What WE know about the reality WE are speaking about drives ME to the following ‘inkling’:
We are living inside a three layered reality.
The ‘real’ one, the ‘perceived’ one and the ‘result’.
We ‘measure’ reality using our conscience. Through our senses. Very much like when we gauge a length using a tape measure. We apply the tape measure over the length and ‘read’ the number.
We apply the standards we’ve been groomed into over the underlying reality and we decide according to those standards.
Then we attempt to deal with the consequences of our decisions.
“Sheer hatred of the regime”….
Who’s painting the pictures we’re hanging on our walls? Who chooses them? Who has to make do with the ‘aftermath’?
No home means ‘no sleep’. No place secure enough for you to let you guard down – no matter how shortly, and relax. Survival becomes problematic and occupies all your time. And brain power….
An uncomfortable home means ‘no dreams’. Every waken moment is occupied by ‘how do I get a bigger home’ and whatever sleep you might muster is fitful. You cannot rest properly so you cannot do much during your active hours. You’ll never reach your full potential so you’ll never be as useful/productive as you could possibly be.
Too big a home means ‘nightmare’. Difficult to maintain – for your means, impossible to ‘explore’/’exploit’, always afraid somebody would try to steal it from you. And, above all, too big a home means ‘insulation’ from the real world. You’re so far away from what’s really happening out there that you’re no longer able of proper decision making. Nightmare.
I wish you a string of very good nights and some pleasant dreams.
‘OK, and where’s the difference? The meaning’s the same…’
Not exactly! Burke was speaking about the fate of individual people while the quote attributed to him is about evil itself. According to Burke, the good people must associate in order to protect their livelihoods and their way of life while the mis-attributed quote pretends that there are circumstances in which evil might prevail.
‘I still don’t understand you! Good people loosing their cause doesn’t mean that evil has prevailed?!?’
No! Good people might loose from time to time. Being good doesn’t mean those people are perfect. People make mistakes. Some of which can’t be undone.
Evil things do happen. From time to time. Either through sheer bad luck or through good people making horrible mistakes. But evil cannot prevail. Not on the longer run!
For two reasons.
Small enough mistakes can be overcome. Either individually or collectively. Serious enough mistakes will kill you. Individually and collectively. This was the first reason.
If evil hadn’t been that bad, we wouldn’t have called it that way. If evil would have led to survival, we would have called it ‘good’.
Good people doing nothing doesn’t mean that evil will triumph. Good people doing nothing only means, as Burke had said, that those good people will fail. One by one. Bad people having it their way doesn’t mean much. Historically speaking. After they had finished vanquishing the good, the bad had always started to fight among themselves. It’s in their nature to do that.
That’s how each evil eventually dies out…
Until the next one appears? Indeed! Weeds will always spring up. Specially if the soil is rich. That’s what hoes are for! If only people knew how to make good use of them…
In physics, ‘temperature’ measures the intensity of the interaction between the elements which ‘inhabit’ a certain place. The more energy exists in a certain place, the more intense the interaction. If the place is inhabited by a gas, each molecule is able to ‘travel’ a short distance before actually hitting one, or more, of its neighbors. If the place is occupied by a liquid, the molecules glide against each-other and if we speak about a solid, the components just shimmy together. The more energy exists inside a place – the higher the temperature, the more intense the interaction between the individual components. And if, for whatever reason, ‘too much’ energy accumulates into a given space the interaction becomes intense enough for ‘change’ to happen. As temperature raises, solids melt, liquids boil and evaporate while gases become plasma.
Adding energy isn’t enough to determine change. Temperature might rise without anything noticeable to happen. Specially when we speak about liquids and solids. If enough outside pressure is applied, the liquid cannot start to boil and the solid stays in place.
Same thing when it comes to a society. High output societies need a very intense social interaction to make things happen. To make so many things happen at once… that being the reason for which those societies need to be democratic. Autocracies are too rigid, they cannot accommodate the continuous adjustments needed to ‘absorb’ the huge amount of ‘social change’ warranted by the amount of energy ebbing through the system.
One way to measure ‘social temperature’ – other than the ‘output’ of that society, is to gouge how vulnerable a society is when confronted with a highly infectious disease which is transmitted through direct contact. Cholera will sweep through an entire community which drinks from the same well, regardless of how much contact individual people have with each-other. Covid, and Ebola, need people to ‘touch’ each-other in order to jump from one to another.
But don’t forget to factor in ‘pressure’. And other things specific to each individual ‘place’. Otherwise the analysis might produce less relevant results.
The above phrase makes a lot of sense. Every beating which had become ‘public knowledge’ does make life ‘easier’ to those men who are known to be ‘peaceful’. In a sense…
On the other hand, every beating which becomes public knowledge but the beater isn’t chastised for his actions makes life harder for everybody. For women. The beaten ones are discouraged from making their plight public. Those not beaten yet are taught that being beaten isn’t such a big deal. For men. Those who already do it, feel no compulsion to stop. Those who would do it feel encouraged to ‘experiment’. Those who would like to do it but cannot – for whatever reasons, feel frustrated. Those who abhor it feel ashamed for belonging to the same gender. And discouraged from doing anything about it. For the entire species. Violence become normalized. Socially accepted. Expected, even… Mothers and fathers don’t teach their sons that this is an unacceptable behavior while teaching their daughters to not be ‘surprised’ if it happens. All the more so when children witness their mother being abused while nobody does anything about it. Not even the abused mother… Not even when the abusive husband abuses the children along with the mother…
So what ‘awards’ are we talking about here? What’s the real meaning of “All men benefit from the actions of violent men”? Or the real meaning of the phrase is that there is no such thing as a really good man?
Another logical ‘extension’ would be ‘All people benefit from the actions of thieves. This is why locks are being built and the police is being paid’. For humans are, by definition, nothing but sinners… right?
How about doing something about the whole situation instead of peddling in double edged memes? Because the only explanation for women – along with children and peaceful men, being abused is the lack of social reaction whenever a beating – or any other form of abuse, becomes public knowledge.
Smells like The Dow Theory? Because that was my starting point….
But we should not forget Abraham Maslow. If you think of it, Maslow’s stages are nothing but the three thrusts up which define a bull market. For an individual to be able to master the ‘self actualization’ phase, they need to have mustered enough resources, have had enough relevant social experience and to have ‘properly digested’ the information accumulated during the process.
One-Time
Monthly
Yearly
Make a one-time donation
Make a monthly donation
Make a yearly donation
Choose an amount
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
Or enter a custom amount
$
As much as I love writing, I do have to eat. And to provide for my family. Earning money takes time. If you’d like me to write more, and on a more regular basis, hit the button. Your contribution will be appreciated!
As much as I love writing, I do have to eat. And to provide for my family. Earning money takes time. If you’d like me to write more, and on a more regular basis, hit the button. Your contribution will be appreciated!
As much as I love writing, I do have to eat. And to provide for my family. Earning money takes time. If you’d like me to write more, and on a more regular basis, hit the button. Your contribution will be appreciated!
‘Japanese’ logic: If somebody can do it, I can too. If nobody could do it, I will.
‘Romanian’ logic: If somebody can do it, let them do it! If nobody could do it, why should I?
These two capture rather accurately the respective Weltanschauungs.
There are two things which bother me, though.
Once a Romanian determines that something must be done, they will find a way. No matter how unconventional… It’s not any lack of individual self-confidence which keeps Romania back…
Secondly – but, to me, far more important, who gets to determine whether ‘it’ is worth doing? The doers themselves or somebody else? And what governs the relationship between the two? Is any mutual respect involved there?
For some reason, this whole thing made me remember Oscar Hoffman’s words.
‘Logical correctness isn’t enough. For a sentence to be actually true, it also has to make epistemological sense’.
The malicious has made an option. Had chosen. Willingly! And, supposedly – according to the hypothesis being discussed here, knowingly.
The ‘stupid’ just stays put. Until the relevant information penetrates his ‘thick skull’. It’s not his fault that those who attempt to convince him are not skillful enough.
And if the ‘stupid’ happens to be in a ‘powerful’ position… (hence his inability to understand fast enough is liable to produce considerable damage) who needs to be chastised?
The ‘stupid’ himself? Who presumably ‘doesn’t have a clue’ about what’s going on? The malicious who had made the whole situation possible? The ‘lazy bystandards’? Who had allowed this to happen? Out of carelessness?
Or those who are liable to suffer the consequences? Who had understood what was going on but…
On the other hand… Could Dietrich Bonhoefer – a renowned pastor and theologian, utter such ‘simplistic’ words? So callous?
nicichiarasa 