Archives for category: collective identity
« Older Entries

Yet another ‘dubious battle’…

March 27, 2023 //
0

Wisdom comes from thinking. From putting your mind to work in a considerate manner.
Doubting everything will only get you so far. And leave you in ‘limbo’.
In a quick-sand kind of limbo…
Descartes must be one of the most misquoted thinkers.
‘Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum’.
‘I wonder hence I think. I think hence I am’. Meaning that ‘by wondering I’ve set in motion the process which has led me to become aware of my own existence’.
No reference to ‘wisdom’…

LE

Words have a life of their own. Given by us but still theirs.

Dubito used to describe a state of ‘uneasiness’. You weren’t sure and you gave it more consideration. You thought about it.

Contemporary doubting is more like an aggressively pursued hair-splitting. We actively search for reasons to disbelieve.

Even if both words share the same root, the concepts have grown apart.

Starting from dubito, Descartes had replaced religious faith with a newly found trust in human reason.

Through doubting we’ve destroyed Descartes’ legacy. Trust is almost dead and we’ve entered the realm of ‘alternative facts’. Quite the opposite of what Descartes had in mind.

So yes, dubito might lead to wisdom. If the thinking is right, of course.

Doubting, specially as we do it now,…

Something more. Some people are convinced that doubting everything is the ‘scientific attitude’. I vehemently disagree.

Science, the scientific attitude, is about keeping an open mind. About being aware of one’s limitations. AND about trusting your peers! Not exactly their expertise but their good will.

If I accept that I might be wrong, then my peers might be wrong also. Hence I’m not going to accept, prima facie, any opinion from anybody. But I’m going to reexamine my conclusions if someone tells me they are wrong. If, and this is a big if, that person is NOT a professional naysayer.

Skepticism is OK. More than OK. It serves as a safety net/harness. Makes it harder for us to do really stupid things.

Negativism, on the other hand, is bad. Very bad. Destroys everything. Starting with our ability to do things together. To work as a team.

Advertisement
Tags , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, effective communication, In English, man as a measure for all things, man induced fragility, Psychology, skin in the game

Unfathomable

March 21, 2023 //
0

“Card’s hate has come to color my experience of his fiction — as, I think, it should. Neither fiction nor its creators exist in a vacuum; nor is the choice to consume art or support an artist morally neutral. Orson Scott Card is monstrously homophobic; he’s racist; he advocates violence and lobbies against fundamental human rights and equates criticism of those stances with his own hate speech.“
Rachel Editin, Wired, 2013

“The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to “gay marriage,” is that it marks the end of democracy in America.”
Orson Scott Card, Mormon Times, 2008

‘The choice to consume art….’
I used to be under the impression that art was something which clawed at your attention and opened up your mind to new understandings of things… Now I’m told that art is nothing but yet another merchandise. Something to be chosen, paid for and consumed.

‘The end of democracy in America…’
I used to be under the impression that democracy, perfectible as it is, was the best way forward. Precisely because each and all of those concerned about the matter are allowed to speak up their minds and because all are equally protected by the law of the land. Which law of the land reflects the deeply held conviction of the vast majority of those living together that each of them is equally entitled to choose for themselves. For as long as their choices don’t hurt the others, of course.
Which ‘equally entitled to choose’ also means that each of them has an equal voice when it comes to determining their collective future.
For example, that each of the American Citizens are entitled to one vote when the President of the United States of America is elected for office.
Now I learn that some people are convinced that the American Citizens – those “we, the people” who are called to elect the Government, should not be allowed to choose whom to marry. And that allowing people full freedom when it comes to choosing their partners – irrespective of their biological sex, will somehow destroy their ability to choose their (political) future.

How much sense does this make?…
From consuming art to banning people from marrying their chosen soulmate!

Tags , , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, awareness, Choices we make, collective identity, effective communication, human rights, In English, man as a measure for all things, Psychology, skin in the game

Choice

March 16, 2023 //
0


Basically, there are two meta-rules.

