Yoshida Kenko, Tsure-Zure Gusa
Archives for category: Choices we make
Yoshida Kenko, Tsure-Zure Gusa
First and foremost language is perceived as a communication medium.
As such it needs clarity and consistency, otherwise information could not have been reliably exchanged and or preserved through its use.
But language is used for many other purposes than for simply ‘translating’ raw data. Where to find a certain object or how to execute a certain task.
We use it to convey sentiment – the way we are affected by the raw data that has become known to us, and to communicate our particular understanding of things. Our point of view about what has happened around us.
Furthermore we use it to convince people. To do things or to accept our points of view.
All these different uses involve a considerable amount of negotiation.
Regarding immediate goals – the things we are negotiating about, but also some that is taking place ‘under the table’ and involves the continuous fine tuning of the instruments used during the negotiating process. The words themselves.
These negotiation instruments – the language itself, in fact, have to be constantly re-calibrated for two rather obvious reasons.
For starters, the reality around us – and our understanding of it – is changing constantly.
Secondly, every negotiation involves a degree of ‘shade’. In fact that ‘shade’ is exactly the space where ‘change’ happens, where the positions of the two negotiators overlap and where the two can swap ideas.
If words would be rigidly precise than we’d have to invent new ones every time reality changes, no matter how minutely. Also whenever our understanding about things deepens, no matter how shallowly.
Simultaneously, too much ‘linguistic precision’ would kill not only poetry and our ability to convey our real feelings to other human beings but would also gravely impair our ability to influence each-other. Could you imagine how our life would be if a polite intervention would sound exactly like an SMS message of if a marriage proposal would be similar a requisition order?
More about how the linguistically mediated interplay between us has brought about our own self-awareness can be found here:
Humberto Maturana, The Origin and Conservation of Self-consciousness.
Yoshida Kenko, Tsure-Zure Gusa
I just can’t make up my mind about this.
Is it the figment of an idealist monk’s imagination, the factual description of how things happened in Medieval Japan or a wise advice coming from a great teacher?
The ‘Panama Papers’ rekindled the public interest in the subject of ‘what legitimate goal could anyone have in setting up a company in a fiscal paradise?’.
Taxes, stupid!
Actually it’s quite simple.
Let’s pretend you are an alien from the outer space who has a business idea backed up by enough capital and you want to put it in practice somewhere on Earth. Aren’t you going to shop around for the best environment you might find? So that your business would have optimal conditions to grow? And when the business ripens wouldn’t you want to be able to cash on it – and end up with as much money as possible?
Rather conflicting demands, isn’t it?
First you want an ‘operational base’ with relatively low costs but secure and full of whatever amenities your business might need in order to thrive. Next you’ll need fast access to a market where to sell your wares. Last but not least it would be important for you to incorporate your business in such a way/place that you’ll end up pay the least amount of tax, both while operating the business and after the cash out moment.
While all these are legitimate demands there are a right and a wrong way to meet them.
I’ll refrain myself to discussing exclusively about the tax part, the rest being relatively easy to balance.
In this respect you can choose to incorporate the business in the same place you have selected for your operational base and pay whatever taxes are due in that place, under the rationale that those taxes cover the cost of doing business there and are nothing but a compensation for benefiting from the conditions present there at the time. After all, when you have chosen a particular place as the home of your business you have entered into an informal arrangement with that place. It lets you make good use of whatever is there to be used – exactly the things that convinced you to select that particular place, and expects you to fulfill your side of the bargain. Provide enough compensation so that that place can continue to be a good place to conduct business and, if possible, improve itself. Pay the local taxes.
Or, equally legitimate, use two different places for each thing. Organize your operational base where it would work best and incorporate your business in a place where you’ll be able to pay as little tax as possible.
And here’s the catch. No matter where you incorporate your business you’ll still have to pay some taxes in the place you have chosen as your operational base.
Then why bother?!? you might legitimately ask.
Since this is not an accounting dissertation I’ll just tell you that there might be serious financial advantages in making this choice, not the least of them having to do with the cash out moment.
And this is the very point where some people get greedy. They try to avoid altogether the taxes tied to the ‘operational base’ – by employing various semi, or even completely i-legal stratagems, and by doing so completely transform the very nature of the entire operation.
From one of fiscal optimization to one of money laundering.
There are a lot of rationalizations for this course of action. From ‘the state is a thief that uses force in order to part me from the fruit of my efforts!’ to ‘why give it to the state since the money will be squandered by the inefficient government?’.
Now let’s please remember where we started from.
