makes it illegal to monopolize, conspire to monopolize, or attempt to monopolize a market for products or services“.
The Clayton Act “aims to promote fair competition and prevent unfair business practices that could harm consumers.

Actually simple… if dully implemented …

And don’t fool yourself.
Socialism is nothing but state-run capitalism. A bunch of con-men take over the government and make all the decisions. Everything of value – all capital – theoretically belongs to the people and all the meaningful shots are called exclusively by the big shots who control the government.
Fascism, the other ‘alternative’ experimented during the XX-th century, is very much similar. Property remains, theoretically, private but the major calls are also called by the big shots who control the government.


„Abrutizați de muncă.”
„Lipsiți de spirit critic.”
„E important și când votezi din scârbă
să nu te îndrepți spre un pericol potențial.”

Comentariile de mai sus au fost adunate, de mine, din media. Radio, internet…
Reprezintă părerea celor care nu se simt confortabil după ce Călin Georgescu a ieșit pe primul loc.

Acuma … cine este Călin Georgescu – sau, mai exact, care este imaginea lui publică – vă puteți lămuri, măcar parțial, vizionând clipul oferit de Recorder. N-am de gând să intru în amanunte.

De unde au aflat cei care au votat cu el că există un Călin Georgescu? În condițiile în care ascensiunea lui în intențiile de vot nu a fost sesizată, nu la adevărata valoare, de institutele de cercetare a opiniei publice? Nici măcar de cele serioase?

‘Adică vrei să spui că Tik-Tok e de vină pentru notorietatea lui Călin Georgescu? Care notorietate a crescut mai abitir decât faimosul Făt-Frumos?’

Vreau să spun că e mult mai ușor să dai vina pe altul.
Dacă guvernanții ar fi obținut alte rezultate – adică dacă populația ar fi fost cât de cât mulțumită de consecințele muncii lor – atunci n-ar mai fi fost atâția oameni care să voteze din scârbă.
Lăturile vehiculate în social media aproape că n-ar mai fi fost luate în considerare. Statistic vorbind.

Acesta fiind momentul să explic diferența dintre a vota ‘din scârbă’ și a vota ‘cu scârbă’.
Am votat și eu odată cu scârbă. Am făcut singura alegere raționala posibilă în acel moment – tot un tur doi al unor alegeri prezidențiale – și am pus ștampila unde n-aș fi pus-o nici în ruptul capului dacă situația ar fi fost normală. Dar nu m-am dus niciodată la vot motivat de scârbă. Întotdeauna de speranță!
Pe lumea asta sunt și oameni care nu prea votează. Nu-și pun problema, n-au timp/chef, își spun că votul lor nu contează… Dar câteodată… când le ajunge și lor cuțitul nemulțumirii la osul psihologic… se duc în cabina de vot să-și verse și ei, undeva, furia produsă de scârbă. Ajung să voteze din scârbă!
Și, cum furia nu a fost niciodată un sfetnic bun, pun și ei ștampila pe prima față cât de cât spălată care li se prezintă a nu fi fost mânjită cu politică. Nu mai au răbdare să asculte ce le spune fața aia… e suficient să vorbească calm și așezat!

Poate că a venit momentul să căutăm mai degrabă explicații pentru cum am ajuns aici. Noi, toți. Decât să dăm vina unul pe celălalt.
Pănă la urmă, situația actuală a început în 1990… au fost nu știu câte runde de alegeri de atunci încoace… la care am luat parte cu toții…
Dacă înțelegem cum am ajuns aici, avem o șansă să mergem mai departe. Dacă ne tot certăm între noi, facem jocul celui care ne vrea dezbinați. Și rămânem în continuare la statutul de pradă!

Ce este sociologia?
Și de unde a ieșit Georgescu ăsta?

Aud din toate direcțiile, ideologic vorbind, „Eu nu mă uit la televizor. Manipulează.”
20,085 de oameni au votat cu Orban. Adică au pus ștampila în pătratul din dreptul lui Ludovic Orban. Cu toate că acesta, în direct și la o oră de maximă audiență, a anunțat că se retrage din cursă și că îi va face campanie Elenei Lasconi.

Sociologia este știința care ne crează cadrul în care putem înțelege, chiar și după ce se întâmplă lucrurile, cum. Cum am ajuns ‘în găleată’.
Acu’ vreo doua zile – la RFI, „Tânăr în Europa” – un profesor – universitar, cred că de comunicare – vorbea despre un stagiu de pregătire adresat studenților. Câțiva urmează să fie specializați în training anti-fake news. Adică trăinuiți să-i învețe pe alții cum. Și trimiși în licee să le deschidă mintea elevilor de acolo.
Discuția s-a dus și către ce parere au tinerii despre lucruri. Proastă. În principal profesorul vorbea despre faptul că tinerii se simt nebăgați în seamă. ‘Neascultați’.
Soluția și vinovații?
Partidele și guvernanții. Că nu comunică destul și pe limba tinerilor.
Eu, în calitate de Gică Contra, și de inginer, am sărit în sus!

Tinerii se simt neascultați. NU se simt nemințiți!

Ce-ar fi să-i ascultați întâi?!? Înainte de a încerca să-i ‘convingeți’?

Asta au facut alde Georgescu. Au ascultat cu atenție. Ce îi roade. Pe tineri, pe bătrani, pe toți cei care au un telefon și se uită la Tik-Tok. Pe toți cei convinși deja să nu se mai uite la ‘tembelizor’. Convinși și din cauza calității execrabile a marii majorități a ‘divertismentului’ distribuit pe această cale!
După care au făurit niște mesaje în care au amestecat tot felul de adevăruri – dintre cele ‘ascultate’ – cu tot felul de ‘mângâieri’ pe cap și pe suflet. ‘O să fie pace’, ‘O să am eu grijă de voi’, lugu-lugu…
Fără adevărurile alea ascultate cu atenție și picurate înapoi cu mare cu grijă, nimeni n-ar fi dat vreo atenție părții cu lugu-lugu. Fără multă nadă de calitate nu prea poți prinde pește…
Dar cum politicienii noștri și comunicatorii lor le știu ei pe toate… cine să mai stea să asculte? Și de ce?!?

Din câte citesc eu în vorbele oamenilor de lângă mine, foarte mulți dintre cei care au votat cu Georgescu ăsta au făcut-o din scârbă. Nu din convingere! Oamenii n-au votat ideile lui Georgescu, doar s-au lăsat seduși de cântecul sirenei. Era prea mult adevăr în clipurilea alea. Adevăruri greu de ignorat, cu atât mai mult atunci când nu mai ai încredere în ‘sistem’.
E foarte interesant cum au votat Moldovenii de peste Prut. Suficient de mulți dintre cei din țară și copleșitor de mulți dintre cei din diaspora.
Diasporenii noștri au votat, aparent, ‘cu rușii’. Eu nu cred că toți oamenii ăia sunt tâmpiți!
Scârbiți – atât de scârbiți încât să se lase păcăliți, o parte dintre ei – da. Dar nu tâmpiți. Nu toți, în orice caz!

Care e cioaca cu rezultatele din Drancy?
În Drancy, o comună aflată la 10 km de Paris, a fost un lagăr de tranzit. Un loc în care naziștii au adunat evrei din toată Franța, în timpul războiului, înainte de a-i duce la exterminare. Înainte de a-i duce la gazare. Pur și simplu nu pot să cred că 610 dintre conaționalii mei au putut vota, în cunoștință de cauză, cu cineva care ridică în slăvi Garda de Fier chiar pe locul unde au fost adunați evrei pentru a fi duși la moarte!

Ce facem în continuare?
Are vreo șansă Elena Lasconi sau ar fi fost mai bine cu Marcel Ciolacu?

În primul rând, nu este vorba despre șansele Elenei Lasconi.
E vorba despre ce ne facem noi!

Vrem în Europa? Așa nasol cum ne e aici? Deocamdată încă înauntru.
Și cu banii curgând gărlă!
Ăsta fiind și motivul pentru care au dat la pace PSD-ul cu PNL-ul… Ca să-și împartă plăcinta!

Deocamdată, gloanțele doar au pornit.
Primul ne va ajunge duminica viitoare.
Votăm cu capul, motivați de scârbă dar procedând în mod rațional – vezi conceptul de vot util, promovat de Navalnîi, ne trece pe la ureche.
Al doilea vine peste două săptămâni. Poate ne găsește puțin mai înțelepți!

Și încă ceva. Moldova a câștigat alegerile și pentru că ea a fost cea care le-a organizat.
Georgienii au pierdut alegerile tocmai pentru ca nu au mai fost ei cei care au numărat voturile.
Aviz amatorilor!


“Dans tous les cas,
la seule « condition » est de le faire
dans les limites de ce que permet la loi”

Aurel, dessinateur de presse au Canard enchaîné

Would you poke fun at a volcano?
No? Because it doesn’t make any sense?
But would you poke fun at people who, 800 years ago, prayed to a ‘volcanic god’ asking for ‘mercy’?
Why? Only because (we currently know that) ‘it doesn’t work like that’?!?

OK, forget about the volcano.
Would you make fun of Shoah? Also known as the Holocaust.
No, because it’s illegal? Otherwise you would have mocked a tragedy?!?

It’s not illegal to fall down.
And impossible to ‘ignore’ gravity. Just as impossible as it is to ignore a volcano!
We laugh our eyes out when clowns pretend to fall.
Nobody laughs at a volcano.
Hence it is us who choose what is funny and what isn’t. Just as it is still us who choose whether to obey the law or not. We’re talking about the human laws here, not about the natural ones…

Which brings us closer to the gist of this post.

For the believers, God is everything. Both the entire world and their reference point. Without their God, the world loses its meaning. Without their God, the believers lose their bearings.
Making fun of God, of any god, is no different from making fun of a volcano.

‘You’re making absolutely no sense. No sense whatsoever.
A volcano is a real thing. Sometimes too real, even. While God, all gods, …
Nonsense. Absolute nonsense!’

Do you have faith in vaccines?
Why? Because they work? Because they save a lot of lives?
Despite vaccines being rather expensive and despite the fact that some guys have become obscenely rich as a consequence of people needing vaccines, and other medicines, in order to survive, right?
Have you ever made fun of vaccines? Of obscenely rich people, no matter how they got their money?

Do you understand how religion works?
How religion actually works… Psychologically, sociologically, etc.
No more than you understand vaccines?
Or you just consider religion to be a hoax while vaccines are a scientific fact?
Why? Because you have been told so by reputable people? By people in whom you have absolute trust?

So.
You trust doctors to the tune of allowing them to mess up with your immune system.
And you trust those thinkers who try to convince us not only that God doesn’t exist but also that religion is the “opiate of the masses“. “An ideological tool that legitimates and defends the interests of the dominant, wealthy classes in the population.” According to Marx, that was. Karl Marx. The guy advertising the advent of the communist happiness uber alles…

Let’s backpedal for a while.
You’re OK with vaccines and hate the fact that some people get way too much money for selling those vaccines. You’re OK with the idea of making fun of rich people but not of vaccines. Because vaccines save lives while obscenely rich people are… well… obscene!

Let’s get back to religion.
Making fun of vaccines doesn’t make sense. To you. To us, actually. Because they’re not funny. Because they are a scientific fact. And because they save lives.
Making fun of God also doesn’t make sense. For the believers. For those who truly believe in God.

For those who have a different understanding of the world than we do.

What would you think about people who dismiss vaccines?
The scientific concept of vaccination, not a specific vaccine.
You consider them…?
From your point of view, their reference point is way out of this world? That they have lost their bearings?
That they actually deny the reality? Your/our reality?

That’s exactly what also happens when people make fun of God. Of any god.
Those who believe in God – in the particular god which is the target of the joke but also in all other gods – feel queasy. ‘Sea-sick’. Their world and their bearings are being put into jeopardy. Which puts them into a very difficult position.
There are only two ways out of their conundrum.
To consider the jester as being clueless. As having no idea.
Or to consider the jester as an ‘agent provocateur’. To consider the whole thing as being an insult.

You have a concern and you want to express it? As the law allows you to do?
How about doing it in a considerate manner?
In an efficient manner! In such a way as to get through…
Insulting people, or being considered clueless, doesn’t help if you want to be heard by the other side.
If you want the other side to listen, carefully, to what you need to say.

“If you’re an academic (like me),
Epstein has a particularly uncomfortable example
of how people in a perfectly comfortable profession like mine
can be happy and yet still itch with ressentiment about others
whose talents seem more valued than our own.
“Why does some ignorant lawyer have enough money to buy a villa in Tuscany
when one knows so much more about the art of the Italian Renaissance?
What kind of society permits this state of things to exist?
A seriously unjust one, that’s what kind.””
Our worst enemy..., Tom Nichols

Aaron Mostofsky, the guy pictured above, “has worked as an assistant architect in New York“.
Which means he must have at least some idea about the ‘art of the Italian Renaissance’, right?
And now I wonder. His ressentiment had been seeded in his soul during college? Earlier?

Popper, Karl Raymund, had witnessed the entire XX-the century. Both WWs and their aftermath. The advent of the USSR, that of the III-rd Reich and that of the Red China. And the defeat of the imperialistic Japan. Him insisting that collectivism – as put in practice by the fascists and by the communists – leads to a very dark cul-de-sac is spot on and perfectly aligned with what history teaches us.
But who has enough time to read nowadays … we glance at the internet, catch a meme … interpret it according to our own weltanschauung… and then storm the Capitol!
Because the individual is above the state. “An end in itself”…

The teachers/parents should have done a better job? At explaining what Popper had in mind? At teaching the next generation that you don’t ransack the Capitol whenever you don’t like the outcome of an election?

Which teachers?
Which parents?

WE?!?

https://www.amazon.com/Our-Own-Worst-Enemy-Democracy/dp/0197518877

https://www.routledge.com/After-The-Open-Society-Selected-Social-and-Political-Writings/Popper-Turner-Shearmur/p/book/9780415610230

A marginal benefit is the additional benefit received by a consumer, producer, or society
due to the consumption or production of an additional unit of a product.

When do you stop cleaning something? How do you determine it is clean enough?

When do you stop cleaning the living room? When there’s no more visible dirt, right?
When do you stop cleaning an operating room? You follow the procedure and you check using the appropriate methods and apparati, right?
When do you stop cleaning the operating room where your child will have their life-saving surgery? I’m afraid the surgeon will have to drive you out of the room. You’ll never declare it clean enough….

My point being that we’re rational only as far as there’s nothing personal involved in the choice we have to make.

And as soon as we’re personally invested in the whole thing, we suddenly start to rationalize.
To find rational arguments which favor the position we’ve already adopted. The decision we’ve already made.

My child deserves the best!

Which is true, of course. For as long as we really know what’s good for them…

What capitalism has to do with any of this?!?

Well, most of the ‘hoarders’ rationalize their habit by ‘blaming it’ on their children.
“I have to take care of their future”.
In their attempt to control the future, the hoarders convince themselves that amassing capital will shield them, and their children, from insecurity.

Which is partially true. If the hoarded capital is sustainable…

“I am 82 years old, I have 4 children, 11 grandchildren, 2 great-grandchildren and a room of 12 square meters.
I no longer have a home or expensive things, but I have someone who will clean my room, prepare food and change my bedding, measure my blood pressure and weigh me.
I no longer have the laughter of my grandchildren, I don’t see them growing, hugging and arguing. Some come to me every 15 days, some every three or four months, and some never.
I don’t bake cakes, I don’t dig up the garden. I still have hobbies and I like to read, but my eyes quickly hurt.
I don’t know how much longer, but I have to get used to this loneliness.”
“Author unknown”

Every time I read something like this over the internet – more and more often – I remember that it was us.
We have raised our children into what they are today.

We have amassed vast amounts of financial capital – fiat money – believing that our children will be grateful.
We had not been there when they were growing up. We had not been there when they were learning things.
And now we are the ones who don’t understand why there are no more bonds between us. Between us and our children. Why our children see the world differently from how we do it…

Is it to late?

Or should I say “straight”?!?
After all, not everything that comes from the right is ‘right’.
Not everything that comes from the left is ‘wrong’. Or good…
And even ‘straight’ has always been complicated but nobody seemed to care
!

Neither ignorance or education can do anything.
On their own. Education is a process and ignorance a mere situation.

It’s what the educated choose to do with their knowledge that makes the difference!

The key words in the statements above are “I always believed” and “It seems”.

It’s not ignorance that’s going to willingly destroy anything and it was the educated which had always ‘produced’. Moved things towards carefully chosen goals. ‘Rationally’ chosen goals, according to the latest fad.
Everything there is is the consequence of something initiated by educated people. The good, the bad and even the very ugly!

‘Another biased and inconsiderate post.
You completely dis-consider the ignorant. Assuming they are impotent and inconsequential.’

I’m afraid somebody else is assuming things.
First of all, there are no ignorant. Only the actual idiots are ignorant and they cannot do much. We, all the rest, start learning from the first minute of our life. Each according to how lucky we are.
Secondly, even the highest educated ignore most of the existing knowledge. But that doesn’t make them ignorant. The most important thing a person must learn before calling itself ‘educated’ is that nobody, that person included, will ever know enough.
Thirdly, all action is initiated from a piece of information. One starts to look for food after realizing they are hungry. After transforming a feeling into a resolution and making a plan to fulfill that resolution. A reaction – like pulling back your hand from a hot stove – doesn’t need much thinking indeed. But that’s only a reaction. Not at all a carefully, supposedly rationally, chosen goal.

Facts don’t care about your feelings.

It’s the act which does the trick.

It is the fact that it was you who had determined whether to keep them or not as they were given to you which actually affirms ‘it’.

Simple, actually, if you consider it with an open mind…

And here’s another question.

How wise is it for people to not care about other people’s feelings?

‘Cause I don’t expect facts to care about feelings. Mine or anybody else’s…

Ego is like dust in the eyes.
Without clearing the dust, we can’t see anything clearly.
So clear the ego and see the world.

Is this a wise thing to do?
To ride a motorcycle without any eye protection? Whatsoever?

We’re constantly being modeled by everything which happens to us. By what we do and by what is being done to us.
We are what our past has made of us.
Our ego is the intersection between ‘what we could have been’ and ‘what the circumstances allowed us to become’.
Which intersection, no matter how wide or narrow, is inhabited by our I-s. By each of us.

Those intersections, where are crammed all the pasts that have already happened to us, are the only places in the world over which we, each of us, will ever be in command.

In each successive moment of our life, in what we call ‘the present’, we have the freedom to choose where we want to be, inside the place where we can be. Inside the intersection I was speaking about just now.
Inside those intersections there’s nobody but each of us and each of our pasts.

Are we comfortable with our past?

Have we digested our past? Have we learned from it?
Have we cleared it?
Have we made it transparent enough? To see the future through it?

Are we comfortable enough with our past?
Comfortable enough to bring it, with us, into the future?

“I mean by a “fact” something which is there, whether anybody thinks so or not.“
“Facts are what make statements true or false.”

Bertrand Russell

What do you see here?
A ‘fact’ or ‘gravity in action’?
Bertrand Russell? Isaac Newton?

Or both?
After all, Earth pulling down yet another apple is (nothing but) a fact.

Yeah, but ‘Earth pulling down apples’ had become a fact only after Newton had figured it out.
And received this name, “fact”, only after Russell had coined the concept.

My point being that some things happen in the special place we call ‘conscious mind’.

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident:”

The United States, currently the most powerful country on Earth, exists because some people had put it in their minds to make it.
Gravity exists, as we know it, because Isaac Newton had noticed it and described it to us.
Facts exist, as we think of them, because Bertrand Russell had introduced them into our thinking process.

‘Do you imply that apples did not fall down before Newton noticed the process? That people didn’t think before Russell told them how? That the US would have remained a colony if not for the Boston Tea Party?’

I believe you’re fully aware that the question above had sprung up in a mind before being put down on paper… before being tapped on a keyboard, actually…

Of course gravity existed before Newton had described it. Of course people had been thinking for a while before Russell let us in on his thoughts on this subject. And of course I have no idea about what would have happened if those guys in Boston had brewed the tea instead of throwing it in the harbor.

But it is very clear for me, “self-evident” as the Founding Fathers had put it, that some things do happen in a certain manner.
That not all of us think in the same way – god forbid, that would be against our very nature – but all of us think according to some ‘rules’. Hence the results of our thinking are not exactly ‘haphazard’.

The point of today’s post being that my method is ‘thinking’.
I use my ‘conscious mind’ as an instrument. As a scalpel-cum-microscope with which I attempt to study how my mind works.

Being fully aware (?!?) that this process takes place ‘inside my head’. Inside my ‘limited’ head. Limited in both space and time.
That ‘that’ head is made of the same matter – atoms – as the rest of the Universe. Hence some of its limitations.
And that ‘that’ head works ‘inside’ the cultural universe created by the aggregated effort of every human that has ever lived on Earth. Hence another set of limitations.