According to the first, if you follow the precepts – to the letter – you get ‘there’.
According to the second, avoiding the forbidden sets the stage for things going your way.

Unfortunately, things are not as simple as they look at first sight.
The first meta-rule deals with individuals. Getting ‘there’ is each individual’s job. They have to do what they are supposed to and failing to fulfill any item banishes the unworthy from the cherished ‘prize’.
The second one is even ‘trickier’. While its precepts must be followed, again, by the individual followers, the ‘spoils’ belong more to the community rather than to the individual. On top of that, they are not ‘certain’! Following the rule only ‘sets the stage’. Disobeying the rule makes it certain that the goal will never be reached while following it only ‘opens the door’. Makes it possible for each of the community members to search for their individual paths towards their particular goals.

Do I need to remember you that both these rules exist only in our heads?
As figments of our imaginations?
And that the difference between the two can be observed at the practical level?

The first rule can never be fulfilled. Nobody can follow it to its ultimate consequence. No matter how hard any of us might try. It would be like measuring with infinite precision. Something will always happen. Go wrong. Throw us back to where we have started.
The second one also leads to disappointment. Some members of the community will inevitably attempt to cut corners. Take the easy way out … Hence the rule needs policing. You’ve certainly witnessed at least on occasion when ‘bad (money) has driven out good’… at least temporarily! Furthermore, some members of the community – while faithfully sticking to the rule, will still fail to get ‘there’. Set their aims too high, didn’t have what it takes… or simply had lots and lots of bad luck! But regardless of the why’s, not getting there still generates disappointment. Usually directed at the rule… and creates a lot of doubt towards the weltanschauung based on the rule…

Which way out?
How to choose?

Would it be helpful to notice that, historically speaking, the communities which have followed the second rule, primum non nocere, have fared decently while those who had attempted to prescribe, and impose, a ‘recipe for happiness’ have invariably failed?
‘Don’t do anything, upon another, which you wouldn’t welcome when done upon you’ versus ‘treat all the others exactly as you would like to be treated yourself’?

Tags , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, authoritarianism, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, effective communication, evolution, In English, Intent, man as a measure for all things, Mutual Respect, Psychology, skin in the game, teleology

Artwork

March 14, 2023 //
0

Yesterday you’ve been babbling about painting an elephant. One which was already present in the room. Doesn’t make that much sense, does it?

In my childhood there was a certain emperor. Who had been duped by a couple of crooks to wear a suit of clothes so special that they were in fact invisible. Hence the emperor walked around naked, convinced he was wearing the coolest set of rags available on this Earth. Pun intended, of course. I forgot to mention the price. Not only hefty but also recurrent. Each set of clothes, of in-existent clothes, could be worn only once. They were too fragile for ‘second helpings’. The courtiers kept congratulating the emperor for his beautiful attire so the scam went on for quite a while. Until he took to the streets of his capital city to show off his clothes to the ordinary people. And a child exclaimed: “Look. the emperor is naked”. And those present started to laugh.

Same thing here. Everybody senses that something’s amiss. Except for those who should know better. Who, for various reasons – I’ll get there, soon enough, don’t believe what they see. Or, more exactly, refuse to ‘go to the bottom of it’.

Back in the ‘good old days’, emperors had jesters. Courtiers who were allowed to speak the uncomfortable truth. Cloaked under a thick layer of funny words, true, but well worth saying.
This is what I mean when I ‘babble’ about ‘painting the elephant’.

I’ve already mentioned the story about the naked emperor. Now it’s time for that about the four blind men being led to learn about the elephant. One got to feel the hind legs, one the huge belly, the third got acquainted with the ears and the last with the tip of the elephant’s trunk. When later asked to share what they had learned, the first said the elephant was a pair of tall columns, the second said the elephant was a huge barrel, the third contradicted the first two maintaining that the elephant was a leathery curtain of sorts while the last was convinced that the elephant was a thick snake ending with a finger.