OK, you are not an ‘alien from the outer space’ but what’s stopping you from conducting your business where ever you want on the face of this Earth? (My bad, this question is not valid for exactly everybody, there still are countries that don’t allow for people, or capital, to exit freely, but I’m sure you get my drift)
Oh, you like it where you are but you hate paying taxes and/or you’re disgusted by the way the government handles its finances!
Then let me remind you of two things.
First, you probably live in a democracy. Speak up. Make your concerns known. Loudly. Make sure you are listened to. Vote wisely.
Secondly, you are probably fed up not only by the fact that in your country taxes are really high but also by how little you get back in return.
Well… that’s because there are so many people who do not pay their fair share and that your government has to take more from those who do pay in order to make the ends meet.
Savvy?
Favorability: People in the News, Gallup, April 2, 2016
Source: AP
So, it looks like that the concerned Democrats – those who bothered to show up for the preliminaries, and specially the ‘super delegates’, are going to send Hilary Clinton to compete on the national stage, despite her constant ‘negative favorability’ and despite the fact that Sanders is constantly improving his chances – both favorability and ‘never heard of’ scores are slightly better now than they were at the start of the year. Furthermore, Sanders is the one who can ‘grow naturally’ – simply by making himself known – while Clinton needs to convince the voters that their erstwhile opinion about her was mistaken. An almost impossible feat, given the length of her public career…
On the Republican side things are even stranger.
Trump gathers more and more delegates while his ‘negative favorability score’ becomes slightly even ‘more negative’, Cruz gets a second lease on life despite his ‘unfavorable’ score increasing dramatically while Kasich, the least favored by the hard core Republicans, climbs nationally from +4% to + 18% in 4 short months. And if you look closely almost all new opinions on him, those that have been developed during the last 4 months, have been in his favor.
One of my Republican friends said “I can’t speak for the other candidates, but people support Cruz because they believe in what he believes, and feel that sometimes it’s more important to stand up for what’s right, rather than what’s popular.“.
OK, I can understand that. The despondent and/or exasperated use Trump as a banner for their state of mind while the hard core, value toting, Republicans hope that by backing Cruz they will somehow bolster those values.
But let’s see what some ‘significant Republicans’ have to say about the matter.
Scott Walker, Governor for Wisconsin and ex candidate, being interviewed on WTMJ’s Charlie Sykes Show:
““If you’re someone who is uneasy with the frontrunner, right now there’s really only one candidate—I think if you’re just looking at the numbers objectively, Ted Cruz, Sen. Cruz, is the only one who’s got a chance other than Donald Trump to win the nomination,” Walker said in the Wednesday interview on WTMJ’s Charlie Sykes Show. “Statistically, my friend Gov. Kasich can not.””
Then there is Lindsay Graham, Republican Senator for South Carolina and ex candidate who endorsed Jeb Bush when dropping from the race:
“Graham said there are other candidates he likes better, but he doesn’t think they can win. “I prefer John Kasich; Cruz is not my first pick by any choice,” the South Carolina senator explained. “But I don’t see how John Kasich can mount the opposition that Ted Cruz can to stop Donald Trump from getting 1,237” (the number of delegates needed to secure the nomination).
Graham has made it abundantly clear that he really doesn’t like Cruz at all. In January, he said Cruz has “exhibited behavior in his time in the Senate that make it impossible for me to believe that he could bring this country together,” adding that choosing between him and Trump is “like being shot or poisoned — what does it really matter?” Last month, he joked about Cruz’s general unpopularity among his colleagues, saying, “If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you.””
The way I see it, these guys, the Republican ‘apparatchiks’, are more concerned about derailing Trump than with promoting the more suited candidate among the trio. Suited for Presidency, that is.
source: Huffpost Pollster
So, according to the polls compiled by Huffington Post, Sanders would lick the entire Republican field – if allowed to compete, while the Republican candidates are stacked, at least for now, according to the ‘who has the least chances on the national front’ criterion.
?!?
Does any of this make any sense? Any at all?
Here’s my Republican friend again: “In the case of Clinton, despite her unfavorability in the polls, there’s a sense in the Democratic Party that it’s her “turn.” ”
Some others think she is ‘in cahoots’ with the ‘big business’… “Family charities collected donations from companies she promoted as secretary of state“… Coming from Wall Street Journal this is a powerful allegation indeed…
But at least in this camp things are unfolding, lets say, ‘naturally’. The guys with vested interests (the super delegates, for example) are acting according to those interests while the rank and file Democrats are slowly (too slowly, maybe?) finding out what’s going on.
What really baffles me is what’s happening on the Republican side.
Some of the rank and file have adopted ‘the Donald’ as their mascot despite the obvious fact that he doesn’t belong, at all, in politics. He might have been a successful business man – read chock full of money, but the way he made that money disqualifies him from holding office. Does ‘eminent domain‘ ring any bells with you? Not to mention his antics on the public stage: “Excuse me”, ‘I’m the best thing that could happen to America!’
