Archives for category: Culture

One of the first novels I read was “The Naked Sun”  by Isaac Asimov.
In a nutshell it depicts the contrast between an overcrowded Earth whose population lives basically underground in close resemblance of an ant mole, both architecturally and socially, and Solaria – a planet long ago colonized by humans who now live individually, with almost no personal contact between them, except for long Skype-like machine intermediated interactions.
The Earth cannot evolve any further because they have locked themselves in a corner in search for safety inside the herd and Solaria cannot do anything more than survive because the inhabitants do not have even the slightest idea of what close cooperation means.

Nowadays there is a hot debate about video games. One party deplores the fact that the young generation is morally perverted by the high level of violence they are exposed to while others point to the fact that ancient tales are even more violent and that there is no difference between spoken, written, seen on screen (cinema and then TV) and video-played violence.

Yes and no.
The level of violence might be the same but the level of ‘immersion’ is different.
For most of (pre)human history everything happened in the ‘public square’, including punishment. It was customary that everybody attended even the most gruesome executions, children included, as lessons for the future. This had consequences: life was cheap in those times because it could be ended by the whims of the powerfuls of the day but everybody was fully aware of the practicalities (excruciating pain) of losing it and – most important – that there were ways of avoiding it: social cooperation by obeying the rules.
Afterwards, when printing and later radio, cinema and TV were invented, this level of immersion was no longer necessary and executions retreated inside the prison walls. People read about what rules bending meant and discussed about it among themselves. Human direct interaction was not as intense as directly seeing an execution but reading about it managed to preserve a sufficient level of impact while discussing about it preserved a sane level of compassion with both victim and criminal.
The advent of the video games changed all this. The virtual world influences real life two ways: it robs people of ‘the practical touch’ and of time otherwise spent interacting with real people.
A real execution was indeed gruesome but it left a powerful impression. If you read about one, and the writer is any good, you are left with a not so intense experience but sometimes with a more lasting one, precisely because the writer knew his job. If you witness ten deaths in a 15 minutes video game you start to not care anymore, once because of the reset button and secondly because the human brain is set to discard stimuli than come in a steady flow, for instance we stop feeling a certain smell after a while or we stop hearing the constant hum of the engine when enjoying a cruise on a ship.
Even more nefarious is the fact that young people do not interact directly as more as they used to. Playing with other children with minimum or even no adult supervision is the best and fastest way to acquire social skills and to learn empathy. Nowadays shrinking families (one or two children per family drastically reduces the number of playmates) and increased focus on safety means that children no longer play amongst themselves but in an environment closely monitored or eve sometimes suffocated by adult intervention . Video gaming only meant that even this closely monitored interaction with one’s peers almost disappeared and was replaced by interactions with a machine…

I’m afraid that this may be one of the explanations for why nowadays nuances are becoming so hard to find, everything is treated as in ‘black and white’ and empathy has become a dirty word describing the feelings of a ‘sissy’.

They say Syria is in the middle of a civil war.

Now what on Earth is that?!?

There are two answers to that question, a broader and a narrower one:

Linguists tend to favor a balanced approach:
“A war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country”

‘Political scientists’ tend to favor the established power:
“Armed conflict between a government and another group from within the same country.”

Scholars tend to favor precision while preserving the bias towards what is perceived as being “the established order”:
“A civil war” is “an armed conflict that meets the following criteria:
a) the war has caused more than 1,000 battle deaths
b) the war represented a challenge to the sovereignty of an internationally recognized state
c) the war occurred within the recognized boundary of that state
d) the war involved the state as one of the principal combatants
e) the rebels were able to mount an organized military opposition to the state and to inflict significant casualties on the state.”

Now it is easier to understand those who favor Bashar al Assad: they are people who need to preserve, sometimes at all costs, the status-quo. In Syria or at home.

Now lets examine the concept of ‘nation’. Here we also find a lot of definitions, some of them rather scholar and springing from different starting points: common ethnicity, common culture, the use of a certain territory, etc. Another line of thinking starts from the workings of a nation and proposes a different approach: “a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own”. Meaning that in order to have a nation, the people comprising it must be able to cooperate.

This being the very point where my mind starts to melt. Or blow up…
“Civility is claiming and caring for one’s identity, needs and beliefs without degrading someone else’s in the process.”
Exactly the kind of behavior one would expect inside a nation in working order, right?
Then again: “Civil war?”
Armed conflict with at least 1000 “battle deaths” fought between “opposing groups of citizens of the same country”, one of the groups claiming to represent the “government” and all this in the name of not “degrading” the “identity, needs and beliefs” of the other side?!?

Wouldn’t be simpler to accept that the warring parties involved in a ‘civil war’ no longer constitute a nation?

Watch this first and read the rest later, please.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From a social point of view each of us can be seen as an oscillator – we change in time and we all have our ups and downs – only not a mechanically one. We also tend to be in sync with our fellow humans while jealously  trying to preserve our individuality.
Without preserving our individualities we would be nothing but a herd, without sync-ing there’s no cooperation.
A very fine equilibrium indeed.

PS if you are interested in the physics of all this please check here.

O doamna, destul de batrana – e adevarat, intrebata fiind daca a mai vazut asa ceva a raspuns: “De patru ori maica”.
Este vorba de inundatiile din judetul Galati.
Probabil ca de data asta fenomenul a fost mult mai intens decit de ‘obicei’ numai ca geografia locului, cea care a concentrat apa de ploaie in curtile oamenilor, nu se schimba cu una cu doua.
De aici si nedumerirea mea. Oare ce or fi facut ‘autoritatile’ locului? Si aici nu ma refer doar la primari sau consilierii locali.
Daca doamna aceea a sesizat ca in timpul vietii ei s-a adunat apa de ploaie de patru ori in centrul satului atunci sigur au mai observat chestia asta si invatatorul, preotul, inginerul agricol… etc.
Ce au facut toti oamenii astia? Era atat de complicat de sesizat ca acele sate se afla ‘in galeata’? Au spus ceva? Le-au explicat oamenilor ca la o ploaie exceptional de ‘bogata’ s-ar putea ca intreaga comunitate sa ajunga sub apa? N-or fi niste dealuri pe acolo unde ar putea fi mutate satele?

Doi copii, unul de 4 si altul de 6 ani, iesiti la plimbare in parcul Tei, s-au indepartat de bunica lor, au fost atacati de caini ‘comunitari’ iar unul dintre ei a fost omorit.

Oare din ce ‘comunitate’ or fi facand parte acei caini?

Cu ocazia asta am aflat, ascultand diverse posturi de televiziune, ca ’16 000 de bucuresteni au fost muscati de caini in 2012 conform spitalului Matei Bals’. Pai daca 16000 s-au dus la spital inseamna ca daca vrem sa aproximam numarul real al celor care au fost muscati trebuie sa INCEPEM de la 16 000 si sa ne gandim la citi sa mai adaugam.
Eu unul am fost muscat de trei ori si m-am dus la spital doar de doua. Aplicand acest algoritm (total ‘nestiintific’ si subiectiv) ajungem deja la peste 20 000.
Avand in vedere ca estimarile oficiale spun ca sunt aproximativ 60 000 de ‘comunitari’ ar rezulta fie ca o treime din ei sunt suficient de agresivi incit sa muste, in medie,  o data pe an fie ca unii dintre ei sunt atat de agresivi incit sa faca ‘treaba’ tuturor celorlalti. Intrebarea e cum sa ii deosebesti…
Si apropo de ‘treaba’…La o medie extrem de ‘conservatoare’ de 1kg pe saptamana rezulta ca 60 de tone de ‘treaba mare’ de caine se adauga in fiecare saptamana la mizeria care sufoca din ce in ce mai mult Bucurestiul.

Facem ceva pe tema asta?

Vorbeam intr-o postare anterioara despre cum, interpretandu-l ‘entuziast’ pe Descartes, am ajuns la concluzia ca ‘ratiunea il face pe om’.
Iata aici o noua dovada altceva il face pe om si nu ratiunea pura. Aceasta din urma este doar un mecanism, o modalitate de a asambla si folosi in scop propriu informatiile pe care le avem la indemana.
Catre ce scop? Ne putem folosi de ratiune pentru a incerca sa raspundem si la aceasta intrebare. Din pacate vom obtine doar atat, un raspuns. Atunci cind vom alege cu adevarat catre ce scop sa ne indreptam vor intra in joc caracterul nostru, bunul simt, educatia… Adica exact ceea ce am acumulat pina in acel moment din interactiunea cu oamenii de care ne-am ‘lovit’ de-a lungul vietii. Unii ar zice ca din acest moment intervine ‘morala’.
Se poate spune si asa. Eu prefer explicatia lui Humberto Maturana:
‘Oamenii nu sunt singurele fiinte constiente. Si cainele e constient, simte atunci cind este lovit. Spre deosebire de caine insa omul este constient de faptul ca este constient.
Iar aceasta constiinta nu a aparut din intimplare la unul dintre indivizi si apoi s-a raspandit pentru ca a fost folositoare ci a aparut prin interactiunea intensa si repetata intre indivizii societatii, mai ales prin intermediul limbajului. Acesta din urma a aparut tot asa, ‘intre’ indivizi, si impreuna, constiinta de a fi constienti impreuna cu abilitatea de a comunica idei in intreaga lor complexitate, au transformat o grupurile de ‘maimute’ pre-umane in societatile (aproape) umane de astazi.
Sa nu uitam totusi contributia esentiala a lui Descartes. El a inceput rationamentul sau cu ‘Dubito ergo…’
Asa gandesc cu adevarat oamenii: “Ce ar fi daca…” Unii ajung la concluzia “Ce tie nu-ti place altuia nu-i face”, altii la “cum sa fac sa mai castig odata alegerile”.
Poate ca ar fi timpul sa inceapa si alegatorii sa gandeasca: “Ce ar fi daca…?”

“Dubito ergo cogito, cogito ergo sum”
This was the original.
We have chosen to keep only ‘cogito ergo sum’ and be extremely proud of the fact humans are the only animals able to reason.
Really?
There is a small video that makes me wonder.…(You can enjoy all of it later, for the purpose of this post please watch from 28:01 to 32:00)
The way I see it, the monkey IS able to reason but is unable to refrain itself. When the situation allowed for ‘cold reasoning’ – when only numbers where involved, not real candy – he displayed the same kind of reasoning as the one we’d usually do.

By contrast, it is us, humans, who have the unique ability to think discursively – please see one of my previous posts about this – and hence the possibility to ask ourselves “what if?”
Maybe this is what Descartes wanted to convey to us, that it’s our capacity to ‘dubito’ that makes us humans, after all.

PS. Here you have the full transcription of that video.

It should be a must and not at all an oxymoron.
Morals were a time sanctioned method of getting along with the others which was based on religious precepts.
In time people understood the benefits of cooperation versus thuggery and thus the need for the religious backup disappeared. Ethics were born.
Nowadays some try to convince us that life is a zero sum game (it isn’t) and that ‘ethics are for the faint hearted’.
Not true. This conviction arises from falsely understanding the Darwin’s natural selection as the ‘survival of the fittest’!
Ernst Myer demonstrates clearly that this is absolutely wrong: ‘what is “the fittest” ?’ ‘You can be ‘fittest’ only by taking into account one or more parameters but those parameters might never describe completely a situation. Moreover ‘situations’ have a knack for changing so becoming the ‘fittest’ is a useless performance. In NNT’s terms is a (futile) attempt at robustness. Mayr says that in reality natural selection is about the demise of the unable to adapt. (Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is).
Now is anybody naive enough to believe that one can adapt to new circumstances solely by oneself, without any outside help? And what help can one expect while finding oneself alone in a corner after a long enough spell of behaving unethically?

 

PS Thanks Vince Pomal for the very interesting question!

Toata chestia asta cu Florin Cioaba (sa-i fie tarina usoara) are si o componenta care poate fi caracterizata ca fiind o ‘campanie de crestere a notorietatii’ – orice eveniment de genul asta este folosit la maxim de orice ‘casa regala’ care vrea sa-si pastreze/consolideze/extinda influenta, fie ea autentica sau autoproclamata.
Ca la aceasta campanie isi aduc ‘contributia’ tembeliziunile… e firesc. Cine nu alearga dupa rating?
Eu ma intreb totusi: Dorin Cioaba are geniu, si-a angajat el un consultant sau intreaga situatie este folosita de cu totul si cu totul altcineva?

Here is a “Chronology of the History of the Rights of Man”.

Nothing natural here. Either you are a believer and then the ‘Rights of Man’ derive from “God created man in his own image” (KJV, 1:27, probably the most important contribution Christianity made to the welfare of the humankind) or you don’t and then you are wise enough as to understand that the communities/nations that applied this concept have fared better in times past and have a lot better chance of surviving whatever the future will throw at them than the rest of them.

Rivers of ink may be used to discuss the matter but the facts are simple. The entire history of man is the history of the individual becoming more and more autonomous by building stronger and stronger ties with the rest of the society. This may sound paradoxically but it isn’t as I’ll try to convince you in the coming days.

If you don’t have enough patience you may read ‘Starship Troopers’ by Robert Heinlein for a more convoluted version of the same argument.