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

Einstein

January 31, 2025 //
0

“Insanity is doing the same thing
over and over again
and expecting different results”
Rita Mae Brown

“Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”

First celebrated as a brilliant physicist, Einstein had later been recognized as an ‘all rounder’.
So much so that he was found ‘guilty’ for other people’s words.

Rita Mae Brown?!?
Why bother mention her? If you want ‘to back’ up such an important saying, you’d better come up with a really famous ‘promoter’. Preferably a dead one…

‘And your point is…?’

On January 27, the day when Auschwitz was liberated 80 years ago, I shared this on FB:

Some people took exception. Interpreting this as an allusion to what’s currently going on in the US, they asked me to ‘be specific’.

“I don’t protest the protesters but their particular way of doing it. Without any consideration for the ‘collateral damage’ and turning a blind eye towards the already experienced facts.”

My point being that Hitler didn’t invent antisemitism. Germany wasn’t the first country where large scale pogroms were organized.
Pogrom is a Russian word. “To wreak havoc, to demolish violently”.
The way I see it, ‘pogrom’ is not only a tragedy – for both victims and perpetrators – but also a symptom.
A symptom that something is amiss in the society which allows it to happen.

To protest something is fully justified.
If unhappy about something, one is fully entitled to try to prevent that something from happening. Again…
But it would be ‘unreasonably’ to ‘prevent’ it in a way that will be even costlier than the ‘feared development’. Particularly ‘unreasonably’ if the method had already been experimented!

Those supporting Hitler were ‘protesting’ the Versailles Treaty.
Just as Lenin’s Bolsheviks were protesting what had happened during the czarist Russia.
Hitler and Lenin protested by perpetrating crimes even more heinous than those they were protesting.

They should have known better.
Those who supported them, of course… for it was the supporters who had ultimately experienced the consequences!
After all, one doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand that the simple fact that this time it is the others who are at the receiving end of what’s going on doesn’t make it right. In no way better than what we have experienced. And continue to… The misery experienced by the others does not annihilate ours!

Tags , , ,
Categories 1989, authoritarianism, awareness, Choices we make, effective communication, In English, limited rationality, man as a measure for all things, Mutual Respect, skin in the game

The Nature of Evil

January 25, 2025 //
0

And the LORD God said,
Behold, the man is become as one of Us,
to know good and evil;
and now, lest he put forth his hand,
and take also of the tree of life,
and eat, and live for ever.

“And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?“

Adam called back and we all what happened next.

The serpent was cursed for his role, Eve was cursed for tempting Adam and Adam was cursed for….
In the end, all those involved – including the serpent, for whatever reason – were banished from the heaven. “Lest he put forth his hand…”

What are we to understand from all this?
That God, the omniscient and all powerful Father, was ‘evil’?
He must have known what was going to happen… he was omniscient, wasn’t he?

There are people who believe the Bible to be an accurate rendering of the past.
I happen to be one of them.
Only I don’t interpret what I read in the literal sense… the narrative is true, those things did happen, only not in the ‘real’ world. The Bible is not the story of flesh but a story of mind.

It is the story of what has happened in our minds. In our collective mind!

Genesis is the story of how we’ve grown conscious!
Starting from the sensations perceived during our interaction with the ‘real’ world – read ‘serpent’ – and using the evolutionary accrued ability to speak among ourselves – we’ve learned to identify ‘information’.
We, like all other living things, were already able to make the difference between good and ‘bad’. All living things ‘know’ what’s good for them and what to avoid. Or, at least, act as if…
We, like all other primates and along many other animals, were already adept at ‘reading minds’. Were already able to figure out intentions.
As conscious ‘human beings’ we have started to attribute intent! “To know good and EVIL”!

So evil is of a conscious nature, right?

‘How about ‘God’? Is it real?’

Sorry, I don’t have a reasonable answer for this question.
All I know is that the God so many of us believe in is nothing but a representation.
A figment of our collective imagination. And since we cannot imagine things but starting from the real world, there is a strong possibility that there is something, somewhere, which fits, however loosely, our concept. Our concept of a God…

Humberto Maturana, The origin and conservation of Self…
https://constructivist.info/radical/pub/hvf/papers/maturana05selfconsciousness.html
Frans de Waal, Are we smart enough to know how smart animals are?
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30231743-are-we-smart-enough-to-know-how-smart-animals-are

Tags , , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, awareness, biology, collective identity, effective communication, evolution, In English, man as a measure for all things, skin in the game

My story

January 21, 2025 //
0

We use words to build narratives.
Which, supposedly, help us in our quest for meaning.
Yet everything does nothing more than alleviate our fear.