As I said before, ‘same thing here’. For ideological reasons, we consider some things and disconsider others. Furthermore, for psychological reasons, we tend to coalesce into ‘bubbles’. Those who consider the same things tend to stick together. And to disconsider those who consider other things.

I’m afraid this is too hard for me to follow. You first want to paint an elephant, then come up with a naked emperor and end up with parts of an elephant. Is there any elephant at all? Or all we have is a collection of disparate impressions? Man made illusions, vaguely resembling parts of an elephant and involving nakedness?

Well, you got the gist of it but you’re afraid to say it out loud.
The elephant is indeed of our own making.
An image. Not an illusion, mind you! Just an incomplete image of what’s going on around us.
Let me try to spell it differently.

The world was complicated to start with. Both wide and deep. Too wide and too deep for any of us to be able to comprehend it in earnest. But for most of our history, we didn’t have to. We used to live ‘locally’. Both geographically and ‘spiritually’. Each of us, individual human beings, belonged to a place. To a village and to a tradition. When one of us happened to move to another village, they, more or less naturally, translated their ‘spirit’ into the local tradition.
Nowadays, the world has become even more complicated. We made it even more complicated than it was at the beginning. We uncovered many of the previously unknown nooks and crannies. Building the illusion of knowledge in the process. Then we assumed tradition. Called it culture and made it our own. Took it with us where ever we went. Shared it with others and, sometimes, even imposed it – or parts of it, upon others.

The world itself is no longer straightforward. For us…
Our ancestors didn’t make any distinction between the physical world and the tradition which made sense of it. The world – ‘Cosmos’, as they used to call it, was whole. ‘Reality’ was made of ‘objects’, the names of those objects and the rules between them. The point being that our ancestors did not make any difference between an object, its name and its place in the order of things. Between the physical reality and tradition. Between the objects per se and the meaning – name and connecting ties, we’ve attached to each object.
Only after the Ancient Greeks had come up with the concept of “phusis” things were separated into natural and man-made. Into real and illusory…

That being the moment when the elephant had been born.
When we have started to steer our fate. Not to determine it – we’ll probably never be able to do this in a comprehensive manner, but to influence it.
Which influence has two dimensions. Size and … there’s no words for what I have to say right now. ‘Awareness of what’s going on’?!? Our ancestors did what they used to do because they had to do it and they did it as things were done at that time. We, on the other hand, get to choose among the many things which should be done and the manner in which we see fit to do it. Meanwhile, we entertain the illusion of doing all these things in a fully conscious manner.

A part of the elephant I have in mind consists of the fact that our consciousness is limited. But our illusion about our consciousness is bigger than the reality of the matter.
Another part of the elephant consists of the fact that more and more of us no longer consider advice. From those who entertain different opinions (illusions?!?) than us.

And why should I accept advice from somebody who promotes illusions?

I didn’t say you should accept advice from a peddler of illusions. From a con artist or from a snake-oil distributor.
What I said was ‘be careful, your own convictions are nothing but, ultimately, illusions. Man made illusions. Some of them, maybe, closer to reality than those entertained by other people. Meanwhile, others of your illusory convictions – most of them, probably, are more distanced from reality than those entertained by those who ‘control’/master each particular realm of ‘knowledge’.
This being the reason for which we go first to the doctor instead of raiding a pharmacy when our child gets sick.

I didn’t say you should accept advice from any peddler of illusions.
All I said was that we should pay more attention to what other people have to say. More considerate attention to what other people say, bearing in mind that our own convictions – about anything, are nothing but ultimately illusory.

Tags , , , , ,
Categories alternative ways of acquring knowledge, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, cooperation, Culture, effective communication, evolution, In English, man as a measure for all things, Mutual Respect, Psychology, teleology, time, Transparency

Too late?

March 13, 2023 //
0

-Now that it doesn’t work anymore, why don’t you do something about it?
-Like what?
-Preventive action? As in ‘it’s easier to prevent it from happening than to fix it afterwards’?
-Sounds good. But the real problem here is not what’s going to happen – which is bad, but the fact that we’ve become blind. Blinded by ideology. By us convincing ourselves that we are right.
That we are right and the others are wrong! That ‘otherness’ is wrong…
Furthermore, the other is not only wrong but also pigheaded. They don’t want to listen! They are so stupid that their inability to let any fresh idea into their thick skulls will take us, all of us, into living hell!
You see, any successful preventive action needs at least one of the following:
A powerful enough ‘agent’ to take the matter into their hands. One who knows exactly what’s needed, can do it, and has no qualms about it.
A powerful enough coalition of people who learn what’s needed. And then convince the community to act.
Nowadays, the only agent powerful enough to implement, single-handedly, a solution is the US. But people there cannot see eye to eye with each-other. The only thing they agree about is that the others are idiots. Too many of the Republicans have followed Trump into the ‘all Democrats are idiots’ mantra while too many of the Democrats are convinced there’s no way anybody could convince the Republicans of anything which isn’t spelled in the Bible.
And, unfortunately, the rest of the world is equally divided along more or less the same line.
The ‘icing on the cake’ being the fact that many otherwise intelligent people have identified this situation as being ‘full of opportunities’. For each of them… Without realizing that the further they go down this lane, the deeper they dig themselves in quicksand. Taking all of us along with them!
What kind of preventive action might prevent something like this?!?
– But why?!? If you see it, if I can follow your argument about it… then surely they must see it too!
– They see it all right. The elephant has not only driven us into the corners of the room but has already cracked a fair amount of china… But they see only a side of it.
The problem is compounded by the fact that the elephant is only a puppy. It still has a lot to grow. As it is, there are many people who are convinced there’s a lot of time left for us to ‘wait and see’. And further compounded by the fact that so many of us want to find the culprit first. To find somebody to blame for letting the elephant in!
You see, nobody wants to accept that we’ve made this elephant. In here! In our midst. Nobody had brought the elephant in, we’ve all contributed to it’s birth. Some more than others but that doesn’t really matter anymore. Anyway, since its birth, most of us have contributed to it reaching its present size.
– Then all that’s left for you to do is to paint the elephant. To make it as visible as possible. So that when people will come to their senses, they’ll have something to look at…
Further more, it’s very likely that other people have also seen it. And don’t speak up because they’re convinced there’s nobody else who sees it as they do.

Tags
Categories 1989, awareness, Bounded rationality, collective identity, effective communication, In English, man as a measure for all things, skin in the game

‘Handles’

March 12, 2023 //
0

I’m afraid things are a little bit more complicated.
In this translation, the Turkish proverb puts the onus on the ‘forest’ for what’s going on.
Which isn’t helpful. It somehow validates the notion that ‘people’ get what they deserve.
The way I see it, the responsibility belongs to the wooden handles. The axes – the steel parts, do what is in their nature to do. Axes split wood, dictators dictate… and so on.
On the other hand, those who ‘help in the process’… While it also is in their ‘wooden’ nature to be helpful, the handles do not necessarily have to attach themselves to forest hacking axes.
While it is in their nature to give advice, analysts and pundits do not necessarily have to court the Trumps/Putins/Xis of this world.

Blaming the people for voting for those who are being put forward by very skill full political promoters is not that different from blaming the victim of a rape. Yes, she should have known better than to drink that much at the party but the rapist didn’t necessarily had to take advantage of her.

Tags , , , , ,
Categories 1989, authoritarianism, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, effective communication, evolution, In English, man as a measure for all things, Mutual Respect, Psychology, skin in the game, teleology

Alien report

March 10, 2023 //
0

In the beginning was the word

– How did you manage to mess things up so thoroughly?
– By allowing too much coherence to slip away. After we – well, some of us, already had a fair understanding about how things worked. About how we got there in the first place.
– Would you care to elaborate?
– Things went on more or less linearly up to when we had learned to speak. That was when it had all started. When we had realized what a start was.
And that was it.
Speaking to each other allowed us to access the second level of consciousness. Self awareness.
Speaking to ourselves – a.k.a. ‘thinking’, gave us the illusion of ‘knowing’.
‘Knowing’ led to ‘knowing better’ and ‘knowing better’ gave birth to arrogance.
For a while, this process had been kept in check by the harsh reality. People, like all living organisms, have certain needs. Basic needs. Food, shelter… During most of our evolution, getting enough food and shelter consumed most of our resources. And time. Only a very small number of people had enough spare time. And energy left for thinking. And only a very small percentage of this already small number of people used their minds to think about anything else but how to preserve their privileged status. Which status was the source of their ‘spare time’ in the first time…
Slowly but surely, those having something else in their minds besides their selfish self interest have come up with a thing called ‘technology’. By carefully, and considerately, watching those who worked, the selfish thinkers have noticed that from time to time and from craftsperson to craftperson there could be noticed small differences in how things were done. Hence the concept of ‘how things are done’. With the natural sequel of ‘let’s do things in a better way’.
Technology made it possible for workers to be more productive. Communities as a whole became more productive. Hence increased the possibility for more people to have spare time for thinking.
Some communities made good use of this new possibility while others failed to do so. Usually for reasons depending on the ‘general conditions’ and not at all imputable to the communities themselves.
Unfortunately, technology also had two less fortunate consequences.
By freeing more and more people from want, it also freed them from ‘religion’.
Until that moment, people who were ‘excluded’ from society – who did not partake in ‘religion’, could not survive on their own for any significant length of time. After the advent of technology, reclusion no longer meant almost instant death.
Technology also produced ‘hard science’. A corpus of knowledge about how nature works. Which knowledge can be summarized as a collection of natural laws.
No longer depending as much on their contemporaries and cognizant of those natural laws, some of the thinkers – whose numbers had been constantly swelled by the continuously improved technology, have reached the conclusion that through thinking a human might, given enough time and resources, understand basically everything.
Some of those had become dictators. Others had become consultants.
Both categories extremely confident in their own knowledge. Arrogant, even.
This is how we messed things up. This bad.

Tags , , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, arrogance, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, effective communication, In English, man as a measure for all things, Mutual Respect, Psychology, religion, skin in the game, teleology, Trust

Complementary, my deal Watson

March 8, 2023 //
0

Equality has become ‘the’ thing.
But things are not that simple. Not simple enough to be explained/solved in such a trivial manner.
Equality is a theoretical concept. It doesn’t exist, as such, in nature. Nor in practice.
Two ‘objects’/issues/items are declared, by us, to be equal if the differences between them are smaller than a threshold. Instated, again, by us. Mathematics – a theoretical field by excellence, being the only domain where the difference between two equal ‘objects’ is exactly zero.
On the other hand, societies where people consider themselves to be equal fare better than those where the differences between people are ‘manifest’.
Hence ‘equality’ must be important, right?
‘Societies where people consider themselves to be equal’…
The key word here is “consider”, not “equal “.
In this situation, equality is not only a concept but also a value.

The fact that a functional majority of the people living in those societies consider themselves to be equal creates a certain ‘environment’. A situation where those people actually complement each-other. A society which works as an organism. Not as a shoal of fish nor as a simple herd. A society which works a community.

A single parent can raise children. But two parents do it a lot easier. And, in most cases, better.
A single parent can adopt children. But no single parent, man or woman, is able to give birth to a child without being helped by a member of the ‘opposite sex’.
Societies where people consider men and women to be equal fare a lot better than those entertaining other beliefs. Which doesn’t negate the fact that men and women complement each-other. In a lot more situations than those in which they merely reproduce themselves.
Economies where the market is free fare a lot better than those where the economic decisions are made in a centralized manner. The communist camp – where the economies were run by the party, had crumbled under their own weight. Which strongly suggests that no matter how skilled it may be, a central planner will never be able to balance such a complicated process as a whole society/economy. Monopolistic situations, where decision making became too concentrated, invariably ended up in a pile of mess. Another proof that no decision maker, no matter how skilled/well intended, was ever capable of managing, by itself, a really complicated situation.
What is the real difference between a free market and one where decision making is concentrated in an unsustainably small number of hands? Or heads?
Economic agents are equal? Suppliers are equal among themselves, buyers are equal among themselves and suppliers are equal with buyers?
Or suppliers complement each-other in adequately supplying the market while buyers and suppliers complement each-other in maintaining the market afloat?
Which brings us back to where we have started.
Where people who complement each-other have reached the conclusion they’d better consider their complements as equals. And treat each-other as such.

Tags , , , , ,
Categories 1989 and the Global Financial Crises, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, Economy, effective communication, evolution, In English, man as a measure for all things, Mutual Respect, Psychology, skin in the game, teleology

Which way out?

March 6, 2023 //
0

Word of mouth has it that a dissatisfied customer will be more vocal than a happier one.
A search over the internet yields unconvincing results. The statistical jury seems to be still out on this one.

A misspell in the search window unveiled something a lot more interesting.

The brain is hard wired to recognize an angry voice. As well as an angry face.

Are we aware of all this?
Probably not. Statistically speaking…

And this is important why?

Being able to recognize anger makes it easier for us to deal with conflict.
Individuals who do it better have more chances to survive when involved in dangerous situations. Or even to turn them around. To find ways in which to use conflict in a profitable manner. Profitable for them… And only time will tell for how long!
Communities adept at taming conflict into something useful have greater chances to survive than those less able to deal with it.

Now, where are we in this moment?
Do we talk to each other? Are we aware of what’s going on around us? Cognizant enough to take the appropriate measures?
Or do we just vent out our bile? Creating such an environment that no coherent answer will be presented when needed?

Are we, each of us, part of the solution?
Or we just create more and more problem?

Tags , , , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, effective communication, evolution, fail better, In English, man as a measure for all things, Mutual Respect, Psychology, skin in the game, Trust

Instrument

March 6, 2023 //
0

‘War is over when the goals have been achieved, not when the enemy had been destroyed.
While sometimes you have to utterly obliterate the enemy in order to achieve your goals, this is not always necessarily true.‘

Hari Bucur-Marcu

This makes a lot of sense, right?

Yeah, sort of…

The problem with this approach being that this understanding degrades war to a simple instrument.

Something used by a decision maker towards the achievement of certain ‘goals’.

The problem with this approach being that it obliterates the decision power of all other people involved in it. Of everybody else but of those calling the shots. Pun intended!

All analysts commenting Putin’s ‘special military operation’ babble on about Putin’s goals.
‘Ukraine will never be able to crush Russia, militarily, so we need to understand what’s going on in Putin’s mind.
In order to be able to ‘bribe’ him into ending the war. Or to black mail him. Only we need to understand first what will constitute a too big of a price for him to pay.’

On the other hand, Putin seems to be thinking along the same lines.
‘I need to preserve my position. MY power. Ukraine is a bad example for the Russian people. They have shifted their ‘allegiance’ and want to build a real democracy. I cannot allow this to happen, otherwise I’ll be next.
Now, how much pain do I have to inflict in order to achieve my goal? Directly, upon the Ukrainians and indirectly, upon the rest of the world?’

Meanwhile, the rest of those involved in this situation bear the brunt of the war. Directly and indirectly.

Some of them understand what’s going on and some don’t.

My point being that not all instruments are born equal.
While all are nothing but mere ‘sticks’ in the hands of the agents wielding them, choosing to use a certain instrument among the available alternatives speaks volumes about the agent making the choice.

What are we, reasonable creatures, to understand when an agent chooses an instrument which debases all other creatures to the role of ‘kill or be killed’?
For whatever reason and under whatever pretext?
Is that agent ever going to stop? To stop setting ‘goals’, further and further away?

Specially after having the ‘first installment’ safely tucked under the belt…

Tags , , , , , , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, authoritarianism, awareness, Choices we make, collective identity, effective communication
« Older Entries
%d bloggers like this: