Archives for category: man as a measure for all things
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Conflict? Synergy? MAD?

May 12, 2020 //
0

In nature, most organisms feed on other organisms.
Deer eats grass, wolf eats deer. Scavengers and microbes eat poop and corpses. All together ‘eventually’ enrich the soil. Allowing for more grass to grow.

One way to look at this is to call it ‘fight for life’. ‘Survival of the fittest’.
Yet this entire ‘carnage’ has a very interesting ‘conclusion’.

A fine tuned ecosystem. Which has lasted, as a system, for a couple of billions of years. Becoming more and more elaborate in the process.
And which has survived – as a system, I repeat, momentous events.
Asteroids, geomagnetic reversals, continental drift…

The ecosystem has been so stable that it allowed one creature to evolve so much as to develop a special trait.
Self-awareness.
Which has eventually given birth to ‘reason’. To ‘rational behavior’.

Which means that while wolves eat deer to satisfy their hunger we start wars to satisfy our egos.

We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to War relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses. That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the Art of War in general and the Commander in each particular case may demand, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for the political view is the object, War is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception.

Carl von Clausewitz

Which wars have proven to be so destructive that we finally found a way to dissuade ourselves from starting new ones. New majors ones… until now…

And if you don’t have any clue about what I’m talking about, click on the next word.
MAD.

Don’t fret. It is actually a very rational concept.
Not reasonable at all, only rational.

Acknowledgment.
I was inspired to write this by David Sarac’s Twitter profile.
“Theory of evolution points to the conclusion that becoming, not being, is the essence of reality”

Tags , , , , , ,
Categories 1989, arrogance, awareness, Bounded rationality, collective identity, cooperation, effective communication, evolution, fail better, In English, limited rationality, man as a measure for all things, man induced fragility, Mutual Respect, Politically induced fragility, Psychology, teleology, The kind of world we live in

Was Marx a determinist?

May 12, 2020 //
0

“Friedrich Engels in a thinker’s pose
The four-meter-tall bronze sculpture of the other philosopher of communism, Friedrich Engels, is a bit smaller than the planned Marx statue in Trier. This Engels monument in his hometown, Wuppertal, was also made by a Chinese artist and offered by the government of China in 2014.”

I grew up under communist rule.
We studied marxism in school.
At some point, I was about 16, the teacher asked us about the relative merits of the different brands of materialism he had mentioned during his classes.
My answer was ‘dialectic materialism is better than all others because those who apply it into practice constantly gouge the consequences of their (political) decisions and fine tune policies accordingly’.
Some 15 years later the communist lager had imploded simply because those who were supposed to act in a dialectic manner had failed to put the principle in practice.
Coming back to the original question, ‘was Marx a determinist’, the answer is yes.
Marx’s dialectics is only a procedure. Meant to help the communists exercise the dictatorship mandated by Marx in the name of the proletariat. And dictatorships are determinist by definition.
Why mandate one if you are not convinced that things can be ruled?
For the long run and in a comprehensive manner?

Tags , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories 1989, arrogance, authoritarianism, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, complementary ways of attending knowlege, cooperation, democracy, effective communication, evolution, Frames of mind, freedom, In English, Intent, man as a measure for all things, Mindset, Mutual Respect, politics, Psychology, Social justice, Trust

Inert, reactive, proactive.

May 5, 2020 //
0

Most of us consider corpses as being inert.
And those individuals who are in deeper stages of coma.

Living organisms, on the other hand, are considered as being reactive.
They drink when thirsty, eat when hungry, run when in danger…

As for behaving in a pro-active manner… things are no longer so simple.
Ants, for example, are constantly praised for their behavior.

While crickets are disparaged for their recklessness …

But what about the dung beetle?
Also proactive?

They dig shelters and provide them with food for the next generation.
If this isn’t proactive behavior… I don’t know what else would qualify.

‘But … really?!? Can a beetle be ‘accused’ of behaving in a pro-active manner? An insect? Are you nuts?’

I’ll make a small break now. And point your attention to something I find very interesting.
“Life isn’t predictable and it’s a good idea to be prepared”.
Prepared for what?!? For God’s sake… remember? ‘Life isn’t predictable’!
Hello!!! The ant is hoarding food during the summer exactly because she doesn’t want to starve during the winter. She absolutely knows that winter is coming. She prepares herself because she knows what’s going to happen! Duh…

Coming back to the beetle, no, I ain’t nuts. I’m only trying to suggest that species act as if being proactive. Individual organisms do not necessarily behave in a proactive manner but species always do. Those who don’t… disappear soon enough.

Tags , , , , ,
Categories altruism, awareness, Bounded rationality, collective identity, cooperation, effective communication, evolution, In English, Intent, man as a measure for all things, Psychology, The kind of world we are building for our children

Existence

May 4, 2020 //
0

Nothing existed before we came around. To notice.

They were there, alright. But didn’t existed, yet.

Most dictionaries do not discriminate between ‘being’ and ‘existing’.
But I still recall, vividly, those moments when – as a teenager, I tried to make myself remarked by the girl I fancied at that moment. More often than I’d like to remember, it was as if I didn’t existed at all.
I was standing there, making a fool of myself, yet I didn’t existed at all.

Simply because I wasn’t noticed.
By the significant one.

Tags , , , , , ,
Categories altruism, arrogance, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, complementary ways of attending knowlege, effective communication, evolution, Frames of mind, In English, Intent, limited rationality, man as a measure for all things, man induced fragility, Mutual Respect, Psychology, teleology, Trust

Goals, costs and consequences.

May 3, 2020 //
0

Everything which has a temporal dimension – movement, transformation or both, incurs costs and produces consequences.

From a rock sliding down a slope to me writing this.

The difference between these two being the simple fact that no rock has ever had any goal.

You see, the rock looses some energy and mass while sliding down. It accelerates at first but since no rock has ever slidden for ever.
Only rocks never do anything on their own. Something has to happen to them first.
They do bear the costs – they wear down, break, etc., yet they don’t mind. For they are not, at all, aware of what’s going on. And, anyway, completely unable to do anything about it. Hence not at all ‘responsible’ about any of the consequences produced by whatever they had been involved in. Happened to them, actually.

Fast forward to me. I’m not only alive – hence reactive to whatever happens to me, but also aware. Aware of my own awareness even.
I notice the costs I have to pay. Hence I try to minimize them.

And here’s the gist of the matter.
My awareness drives me to minimize the costs I incur during my life AND to be very careful about the consequences of my endeavors.

Theoretically, at least…

Tags , , , , , , ,
Categories awareness, Bounded rationality, Chance, Choices we make, collective identity, evolution, fail better, Frames of mind, In English, limited rationality, man as a measure for all things, Psychology, skin in the game

Space as a place

April 29, 2020 //
0

Nothing will ever happen unless:

– There’s enough, and suitable, space.
– There are enough, and suitable resources. In that place, of course.
– Something starts it.

Trivial?

Good!
What you’ve just read being trivial for you only means you’ve already figured this out.
That you cannot master anything
– which happens outside your consciousness,
– you don’t really understand,
– you haven’t set your mind on.

Tags , , , , ,
Categories awareness, Choices we make, evolution, Frames of mind, In English, man as a measure for all things, Psychology, skin in the game

Looking from outside the box

April 28, 2020 //
0

There are a lot of people who prod us to ‘think out of the box’.
And a few who dare to warn us about the perils of pushing it too far…

I’m gonna invite you to the next level.
Instead of sending your imagination to think outside the box – while the rest of you remains comfortably inside, let’s step outside ‘in person’.

Classic thinking outside the box does nothing but enlarges the box. Brings inside a portion of the outside. Moves the walls.
Bringing in a lot of additional clutter in the process.

By stepping outside, physically, you have the opportunity to actually see the problem as an ‘independent’ box. Separated from you and separated from the environment.

How about this for a change in perspective?

This way it will be easier for you to notice, and carefully examine, the links which exist between you and the problem. Between ‘the’ problem and the rest of the problems. Between the problems and the environment. The place where you have to cope with the problems.

The place where you live.

And that, my friend, is your biggest problem.
How to step out of your own life.
In order to make it better.

Tags , , , ,
Categories altruism, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, complementary ways of attending knowlege, cooperation, effective communication, evolution, In English, Intent, limited rationality, man as a measure for all things, Mindset, Mutual Respect, skin in the game

The cart before the horse.

April 27, 2020 //
0

I need you to pretend a few things.

That you don’t know what a cart is. Or a horse.
That you are a logical machine.
That you are told a cart is something laden with merchandise, that the horse is what moves the cart and that the purpose of the whole endeavor is to transport the merchandise from A to B.
Then you will be asked to stack the three elements according to their importance.

How likely are you to arrange them in this order:
Merchandise, cart, horse?

It would be perfectly logical, right?

Remember that you don’t know anything else but what you’ve just been instructed.
That the ‘action’ is ‘transport merchandise M, laden in cart C – moved by the horse H, from A to B’.

Mere logic convinces you that the most important thing here is M. Simply because the whole brouhaha revolves around M. Followed by C – closest to M, and only then by H. Right?

Only mere logic is seldom enough… Each of those three has its own merits and their relative importance depends on many things.

On what the owner thinks about each of them. If all three belong to the same person.
On the relationship between the person asked to determine their relative importance and each of those elements.
The owner of the merchandise will certainly consider his property to be more important than either horse or carriage. But will consider the horse more important than the cart if the merchandise has to arrive sooner rather than whenever. Or the carriage more important than the horse if the merchandise is fragile…
The owner of a single horse will try to protect the animal. Simply because he will also need it tomorrow.
The owner of the trucking company will ask the drivers to drive the horses to their limits. Simply because he has so many of them.
And so on.

My point being that logic is almost never enough.
We must also understand what’s going on there before passing judgement on something.

Otherwise we’ll end up scratching our heads.


Click the drawing above and read what tborash has to say about the whole thing. He’s right too, you know.

Tags , , , ,
Categories awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, complementary ways of attending knowlege, effective communication, In English, limited rationality, man as a measure for all things, Psychology, teleology

Economy, profit, banking system

April 26, 2020 //
1

What do we have an economy for?

To make ends meet? To make it easier for our needs to be met?

What do we have a banking/financial system for? To mobilize capital for the economy? To make it possible for our needs to be met easier? More efficiently?

Or just for profit to be made?

“It really is possible to do two good things at once: address the abuse of the working poor by payday-loan and check-cashing outfits while expanding the range of services provided by the USPS. Media outlets have called Warren’s proposal “radical.” That’s ludicrous. She’s simply using her position and prominence to highlight the findings of a new study by the Postal Service’s Office of the Inspector General, which notes that roughly 68 million Americans are underserved by the private banking system. “With post offices and postal workers already on the ground,” says Warren, “USPS could partner with banks to make a critical difference for millions of Americans who don’t have basic banking services because there are almost no banks or bank branches in their neighborhoods.”

This is not a new idea. From 1911 to 1967, the Postal Service maintained its own banking system, allowing citizens to open small savings accounts at local post offices—actually a better approach than “partnering” with banks. The system was so successful that after World War II, it had a balance of $3 billion, roughly $30 billion in today’s dollars. Congress did away with postal banking in the 1960s, but post offices in other countries—including Japan, Germany, China and South Korea—provide banking services. Japan Post Bank is consistently ranked as one of the world’s largest financial institutions based on assets.”

Or, to put it the other way around,
‘what profit is?’

The well deserved ‘consequence’ – considered as such by the vast majority of the stakeholders, of a well-done job?
Or a self serving benchmark to be reached at all costs? Which costs are to be ‘shouldered’ by anybody else but the profiteer himself… till reality slaps us, all of us, over our faces…

Tags , , , , ,
Categories 1989 and the Global Financial Crisises., awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, complementary ways of attending knowlege, cooperation, Economy, effective communication, evolution, fail better, Frames of mind, In English, limited rationality, man as a measure for all things, man induced fragility, Money as goal, Mutual Respect, Politically induced fragility, teleology, The kind of world we are building for our children

How do you make people do what you think they should?

April 23, 2020 //
0

Well, you don’t.

You just don’t do such a thing.

For the very simple reason that by attempting it you validate the concept.

Let me start it anew.

Both the communists and the nazis had attempted to ‘bring about’ people’s minds. To create a ‘new’ man. One who was meant to behave as their creators saw fit.

We all know the consequences.

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.

Isn’t this a better way than ‘making’ somebody do as you think they should?

‘But won’t we end up like Bishop Myriel? Doing good deeds and hoping that all villains will ‘turn around’ like Jean Valjean did? After all, how many Jean Valjean-s have you met in your life?’

First of all, Myriel was a fictional character. Victor Hugo might had been inspired by a real bishop when he had created Myriel but this doesn’t alter its fictional nature.
Secondly, wouldn’t this world be a far better place if those who have the chance to encounter the likes of Jean Valjean would be wise enough to act like Bishop Myriel?

‘You still don’t make much sense. And what if the guy I meet isn’t Jean Valjean? Or if I’m not wise enough to recognize his Jean Valjean-ness, whatever that might be… What should I do then? Treat him like I’d like to be treated if I was in his place? Allow him to rob me?!?’

I guess you just answered your own question. No thief would allow another to steal from him, would he? Why would you?

But all people appreciate when treated respectfully!
So why don’t we do it, on a regular basis?

Why are so many of us who consider they know better how others should behave? What others should do?
And who consider themselves above the fray…
Remember the doctor who told you to quit smoking? While having a pack of cigarettes in the breast pocket of his white coat?
The journalist who writes for ratings rather than to inform you?
The politician who…

The voter who allows himself to be fooled? Knowing very well he had voted a conman? Only because he had made all the right noises?

Tags , , , , , ,
Categories arrogance, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, complementary ways of attending knowlege, effective communication, Frames of mind, In English, man as a measure for all things, Mutual Respect, Psychology, teleology, Trust
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »