Archives for category: effective communication

So, when Popper doesn’t tolerate intolerance,
he is being mean?

Intolerance is something no one should tolerate.

From where I’m looking, intolerance is like a pebble in your shoe. You may walk for a while, without removing the pebble, but the damage will be there. For certain.

And if you persevere, the damage will be permanent.

Your question is a tricky one. Popper is not necessarily mean when refusing to tolerate intolerance.
He would have been mean only if he used unkind words when trying to convince the intolerant to change their hearts.

“Dans tous les cas,
la seule « condition » est de le faire
dans les limites de ce que permet la loi”

Aurel, dessinateur de presse au Canard enchaîné

Would you poke fun at a volcano?
No? Because it doesn’t make any sense?
But would you poke fun at people who, 800 years ago, prayed to a ‘volcanic god’ asking for ‘mercy’?
Why? Only because (we currently know that) ‘it doesn’t work like that’?!?

OK, forget about the volcano.
Would you make fun of Shoah? Also known as the Holocaust.
No, because it’s illegal? Otherwise you would have mocked a tragedy?!?

It’s not illegal to fall down.
And impossible to ‘ignore’ gravity. Just as impossible as it is to ignore a volcano!
We laugh our eyes out when clowns pretend to fall.
Nobody laughs at a volcano.
Hence it is us who choose what is funny and what isn’t. Just as it is still us who choose whether to obey the law or not. We’re talking about the human laws here, not about the natural ones…

Which brings us closer to the gist of this post.

For the believers, God is everything. Both the entire world and their reference point. Without their God, the world loses its meaning. Without their God, the believers lose their bearings.
Making fun of God, of any god, is no different from making fun of a volcano.

‘You’re making absolutely no sense. No sense whatsoever.
A volcano is a real thing. Sometimes too real, even. While God, all gods, …
Nonsense. Absolute nonsense!’

Do you have faith in vaccines?
Why? Because they work? Because they save a lot of lives?
Despite vaccines being rather expensive and despite the fact that some guys have become obscenely rich as a consequence of people needing vaccines, and other medicines, in order to survive, right?
Have you ever made fun of vaccines? Of obscenely rich people, no matter how they got their money?

Do you understand how religion works?
How religion actually works… Psychologically, sociologically, etc.
No more than you understand vaccines?
Or you just consider religion to be a hoax while vaccines are a scientific fact?
Why? Because you have been told so by reputable people? By people in whom you have absolute trust?

So.
You trust doctors to the tune of allowing them to mess up with your immune system.
And you trust those thinkers who try to convince us not only that God doesn’t exist but also that religion is the “opiate of the masses“. “An ideological tool that legitimates and defends the interests of the dominant, wealthy classes in the population.” According to Marx, that was. Karl Marx. The guy advertising the advent of the communist happiness uber alles…

Let’s backpedal for a while.
You’re OK with vaccines and hate the fact that some people get way too much money for selling those vaccines. You’re OK with the idea of making fun of rich people but not of vaccines. Because vaccines save lives while obscenely rich people are… well… obscene!

Let’s get back to religion.
Making fun of vaccines doesn’t make sense. To you. To us, actually. Because they’re not funny. Because they are a scientific fact. And because they save lives.
Making fun of God also doesn’t make sense. For the believers. For those who truly believe in God.

For those who have a different understanding of the world than we do.

What would you think about people who dismiss vaccines?
The scientific concept of vaccination, not a specific vaccine.
You consider them…?
From your point of view, their reference point is way out of this world? That they have lost their bearings?
That they actually deny the reality? Your/our reality?

That’s exactly what also happens when people make fun of God. Of any god.
Those who believe in God – in the particular god which is the target of the joke but also in all other gods – feel queasy. ‘Sea-sick’. Their world and their bearings are being put into jeopardy. Which puts them into a very difficult position.
There are only two ways out of their conundrum.
To consider the jester as being clueless. As having no idea.
Or to consider the jester as an ‘agent provocateur’. To consider the whole thing as being an insult.

You have a concern and you want to express it? As the law allows you to do?
How about doing it in a considerate manner?
In an efficient manner! In such a way as to get through…
Insulting people, or being considered clueless, doesn’t help if you want to be heard by the other side.
If you want the other side to listen, carefully, to what you need to say.

“If you’re an academic (like me),
Epstein has a particularly uncomfortable example
of how people in a perfectly comfortable profession like mine
can be happy and yet still itch with ressentiment about others
whose talents seem more valued than our own.
“Why does some ignorant lawyer have enough money to buy a villa in Tuscany
when one knows so much more about the art of the Italian Renaissance?
What kind of society permits this state of things to exist?
A seriously unjust one, that’s what kind.””
Our worst enemy..., Tom Nichols

Aaron Mostofsky, the guy pictured above, “has worked as an assistant architect in New York“.
Which means he must have at least some idea about the ‘art of the Italian Renaissance’, right?
And now I wonder. His ressentiment had been seeded in his soul during college? Earlier?

Popper, Karl Raymund, had witnessed the entire XX-the century. Both WWs and their aftermath. The advent of the USSR, that of the III-rd Reich and that of the Red China. And the defeat of the imperialistic Japan. Him insisting that collectivism – as put in practice by the fascists and by the communists – leads to a very dark cul-de-sac is spot on and perfectly aligned with what history teaches us.
But who has enough time to read nowadays … we glance at the internet, catch a meme … interpret it according to our own weltanschauung… and then storm the Capitol!
Because the individual is above the state. “An end in itself”…

The teachers/parents should have done a better job? At explaining what Popper had in mind? At teaching the next generation that you don’t ransack the Capitol whenever you don’t like the outcome of an election?

Which teachers?
Which parents?

WE?!?

https://www.amazon.com/Our-Own-Worst-Enemy-Democracy/dp/0197518877

https://www.routledge.com/After-The-Open-Society-Selected-Social-and-Political-Writings/Popper-Turner-Shearmur/p/book/9780415610230

Or should I say “straight”?!?
After all, not everything that comes from the right is ‘right’.
Not everything that comes from the left is ‘wrong’. Or good…
And even ‘straight’ has always been complicated but nobody seemed to care
!

Neither ignorance or education can do anything.
On their own. Education is a process and ignorance a mere situation.

It’s what the educated choose to do with their knowledge that makes the difference!

The key words in the statements above are “I always believed” and “It seems”.

It’s not ignorance that’s going to willingly destroy anything and it was the educated which had always ‘produced’. Moved things towards carefully chosen goals. ‘Rationally’ chosen goals, according to the latest fad.
Everything there is is the consequence of something initiated by educated people. The good, the bad and even the very ugly!

‘Another biased and inconsiderate post.
You completely dis-consider the ignorant. Assuming they are impotent and inconsequential.’

I’m afraid somebody else is assuming things.
First of all, there are no ignorant. Only the actual idiots are ignorant and they cannot do much. We, all the rest, start learning from the first minute of our life. Each according to how lucky we are.
Secondly, even the highest educated ignore most of the existing knowledge. But that doesn’t make them ignorant. The most important thing a person must learn before calling itself ‘educated’ is that nobody, that person included, will ever know enough.
Thirdly, all action is initiated from a piece of information. One starts to look for food after realizing they are hungry. After transforming a feeling into a resolution and making a plan to fulfill that resolution. A reaction – like pulling back your hand from a hot stove – doesn’t need much thinking indeed. But that’s only a reaction. Not at all a carefully, supposedly rationally, chosen goal.

Facts don’t care about your feelings.

It’s the act which does the trick.

It is the fact that it was you who had determined whether to keep them or not as they were given to you which actually affirms ‘it’.

Simple, actually, if you consider it with an open mind…

And here’s another question.

How wise is it for people to not care about other people’s feelings?

‘Cause I don’t expect facts to care about feelings. Mine or anybody else’s…

Ego is like dust in the eyes.
Without clearing the dust, we can’t see anything clearly.
So clear the ego and see the world.

Is this a wise thing to do?
To ride a motorcycle without any eye protection? Whatsoever?

We’re constantly being modeled by everything which happens to us. By what we do and by what is being done to us.
We are what our past has made of us.
Our ego is the intersection between ‘what we could have been’ and ‘what the circumstances allowed us to become’.
Which intersection, no matter how wide or narrow, is inhabited by our I-s. By each of us.

Those intersections, where are crammed all the pasts that have already happened to us, are the only places in the world over which we, each of us, will ever be in command.

In each successive moment of our life, in what we call ‘the present’, we have the freedom to choose where we want to be, inside the place where we can be. Inside the intersection I was speaking about just now.
Inside those intersections there’s nobody but each of us and each of our pasts.

Are we comfortable with our past?

Have we digested our past? Have we learned from it?
Have we cleared it?
Have we made it transparent enough? To see the future through it?

Are we comfortable enough with our past?
Comfortable enough to bring it, with us, into the future?

“I mean by a “fact” something which is there, whether anybody thinks so or not.“
“Facts are what make statements true or false.”

Bertrand Russell

What do you see here?
A ‘fact’ or ‘gravity in action’?
Bertrand Russell? Isaac Newton?

Or both?
After all, Earth pulling down yet another apple is (nothing but) a fact.

Yeah, but ‘Earth pulling down apples’ had become a fact only after Newton had figured it out.
And received this name, “fact”, only after Russell had coined the concept.

My point being that some things happen in the special place we call ‘conscious mind’.

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident:”

The United States, currently the most powerful country on Earth, exists because some people had put it in their minds to make it.
Gravity exists, as we know it, because Isaac Newton had noticed it and described it to us.
Facts exist, as we think of them, because Bertrand Russell had introduced them into our thinking process.

‘Do you imply that apples did not fall down before Newton noticed the process? That people didn’t think before Russell told them how? That the US would have remained a colony if not for the Boston Tea Party?’

I believe you’re fully aware that the question above had sprung up in a mind before being put down on paper… before being tapped on a keyboard, actually…

Of course gravity existed before Newton had described it. Of course people had been thinking for a while before Russell let us in on his thoughts on this subject. And of course I have no idea about what would have happened if those guys in Boston had brewed the tea instead of throwing it in the harbor.

But it is very clear for me, “self-evident” as the Founding Fathers had put it, that some things do happen in a certain manner.
That not all of us think in the same way – god forbid, that would be against our very nature – but all of us think according to some ‘rules’. Hence the results of our thinking are not exactly ‘haphazard’.

The point of today’s post being that my method is ‘thinking’.
I use my ‘conscious mind’ as an instrument. As a scalpel-cum-microscope with which I attempt to study how my mind works.

Being fully aware (?!?) that this process takes place ‘inside my head’. Inside my ‘limited’ head. Limited in both space and time.
That ‘that’ head is made of the same matter – atoms – as the rest of the Universe. Hence some of its limitations.
And that ‘that’ head works ‘inside’ the cultural universe created by the aggregated effort of every human that has ever lived on Earth. Hence another set of limitations.

He was my friend. We trusted each-other.

He was huge. 150 pounds of muscle. Pitch black.
Some people feared him. Specially when seeing him for the first time.

He had earned the respect of many. Canine friends in the park. People who had come in contact with him.

Respect is a tricky thing.

Fear is simple. Not that different from love. Somewhat contrary…
Trust is simplish. After enough time spent together, you learn whether you can trust the other.
Respect, on the other hand….

You cannot respect something/somebody which/whom you find repulsive.

You can ‘trust’ a bully to make your life miserable but you cannot respect them.

Do you fear a bully?
Not necessarily. You don’t need fear to avoid a danger. You only need to understand what’s going on.

Then what is ‘respect’?
Something you learn about. While trust is something you learn to.
Trust is something to be rather felt while respect is something you experience with your mind. First and foremost.

Furthermore, nobody fakes trust. Unless presented as ‘respect’.

Why have I chosen an animal to illustrate this post?
Because ‘fear’ is what drives awareness. Fuels conscience. And, as far as evidence suggests, it is widely felt in the animal kingdom.
Our family. Our only home in this world!

“So the free market, it appears,
is not about freedom. It’s about power.
Free market thinking is successful,
I argue, because it uses the language of freedom
to cloak the accumulation of power.”

Blair Fix

Free market works for only as long as it remains free!

Which is the problem.

Before meddling with the free-market, we need to agree first about freedom. About what we mean when we think/speak about freedom.

Freedom for all versus freedom for only those who happen to fit a certain set of criteria. To be wealthy, in this case.

Functional freedom – as in the kind of freedom which preserves, which remains sustainable over the long run – versus ‘absolute’ freedom. The kind of freedom which leads to anarchy. Which anarchy, necessarily and very shortly, becomes a rigid hierarchy. Then ends up in shambles…

Free market works for only as long as it remains functionally free. Free enough to do its thing.
To provide enough for enough of those contributing to the collective effort to make ends meet.

To understand what Blair Fix has to say, we need to identify the key words in his speech.
“It appears” and “I argue”.
In fact, he tries to convince us to see ‘the world’ as he sees it. He tries to convince us to be ‘on his side’.

He divides ‘the problem’ and then takes sides… which only contributes to the world/market losing its freedom.

As for what ‘evidence suggests’…
It suggests two things.
That yes, the ‘free market’ has, indeed, become an ideology. There are too many people who consider the market should be left to the mercy of the powerful. Who don’t understand how freedom actually works…
The second thing being an evidence. Not a suggestion.
All other markets but the free one work worse.

Adorno and Heidegger explores the conflictual history
of two important traditions of twentieth-century European thought:
the critical theory of Theodor W. Adorno and the ontology of Martin Heidegger.
As is well known, there has been little productive engagement between these two schools of thought,
in large measure due to Adorno’s sustained and unanswered critique of Heidegger.”

“Doubt everything” instead of ‘trust the scientist until proven wrong’.
‘Illiberal democracy’, whatever that might mean…
“Abolish capitalism”. As if there was any viable alternative!

What’s going on here?!?