I seldom quote this extensively. But this is worth sharing. It perfectly epitomizes the difference between ‘me’ and ‘us’. Specially in a ‘democratic’ environment. Specially when we try to figure out what’s gonna happen to us ‘going forward’…
From where I’m standing, there’s a fine difference between doing something – planning for it, even – just because ‘that’s how we do things over here’ and performing the very same thing as the consequence of a genuinely free decision making process.
”Remember the old adage, ‘Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never harm me’. True courage consists in doing what is right, despite the jeers and sneers of our companions.” The Christian Recorder, 1862
However fleetingly, words do scare! Otherwise, why bother?!?
And since I really doubt that enough of you will follow the link and read the entire article, here’s another interesting thing.
Which means that back in 1862 there were enough black people interested in reading. Enough to constitute an audience for a periodical! A periodical which dealt in words…
Some people are convinced that all they have to do is to follow the rules. Other people are convinced that freedom – their freedom, in particular – is the most important thing.
Apparently, these two convictions are incompatible.
Which is not true.
Those convinced that following the rules is the only way to ‘get there’ – wherever that might be – forget one thing. Two things, actually… That no journey starts until the traveler makes the first step. And decides where they want to go… Those convinced that freedom is the only important thing forget one thing. One thing only. That whenever the traveler breaks a rule… there will be consequences!
The fact of the matter being that freedom is a human achievement. Achieved during the long journey towards the future. Achieved as a consequence of the process through which we have learned about rules.
‘Rules’ is our definition of ‘possible’. Defines a space where things can happen. As long as the pertinent rules are being observed, of course.
At first glance, flying is possible. For birds… After learning the pertinent rules – and mastering certain skills – we have learned to fly. But we can continue to fly for only as long as we keep observing the pertinent rules!
At first glance, walking a rope strung between Manhattan’s Twin Towers was impossible. Not for Philippe Petit. He had the skills and he was crazy enough. He even didn’t ask for permission… Click on the picture and read ‘all about it’. My point being that he remained alive because he had observed the laws of physics. All of them! And because the human laws he had trespassed didn’t involve the capital punishment…
I believe you already understand what I want to convey. Have a nice week-end.
I was arguing in the previous post that we think using images stored in our memory. While we are convinced that we deal with real ‘objects’… ‘Hammers’ versus ‘nails’…
As you should have already noticed, Abraham Maslow had said more or less the same thing sometimes in the first half of the previous century… Well, he was a ‘clinical’ psychologist while I’m nothing more than an engineer. He was interested in how our mind works, I’m interested in the consequences of how our minds work. If you understand what I mean…
‘And what about the pretext you used for today’s post?’
Free market capitalism is nothing but an environment. Man made, for sure, but also ‘natural’. As in ‘evolved’ to the present state as opposed to ‘designed’ in the present state. Free market capitalism doesn’t do/cause anything. People toiling in this environment do whatever happens here.
Gravity doesn’t cause any falls.
Gravity pulls us, all of us, towards the center of the Earth. Regardless. Of us walking sober in the middle of the town versus skating ‘under the influence’ on a thin iced lake in the middle of nowhere.
Recent developments have helped me to understand something. And no, not the fact that there are more worlds out there. One happy about what’s going on, one horrified and a few rather indifferent.
Trump being elected for a second term as President of the United States hasn’t changed much in the real world. Not yet, anyway. What it had changed, dramatically, was our image of the world. Of the US, in particular, but also of the world as a whole.
This development has helped me to understand that we don’t deal in realities. We don’t consider things, make decisions, by examining the things themselves. No!
We consider things by examining the images we have in our minds.
We look at things and we get a ‘set of data’. A virtual image. We recollect from our memory whatever other information we have on the subject. Another image. We put two and two together. And we reach a conclusion. Most of the time ignoring the fact that we’ve been dealing with images instead of the real thing.
Until we are forced to acknowledge that our image was incomplete. Inaccurate… Or that, simply, we’ve chosen to see what was more comfortable for us!
Life, in general, is about species evolving in a given set of circumstances. If the circumstances allow it, live will appear. And survive for as long as the circumstances remain livable. We must keep in mind that life changes the environment in which it evolves. Social life, the human kind in particular, is about cultural species evolving in given sets of circumstances. For as long as the circumstances remain livable, cultural species will continue to evolve. To put their culture to work and to build civilizations. Each set of circumstances influencing both the culture which inhabits the circumstances and the civilization being built there.
Currently, there are three main categories of cultures. Imperial, democratic and incomplete.
I will start by noting that those cultures which are ‘incomplete’ have remained so because they didn’t have enough time to make ‘full use’ of the limited resources they had at their disposal. The difference between the imperial and the democratic cultures being the fact that the imperial ones stagnate as soon as they reach a certain level of development while the democratic ones continue to evolve for as long as they manage to remain democratic. To retain their ability to change as soon and as far as they need in order to survive. To maintain their democratic character.
Need proof? Are you familiar with any empire which had lasted for long? The Egyptian? 33 dynasties covering 3 millennia? Is that long enough for you? Well, not so fast. ’33 dynasties’ actually means 33 different empires. It was very seldom that a dynasty ended when/because there was no available successor… Most dynasties were removed from power rather than petered out. And, nevertheless, who cares about why a certain dynasty was replaced by the next one?!? The simple fact that it was replaced is enough for me. The replaced dynasty was no longer able to cope! Hence it had to make place for the next one. Another set of decision makers, naturally following a (however slightly) different mantra.
Don’t believe me? Consider any other empire. Evaluate the duration for which each dynasty had managed to hold the helm. And compare it with the fact that the Roman Republic had survived, as a functional democracy, for almost 5 centuries.
And no, Europe isn’t the only place where democratic forms of self-rule had happened during human history. Kurultai, Loya-Jirga… The mere existence of the concepts is proof enough for the budding democracies which might have developed in those places, given enough time and resources.
Then, if democracy is so much ‘better’ – as in more helpful towards the survival of a certain set of mores/culture – then why is it so ‘scarce’?
Well, for democracy to remain functional, at least some wise men need to remain both strong and focused on the job at hand. Otherwise, the helm will be confiscated by the would be strong but not so wise….
And why is it that good times tend to make weak people? First of all, good times tend to weaken ‘the people’. Not as much to weaken the individuals living a good life as to make them careless. To take the good times for granted. To convince them that ‘times’ will continue to remain good regardless…..
Not having to struggle for their day to day existence tends to make ‘some of the wisest, happiest, and most peaceful men and women to spend much of their time alone at home, steering clear of UNNECESSARY drama, negativity and chaos’.
This being how successful democracies sometimes succumb to tyranny and how empires eventually crumble under their own weight.
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:
We live in a world of our own making. We build it by talking ourselves into shaping it one way or another. If not careful, we end up building a lie!
Competition has nothing to do with what’s going on in the jungle!
The jungle is about eat or be eaten! Competition is about rules. Follow the rule or you’re kicked out before you get to the end! The competition stops being true the moment you break the rule and your co-competitors do not throw you out. By not throwing you out, those in attendance have just transformed that particular pitch into a jungle!
“Cooperation is the law of the civilization!“ This part is true. But incomplete! As I explained before, to compete implies to cooperate. Those involved in a competition want to know who amongst them is better in a particular field. And COOPERATE in order to find that answer. By doing that they also build what we currently call ‘civilization’.
Kropotkin might be forgiven for what he had said. He didn’t get to witness the Chinese Cultural Revolution. That was the true pinnacle of ‘cooperation’! Not civilized by any measure…
We really need to be more careful with words. With what we say and with what we end up holding to be true!
Sometimes reading about history is not enough. You might need to live at least some aspects of it…
I’m sure most of you are familiar with this notion. With the notion that war is an art and that Sun Tzu was at least a notable teacher. In this domain. And the second place goes to
Now, that we have established whom we consider to be the THE greatest experts on war, would you be so kind as to tell me when was the last time that China – or Germany, for that matter – had vanquished their opponents? After their respective treaties on war had been compiled…
My point being that a really ‘successful’ war ends with both parties understanding that there’s no point in fighting one. That whenever the winner starts boasting about their exploits, that war has been fought for nothing. The winner might have won the war but they certainly had lost the peace. My secondary point – and, maybe, the more important one – being that we tend to treat the current war using the knowledge gathered during the previous one, Which seems rational, right?!?
Yeah… well… The only successful war in our recent history – and only partially at that – was WWII. WWI was fought for nothing. At the end, the victors had copied the actions of those who had won the previous wars. Imposed hefty reparations upon the vanquished. Hence the advent of Hitler. WWII was not only terrible but also widespread. France, Germany, Italy, the Central Europe and, to a central extent, the Great Britain have been so thoroughly destroyed that people there did learn their lesson. No more war. Hence a completely different approach to peace than after WWI. Inclusion of the former aggressor instead of punishment.
The next global war was the Cold one. Fought mainly between the two WWII victors who had not directly experienced war. The US and the USSR.
What?!?
Well, just think about it. France, Germany, Italy and so on had been occupied. Experienced hot war on a first hand manner for years on end. Great Britain had not only fought but had also been bombarded. The US had fought in the war but only Hawai’i had directly experienced it. And when it comes to the USSR the situation is… complicated. The eastern part of the WWII had been fought mainly in Ukraine and in the western part of Russia proper. The only main city directly affected by war was Sankt Petersburg/Leningrad. The rest of the Russian Federation had experienced less disturbance than western Ukraine in the present conflict. And what did the free world do after the Cold war had been concluded? Specially the Americans? Boasted? About their exploits?
How was the loser treated? The westerners tried to do what the allies had done after WWII? Integrate the loser into the ‘brave new world’? Without understanding that the loser had not accepted its status?
We don’t get what we deserve, we get what we put up with.
How did we get here?
Then
What is Truth? Pilate
Well, there are two kinds of truth. The one you feel with your shin when you hit a coffee table. And the one you feel in your heart when those present laugh at you hopping on one leg while caressing the hurt one.
Which two kinds of truth divide us, people, into two categories. Those trying to patch ‘an ever-changing truth’ out of many individual pictures – each of them the consequence of a ‘shin’ happening to connect with a portion of the ‘outside world’. Which people are currently known as ‘scientists’. And those trying to reach ‘the truth’. By thinking, by divination, by… God only knows what any other means… Philosophers, theologians, quacks…
I was trained as an engineer. To notice needs and to design solutions while evaluating the possible consequences of those needs being met by the proposed solutions. Which places me squarely into the first category.
nicichiarasa 