Are all these people delusional or are they so fed up with what’s currently going on in America that they can’t see the trees because of the forest (is on fire)?
Some others have gone ‘back to basics’ and try to revive what they consider to be the ‘sound Republican values’ – I’m speaking now about those who support Ted Cruz, if you didn’t figure that out by yourselves.
But what are these ‘hard core Republican values’?
How come some of Cruz’s followers are blaming Lincoln for being the first ‘statist’ in American history – not for abolishing slavery but for imposing that measure by force to the unwilling Southern States.
And how come those values have come to be embodied in someone so ‘popular’ among his Senatorial colleagues that “If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you.” ?
And isn’t it strange that so many Republicans are so mesmerized that they are willing to give up almost any chance of electing a Republican President?
OK, I can understand that way of thinking being used by ‘lay people’. But what is the real meaning of ‘pundits’ rallying behind the ‘value laden’ Cruz when it is obvious that Kasich is in a way better position on the national front?
Could it be that these pundits are more concerned about their own careers than with the fate of the Republican party? And even about the Republican values?
Farfetched?
Are you sure? Don’t you see that by energizing their constituencies into a frenzy they are simply building Republican (local) fortresses for their own use, leaving the rest of the (national) Republicans out to dry?
Well, I was under the impression that Conservatism was about maintaining a common way of life, not about conserving privileges.
I still believe that.
Ever since people have become aware of their own awareness philosophers have entertained opposing views as to what is more important: matter or soul.
The materialists point out that everything, including us, is made of matter and, hence, nothing would be possible without it while the idealists maintain that everything that exists is nothing but a projection of our own thoughts.
As an engineer who had designed (material) objects before actually building them I find it strangely rewarding that both these fiercely opposing sides are, simultaneously, right.
Just as we are simultaneously made of flesh and animated by souls.
If you disagree, just pinch yourself.
Now tell me, ‘did it hurt?’.
Who felt it? Your flesh or your soul?
And who’s able to meditate about the whole experience? How come are we not only able to feel things but also to think about them? Then to communicate, efficiently, among ourselves about our relatively different experiences?
Surely, there must be something shared amongst us, something that constitutes not only a medium for our communication but also a common base for our experiences.
I’m going to use ‘reality’ to designate that commonality, irrespective of the fact that reality is a two tiered thing.
A material reality, something that exists per se – according to its own, natural, set of laws, and a social reality, something that we, the people, have agreed upon – either willingly or by omission to protest, efficiently, against it.
These two tiers of reality are no longer independent.
In fact they have never been. The social reality has grown, as a bud, ‘on top’ of the material reality. And this has happened according to an opportunity enshrined in the natural laws that govern the very existence of the material reality.
Now, after its birth, social reality has started to alter the material one.
In two ways.
By developing an ever more sophisticated understanding of the inner workings we gradually discover inside the material realm and, subsequently, by using various aspects of that (inherently limited) understanding in order to effect voluntary change.
I’m going to make a brief pause here.
Social reality is a human construct, one that came to life fueled by our own volition and shaped by the sum of the choices we’ve made during our entire history.
The mere fact that we are also ‘animals’ – and have changed the world around us by our mere, and long time unwitting, existence, is something else. Related to our social existence but nevertheless different from it.
What I’m trying to say is that by coming of age – by becoming aware of our own awareness, we are currently adding a third dimension to that Ouroboros thing.
The ‘serpent’ has been ‘eating its tail’ from the very beginning of the world. New stars have been born from the dust left after the older ones have exploded and decaying organic matter is what used to feed our crops until a few short years ago – and still does for the organic farmers.
But now, that we’ve become aware of the entire process – and of our contribution to it, we are in a position to influence its direction.
We can turn it into a vicious or a virtuous circle.
Which will it be?
And please, please, don’t make this confusion.
People do, as for now at least, need ‘nature’ in order to lead what we call/feel to be a normal life.
But nature also somehow needs us. Otherwise it wouldn’t have allowed us to become what we are today.
Until now, during our development, we haven’t broken, not significantly at least, any natural laws. Otherwise we wouldn’t have reached this stage – according to Ernst Mayr’s interpretation of Darwin’s teachings, anyway.
‘Evolution is not about the survival of the fittest but about the demise of the unfit.‘
We’re not dead yet, are we?
Let’s keep it that way, lest we’re gonna be replaced.
Fast.
“Middle income or middle class?
OK, so even those who rely heavily on money as an indicator for who belongs to the middle class concede that there are other connotations to the concept.
Let’s consider the situation from a functionalist point of view. As in how the members of various social strata react to the day to day challenges of the normal life.
‘Day to day’ meaning not only ‘normal’ things – waking up and brushing your teeth – but also things that we wish will never happen, although all of us know they are ‘normal’ occurences. A car accident, a broken leg or even having three children in one go when you were praying for one.
Usually the wealthy take them in one stride, those belonging to the middle class manage to cope – sometimes welcoming some help from their friends, relatives or even insurance company, while the really poor almost certainly sink under the burden. But not always.
Sometimes even the wealthiests loose it when faced with adversities they were not accustomed with while some of the poorest find it in themselves to rise from the ashes.
Then how about setting a slightly different system of ‘classes’: the extremely resilient, the ‘middle class’ and the very fragile?
As a rule of thumb it’s true that a certain amount of wealth does miracles when some resilience is needed so, roughly, these two classifications look more or less the same, but, on a qualitative rather than quantitative level, we are speaking of two different things here.
When we are speaking of ‘money’ we are dealing mainly in ‘resources’ while when we’re speaking about resilience we have to take into account the attitude of the concerned individuals. It is true that the above mentioned attitude is, more often than not, heavily influenced by the affluence of the respective individuals but the function is hardly a direct one.
Based on these considerations – and on my personal experience of dealing with people, I’m going to propose the following synopsis.
The ‘resilient’ are those convinced they are able to cope, more or less on their own, with almost everything life can throw at them. Unfortunately some of them grow ‘spiritual callouses’, simply because they have never experienced any real hardships.
Or because they have over-compensated after dealing with those hardships, sometimes after succeeding to do so without receiving significant outside help.
The ‘fragile’ are those who, by lack of material resources, spiritual stamina or both, behave more like leafs driven by the wind than like masters of their own fate – as every human being should.
By now you’ve probably figured out that ‘my middle class’ is composed of individuals who have a certain degree of resilience but who, on the other hand, are perfectly aware that there are things on this world that they wouldn’t be able to face on their own.
In a sense, possession of money – or other resources, ‘encourages’ an individual to reveal his true nature.
If a person is naturally inclined to grow ‘callouses’ then being ‘insulated’ from the outside world by a thick wad of money will provide him with enough space to let those callouses grow but if his skin is ‘in the game’ then those callouses will be constantly shaven while interacting with his peers.
But if the stakes of the game are very meager – and the insulation provided to the players by their respective possessions is practically nonexistent, then instead of growing callouses most of the players will be rubbed raw during the intercourse. Mind you, neither the ‘stakes of the game’ nor the ‘individual possessions’ need to necessarily be of a strictly material nature.
In conclusion, the ‘callously resilient’ will tend to mind to their own – simply because their sensitivity towards the outside world is dampened by their callouses, the ‘fragile’ will tend to mind to their own raw wounds while those belonging to the ‘middle class’ will be the only ones really interested in maintaining the well being of the social organism. The one to which they ‘knowingly’ belong.
Because they are the only ones with enough time/energy/resources on their hands to consider the matter, the real interest to do so and the willingness to put some effort into this endeavour.
Just finished reading about the West as an object of hate.
Next in line is a book about the Orient as an object of study.
Bearing in mind the fact that the Occident is still very much hated by a significant number of people residing in the Eastern part of the World it seems that we, the Westerners, have been rather poor students of the Orient.
Or that some of us don’t give a damn about the long term consequences of their actions?
I’d say these are very wise words which constitute an excellent starting point.
Towards the end of their book Ian Buruma and Avishai Margalit argue that “despite Christian fundamentalists speaking of a crusade, the West is not at war with Islam. In fact the fiercest battles will be fought inside the Islamic World.” (translation belongs to me, I have a Romanian version of the book)
How about us, in the West, helping the ‘right’ side in an innovative way?
By giving them an example.
By mending our own ways, before telling others to mend theirs!
I recently shared this meme, originally posted on FB by Black Atheists.
The broad spectrum of the commentaries made on this subject enticed me to elaborate on it.
There are people who blow people up under religious pretenses and people who blow people up under their own ‘rationale’.
This meme can be interpreted as God praising those who do not use his name when committing heinous crimes.
Who do not misinterpret religious teachings to fit their callously narrow goals.
Who do not make up self-serving nonsense simply because they have enough sleigh of mind and an audience who, for various reasons, is willing to believe anything that might provide some psychological comfort.
Who do not use religious pretexts when horribly mistreating others.
And don’t get me wrong. God doesn’t praise them for what they’re doing – there is nothing to be praised there.
He praises them for what they are not doing.
Using false pretenses, that is.
nicichiarasa 