At some point in my life, some 6 years after Ceausescu had been chased from his presidential palace, I discovered the Stock Exchange. I had read about it, was under the impression that I knew how it worked but never had the opportunity to trade on in. Living in a communist country prevents you from trading on the free market, you know.
To cut a long story short, I had a lot of beginner’s luck.
And I wanted more. So I started to learn about it. Fundamental analysis, technical analysis, accounting… investor’s psychology, decision making theory…

But it wasn’t enough.
So I went back to school. Sociology this time.
I was no longer trying to beat the market, I only wanted to understand what was going on.
Not only in the market but in our minds. By that time, I had already learned that investors were – and still are – torn apart by greed and fear.

So, what’s going on?
What are we doing here?

Tags , , , , ,
Categories 1989, awareness, Choices we make, effective communication, In English, man as a measure for all things, skin in the game

Superposition

January 19, 2025 //
1

Two things cannot exist
simultaneously
in the same place

Logic, ‘the correct way of thinking’, starts from the notion that no two things can exist, simultaneously, in the same ‘place’. Not even in our own head… Until they do, actually.

I’ll make a break here and tell you about Oscar Hoffman. A Romanian Teacher.
Who kept telling us, those who had the privilege to hear him teaching,
‘It’s not enough for a proposition to be valid from the logical point of view. It also has to make sense. Epistemologically speaking.’

The bottom part of the picture describes a stance which does make some epistemological sense and is seriously deficient when examined logically.
The top part is logically correct but also includes the meaning hidden in the bottom part.
Let me elaborate.

“100% irrefutable study that is proof and absolutely statistically significant.”
Absolute BS.
No scientific study has ever proved anything. Other than the facts examined confirm, or contradict, the hypothesis being tested during that study. Hence the hypothesis is allowed to stand, temporarily, as a theory or declared to be wrong.
A single study being claimed to be ‘absolutely statistically significant’ is so outrageous that it isn’t worth any comment.
“100% paid studies with an agenda and of little to no value or significance whatsoever”…
Nowadays 99.99% of the studies do involve money changing hands. Scientists have to eat and ‘money’ want to learn things. Hence ‘agendas’, on top of ‘money’.
‘Little to no value’ makes a lot less sense. If those studies yield results without any “value or significance whatsoever”, then why is any money involved and any time spent? To discuss about them, let alone to put them together….
To fit an agenda?
The scientists involved – all of them?!?, “100%” – are frauds and all those paying the hefty sums of money are suckers?
Then how can be explained the huge technological leap and the scientific breakthrough we currently witness?

‘Outlier’ versus ‘General trend’, is a far more ‘logically sound’. But also a lot more vague… The first proposition/picture, when examined with an open mind, does include everything claimed by the science deniers and the conspiracy speculationists. An outlier can be right, all change starts with one, and trends can be wrong. As all of them end up being…

So. What will it be?
Are we going to let ourselves be divided into warring camps?
Or understand ‘superposition’? Accept that having an agenda is not necessarily bad and that money is an excellent servant but a horrible master?
Or continue the current trend? Until we will have killed each-other along the line of divide et impera while repeating at nauseam ‘greed is good’?

Tags , , , ,
Categories 1989, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, In English, man as a measure for all things, Money, skin in the game, teleology

‘Murder, He Says’

January 16, 2025 //
0

“Thou shalt not make unto thee
any graven image, or any likeness of any thing
that is in heaven above….“
Exodus 20:4

“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?”

And it thus becomes obvious that Nietzsche has been falsely accused. It wasn’t he who had murdered God! He was simply the first who had the guts to write His death certificate…

My point being that what we call ‘God’ is a man made image. A concept.
It doesn’t matter, for this analysis, whether there is an actual god or not. What we call God is nothing more than our image of one.

And it had been enough. For a while.
For as long as we have followed the rules we ourselves had established to guide our own behavior – as in written them down – the God we’d imagined worked as intended. ‘Religion’ did what it was supposed to do. People had a ‘spiritual environment’ in which they behaved both coherently and cohesively.
Coherently and cohesively enough to evolve from slaves – owned and/or owners – to equal rights owning/yielding citizens.
Coherently and cohesively enough to evolve from horse driven war chariots to the M1A3 Abrams tank.
Coherently and cohesively enough to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ to the tune of 8 billion. Give or take. Not all of them following ‘the rules’ but all of them benefiting from the results of those rules having been followed for a while.

Yet, when things were unfolding so smoothly, why have we given up following those rules?

Have we outgrown the need for a shepherdly Father? For a Ghost to frighten us unto doing the right thing?
Or have we become so infatuated with our own ability to think, to reason, that we have turned it into an idol? Against all odds…
Despite having been warned about it!

Pascal’s wager is about turning the tables on ‘God’.
The image we made for ourselves about God, the ‘Holy Gost who frightened us unto staying on the straight and narrow’, convinced us to behave in a constructive manner. Benefiting the entire community.
The argument made by Pascal was made to convince us, individually, that we – each of us – should believe in God for their own sake. For their own benefit!
Effectively transforming each individual belief into an idol… ‘Graven’ by each individual, upon their own soul, in the likeness of things in heaven, for their individual use… Transforming the community creating God into an individual tool designed and believed to ‘give’ each of us ‘everything’.
Individually. As opposed to making it possible for everybody to exist.

As Nietzsche observed, by making Pascal’s wager – by transforming faith into a rational thing – we have collectively killed God. The same God which has made us possible.
Against everything we have been warned about, by our wise ancestors, we have replaced God with ourselves. So that we “gain all”. Individually. Each of those who had made the rational decision…

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

Step by step

January 15, 2025 //
0

“I see this as expression of a mother’s love for her child
and not a statement that women are for breeding only.“

Of course, you are completely correct,
but today people are amped up to find
something offensive everywhere.
Ridiculous.

In fact, this is way more than a mere expression of love.

There’s no other meaning of life but life itself.
Whatever meanings each of us might find do nothing but contribute to ‘life’.

And what else is life but a perpetual tomorrow?

Tags , , ,
Categories alternative ways of acquring knowledge, awareness, effective communication, In English, man as a measure for all things, skin in the game

A two way street

January 5, 2025 //
0

“None other than Jack Welch, former chairman and CEO of General Electric,
has called shareholder-value ideology ” the dumbest idea in the world.”
Yet business executives still pretend that maximizing shareholder value
is their primary fiduciary obligation,
which is nonsense except in few restricted cases,
such as when a company is going to be sold.“

Value… What is that?!?
Does it exist on its own?

Something must exist if anybody is to extract it, right?
If that something may be created, then it would be a no brainer to make some before attempting to extract it… if you want to be involved in a sustainable process, right?

How do you make value?
How does anybody establish that something is valuable in the first place?

– I declare this to be valuable.
– Who owns it?
– I do.
– How much do you want for it?
– xxx
– OK

That ‘this’ had became ‘valuable’ only when ‘OK’.
Before its value had been agreed upon, it being valuable was on the declarative level only.
‘Virtual’ versus ‘real’.

Only after two interested parties had negotiated about and agreed upon the value of something the value of that something has become established.

Jack Welch again:
“Shareholder value is a result, not a strategy…
your main constituencies are your employees, your customers and your products.
Managers and investors should not set share price increases as their overarching goal. …
Short-term profits should be allied with an increase in the long-term value of a company.”

As an engineer, as down to Earth as it gets, I tend to agree with Jack Welch. A company should be managed as a long term project. It needs to satisfy the natural interests of the investors – profit – in a sustainable manner. Providing something useful to both parties involved. A useful ‘thing’ to the buyers and a satisfying profit to the investors. While creating little to no damage to the ‘environment’ in order to remain acceptable to those living on the same planet…

But who am I to judge… even if I have the blessing of Jack Welch…
Who am I to tell anybody – any investor and/or any manager – how to run their business?!?

– Are they blind? Don’t they see this economic model doesn’t work?

“Inequality holds back the growth of the entire economy,
as research supported by INET has shown.
Even today’s business elites are worried about its impact:
In a 2015 poll of over 2,700 Harvard Business School alumni,
respondents said that they were more concerned about growing inequality than ever before.“

Hm…
“Share holder value is a result, not a strategy”, remember?
Same with ‘inequality’.
Let’s focus on sustainability. On the process.
And notice that the process sputters!
As a consequence of our own decisions!

We have told/allowed the investors and the managers to run the business – not their businesses, the entire business environment – in the current manner.
And we are the ones bearing the brunt. Having to deal with, among other things, the current level of inequality.
We, our decisions, have produced the current situation. Inequality is but one of the consequences.
One, among many, of the consequences engendered by our own weltanschauung.

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

Alie-Nation

December 19, 2024 //
0

OK, I can give you this.
God may have done all this.
But is He aware of His creation?

‘But He loves us!
Otherwise why make us in the first place?!?’

What if it was us who had come up with this notion?
The way I see it, we may very well be an unintended consequence of His activity. So unintended that He isn’t even aware of our existence…

‘But He knows everything…‘

That’s what we think… about Him. And about the relation between Him and His Creation.
Take us for example.
Do we know everything? About our body. About what’s going on inside us.

‘No, of course we don’t!’

Think again.
For an outside observer – specially one that lives significantly less than we do – our bodies are ‘perfection in motion’. They work ‘perfectly’. As if minutely controlled by somebody who perfectly knows what they’re doing. Right?
We know this isn’t the case… because we are the ones who ignore what’s going on inside our bodies…
Well, ignore is too strong. Not fully aware, at least for as long as things go on in an acceptable manner, would be a more accurate description.
Same might be happening with God.
And this is a far more sensible explanation for what’s going on. We’re the ones responsible for our behavior, not an inscrutable God.
Who, despite being our Creator, allows us to defile His Creation.

Tags , ,
Categories alternative ways of acquring knowledge, awareness, collective identity, effective communication, In English, man as a measure for all things, Trust

Building Alternative Facts

December 19, 2024 //
0

‘Somewhat’ true, right?
Nietzsche did say it. And he is dead…

On the other hand, what Nietzsche had actually said was “we killed God”.
Quite a difference, don’t you think?

“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?”

‘We killed God and we now have to face the consequences’.
That’s what Nietzsche told us. And then died. Like everybody else.
Is this consistent with the notion of an all-powerfull and omni-scient God? As suggested by the second image?

The only God we know is the one we talk about. Among ourselves.
During the ‘Middle Ages’ some of our ancestors killed each-other over their particular interpretations of the Bible. But they all agreed about one thing. For them, there was only one God.
And they killed a lot of unbelievers attempting to convince them.
At some point, and Nietzsche witnessed that, people had stopped believing there was only one God.
God was no longer seen as an unifying principle and had become a mere representation.

I don’t know whether there is a god. A ‘real’ one.
But is has become obvious that the one we talk about has stopped playing its role.
It no longer unites us. We’re no longer children of the same father.

We have splintered ourselves into clans.
Each wielding their own representation of God.
Each wielding their own ‘hand made’ idol.

And we have been warned about this…

Tags , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, awareness, Bounded rationality, collective identity, effective communication, In English, man as a measure for all things, religion, Trust

Retribution

December 18, 2024 //
0

The Government you elect
is the Government you deserve.
Thomas Jefferson

We are currently convinced that ‘an eye for an eye’ is an excessive – abusive, even – form of justice. But in its time, it was a very progressive principle.
Do not exert more punishment than the original damage.
NO MORE than an eye for an eye.

We don’t need more chaos. We need more consideration!

The likes of Trump are turning the tables on all of us!

Yes, some of those pushing left-side issues have jumped the shark. Not in the sense that the issues themselves were worthless but in the manner used to pursue them.

The likes of Trump have done nothing else but appropriated that very same manner of conducting business.

““The late Phyllis Schlafly, whom I worked so closely with, used to say, ‘If you get to claim and frame the argument, you almost certainly get to win.’ In other words, if you take their framing, it’s a woman’s right. Are you gonna put women in jail? No. It’s about a baby. Now, what do we do? Frame the argument. Own the argument,” he said.”

Recognize the lingo? The line-up of arguments?

Only this time the method is used by Ed Martin. The Trump nominee who wants to jail women for having abortions.

While the hard right argues for a blanket ban and the hard left argue for a no holds barred policy regarding abortion, real people have a hard time trying to lead a normal life. The extremes keep pushing for their stated goals while we’re stuck in a kind of limbo.
Watching them as if mesmerized by their antics…

Consideration rather than more chaos would come in handy at this point!

https://edition.cnn.com/kfile-ed-martin-rnc-platform-committee-anti-abortion-exceptions/index.html

Tags , , ,
Categories 1989, authoritarianism, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, effective communication, In English, man as a measure for all things, skin in the game
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »