Archives for category: Mutual Respect
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Does communism work?

April 16, 2023 //
0

Not even on paper!

If you read carefully Marx’s communist manifesto, you’ll realize that it doesn’t. Work. Not even on paper!
According to Marx, communism will come to be when enough people formerly belonging to the middle class will have become poor. As a consequence of their wealth having been siphoned away from them.
Becoming poor will make those former middle class people open to communist ideas. And will convince them to follow the already ‘enlightened communists’ into revolution.
For a while – again, according to Marx, the society will have to be led by the successful revolutionaries. In a dictatorial manner, because not all people will have risen to the communists’ level of understanding.
So. ‘Communism’ will be instated by some disgruntled people using dictatorial methods.
How auspicious is this?
Let me go even further.

Why were those people disgruntled in the first place?
Because capitalism!
Not so fast. The Adam Smith kind of capitalism worked just fine. Only after it had been warped by greed it had started to sputter. Specially after Milton Freedman had enshrined greed…
This being the moment when I need to remind you that Adam Smith’s first book on this subject was “The Theory of Moral Sentiments”…

‘Those’ people had become disgruntled after too many in that society had been convinced, at least for a while, that ‘greed was good’. And what was Marx’s proposed solution for that disgruntlement?
That all ‘means of production’ – meaning all property/wealth, to be taken away from individual people. And entrusted to ‘the people’.
Since ‘the people’ were going to be led by the “communists”, in practice the communist revolution meant that all wealth was going to be confiscated from those who happened to own it and entrusted to a very small number of people. Who happened to own the secular power in that moment. As the main consequence of the communist revolution. Apud Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto…

Let me revisit now Milton Friedman’s words.
‘Greed is good’.
According to this line of thinking, wealth becoming as concentrated as possible is a good thing. Since greed is already good, concentrated wealth is but a logical consequence…

Then Marx’s Communist Manifesto was nothing but an avant-la-lettre short-cut for an easier implementation of Milton Friedman’s greed hailing ideology!

See what I mean?

Karl Marx communism did not and cannot work.
Because it leads into a vicious circle.
It creates a monopolistic situation which cannot be avoided. Time and time again, history has proven that ‘this time is different’ is nothing but wishful thinking. Whenever too much decision power is concentrated in a too small number of hands, the situation becomes untenable. The more concentrated the decision power, the faster – and more dramatic – the eventual collapse.

How about a ‘different’ kind of communism?
The only sustainable kind of anything – ‘social arrangements’ included, had been ‘natural’. Had appeared in an evolutionary manner.
In contrast, all revolutionary developments have produced counter-revolutions. In many instances even more destructive than the revolutions themselves.
What will come after democratic capitalism? I don’t know!
But it better be better than what we have now.

And come in quietly!

Otherwise…

How about a return to bona fide democratic capitalism?
To Adam Smith’s kind of capitalism?
The one whose entrepreneurs used to put ‘moral sentiments’ above greed!

Wishful thinking?
Maybe!
But is there any other way to achieve anything? Other than to start by wishing that something?
And since Smith’s brand of capitalism did work, communism always failed and a viable alternative has yet to appear…

Tags , , , , , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, authoritarianism, awareness, Bounded rationality, collective identity, effective communication, evolution, In English, man as a measure for all things, Money as goal, Mutual Respect, Psychology, skin in the game, Trust

“Why did the Russian Revolution fail in establishing a true socialist/communist form of government?”

April 9, 2023 //
0

For some reason, there still exists a considerable number of people not yet convinced that what had been experienced in the Soviet Union was “a true socialist/communist form of government”

The sad reality is that the Russian Revolution did establish a true socialist form of government!
As per Marx’s teachings.
The communists had been in charge of things, and the things failed to become better.
In fact, they had become worse.
Eventually, the Soviet Union – along with all other socialist attempts, had crumbled under their own weight.

Those who want to find better alternatives to democratic capitalism – good luck with that – need to find another word but socialism to describe their goal.
Or wait a few generations before attempting to give it a new meaning. The current one had been wasted by the likes of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim, Ceausescu…

Tags , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories 1989, authoritarianism, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, effective communication, evolution, fail better, In English, man as a measure for all things, man induced fragility, Mutual Respect, Psychology, skin in the game, teleology, yes but

Turning tables

April 4, 2023 //
0

Happiness is an illusion. A figment of our own imagination.
Hence we shouldn’t waste our time thinking about it.
Various sources all over the internet.

Here’s my take on this subject.
The more imaginary a thing is, the easier it is to make it happen.
IF you do it your own way! According to your needs and wishes…

Now that I’ve put behind the easy part…
Like many other natural things, happiness is a gift.
You get a healthy dose of endorphins after a workout, an orgasm after having sex and a moment of happiness after doing something right.
IF you put your heart in it!
In any of the above…

But there’s more to it.
While you can work-out anytime you wish, you need a partner in order to build an orgasm.
Did I hear a chuckle? Thinking about working out a single handed orgasm?
Can you do it without using your imagination? Really?!?
Not only that you need a partner – at least an imaginary one, the intensity and quality of the orgasm vastly depend on the interaction between you and your partner. And on your mind set before, during and after the ‘close encounter’.
Happiness, whatever moments of happiness we’re blessed with from time to time, is the result of a far more complex interaction.
To experience it, you have to be in sync with the universe. Not with yourself or with your partner. With as much of your patch of the universe as possible.

When working, out or in any other way, you’re basically alone.
The quality of your involvement depends basically on you. Irrespective of you working alone or you being part of a team, you ‘come first’.
When making love, you and your partner become one. For a while, your two me-s get close enough to experience synchronicity.
Getting in sync with the universe – doing the right thing, is like making love ‘on steroids’.

There are a couple of catches though.

You need to conserve your me. Your inner self. Not your identity. That, your I, is only the exterior shape of yourself. Constantly rebuilt to match your exterior. What you need to preserve is the inner spectator. The entity constantly watching over your identity. The entity which maintains the coherence of your identity during its constant reshaping. Your inner spine, if you will.
And you must refrain from hunting it. From hunting happiness.

You can build up muscles through training. Hard. If you do it right, you get endorphins.
Because you’ve done it right, not hard. If you do it only hard, you get torn muscles, not endorphins.
Or you could build up muscles by swallowing chemicals. And end up with a ruined liver. While experiencing absolutely no endorphin rush. Because you fucked up. You chased ‘muscles’ and forgot about yourself. About the self ‘inside’ yourself.

You can get ‘relief’ by wanking. But that’s no orgasm…
You’d prefer ‘masturbate’ instead? Would that make any real difference?
Bring the experience any nearer to an orgasm?!?

Same thing with happiness.
If your goal is to be happy, you’re too focused. On your ‘identity’.

Your inner self bestows too much attention on its ‘skin’. On your identity.
And not enough on what’s happening farther away.
That being the reason for you not being able to get in sync with the rest of the world around you. Not being able to do the right thing.

‘Six packs’, orgasms and happiness must come naturally.
As a consequence of things well done.
Otherwise neither are genuine.

Tags , , , , , ,
Categories alternative ways of acquring knowledge, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, effective communication, evolution, In English, man as a measure for all things, Mutual Respect, Psychology, skin in the game, teleology

Choice

March 16, 2023 //
0


Basically, there are two meta-rules.

According to the first, if you follow the precepts – to the letter – you get ‘there’.
According to the second, avoiding the forbidden sets the stage for things going your way.

Unfortunately, things are not as simple as they look at first sight.
The first meta-rule deals with individuals. Getting ‘there’ is each individual’s job. They have to do what they are supposed to and failing to fulfill any item banishes the unworthy from the cherished ‘prize’.
The second one is even ‘trickier’. While its precepts must be followed, again, by the individual followers, the ‘spoils’ belong more to the community rather than to the individual. On top of that, they are not ‘certain’! Following the rule only ‘sets the stage’. Disobeying the rule makes it certain that the goal will never be reached while following it only ‘opens the door’. Makes it possible for each of the community members to search for their individual paths towards their particular goals.

Do I need to remember you that both these rules exist only in our heads?
As figments of our imaginations?
And that the difference between the two can be observed at the practical level?

The first rule can never be fulfilled. Nobody can follow it to its ultimate consequence. No matter how hard any of us might try. It would be like measuring with infinite precision. Something will always happen. Go wrong. Throw us back to where we have started.
The second one also leads to disappointment. Some members of the community will inevitably attempt to cut corners. Take the easy way out … Hence the rule needs policing. You’ve certainly witnessed at least on occasion when ‘bad (money) has driven out good’… at least temporarily! Furthermore, some members of the community – while faithfully sticking to the rule, will still fail to get ‘there’. Set their aims too high, didn’t have what it takes… or simply had lots and lots of bad luck! But regardless of the why’s, not getting there still generates disappointment. Usually directed at the rule… and creates a lot of doubt towards the weltanschauung based on the rule…

Which way out?
How to choose?

Would it be helpful to notice that, historically speaking, the communities which have followed the second rule, primum non nocere, have fared decently while those who had attempted to prescribe, and impose, a ‘recipe for happiness’ have invariably failed?
‘Don’t do anything, upon another, which you wouldn’t welcome when done upon you’ versus ‘treat all the others exactly as you would like to be treated yourself’?

Tags , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, authoritarianism, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, effective communication, evolution, In English, Intent, man as a measure for all things, Mutual Respect, Psychology, skin in the game, teleology

Artwork

March 14, 2023 //
0

Yesterday you’ve been babbling about painting an elephant. One which was already present in the room. Doesn’t make that much sense, does it?

In my childhood there was a certain emperor. Who had been duped by a couple of crooks to wear a suit of clothes so special that they were in fact invisible. Hence the emperor walked around naked, convinced he was wearing the coolest set of rags available on this Earth. Pun intended, of course. I forgot to mention the price. Not only hefty but also recurrent. Each set of clothes, of in-existent clothes, could be worn only once. They were too fragile for ‘second helpings’. The courtiers kept congratulating the emperor for his beautiful attire so the scam went on for quite a while. Until he took to the streets of his capital city to show off his clothes to the ordinary people. And a child exclaimed: “Look. the emperor is naked”. And those present started to laugh.

Same thing here. Everybody senses that something’s amiss. Except for those who should know better. Who, for various reasons – I’ll get there, soon enough, don’t believe what they see. Or, more exactly, refuse to ‘go to the bottom of it’.

Back in the ‘good old days’, emperors had jesters. Courtiers who were allowed to speak the uncomfortable truth. Cloaked under a thick layer of funny words, true, but well worth saying.
This is what I mean when I ‘babble’ about ‘painting the elephant’.

I’ve already mentioned the story about the naked emperor. Now it’s time for that about the four blind men being led to learn about the elephant. One got to feel the hind legs, one the huge belly, the third got acquainted with the ears and the last with the tip of the elephant’s trunk. When later asked to share what they had learned, the first said the elephant was a pair of tall columns, the second said the elephant was a huge barrel, the third contradicted the first two maintaining that the elephant was a leathery curtain of sorts while the last was convinced that the elephant was a thick snake ending with a finger.

As I said before, ‘same thing here’. For ideological reasons, we consider some things and disconsider others. Furthermore, for psychological reasons, we tend to coalesce into ‘bubbles’. Those who consider the same things tend to stick together. And to disconsider those who consider other things.

I’m afraid this is too hard for me to follow. You first want to paint an elephant, then come up with a naked emperor and end up with parts of an elephant. Is there any elephant at all? Or all we have is a collection of disparate impressions? Man made illusions, vaguely resembling parts of an elephant and involving nakedness?

Well, you got the gist of it but you’re afraid to say it out loud.
The elephant is indeed of our own making.
An image. Not an illusion, mind you! Just an incomplete image of what’s going on around us.
Let me try to spell it differently.

The world was complicated to start with. Both wide and deep. Too wide and too deep for any of us to be able to comprehend it in earnest. But for most of our history, we didn’t have to. We used to live ‘locally’. Both geographically and ‘spiritually’. Each of us, individual human beings, belonged to a place. To a village and to a tradition. When one of us happened to move to another village, they, more or less naturally, translated their ‘spirit’ into the local tradition.
Nowadays, the world has become even more complicated. We made it even more complicated than it was at the beginning. We uncovered many of the previously unknown nooks and crannies. Building the illusion of knowledge in the process. Then we assumed tradition. Called it culture and made it our own. Took it with us where ever we went. Shared it with others and, sometimes, even imposed it – or parts of it, upon others.

The world itself is no longer straightforward. For us…
Our ancestors didn’t make any distinction between the physical world and the tradition which made sense of it. The world – ‘Cosmos’, as they used to call it, was whole. ‘Reality’ was made of ‘objects’, the names of those objects and the rules between them. The point being that our ancestors did not make any difference between an object, its name and its place in the order of things. Between the physical reality and tradition. Between the objects per se and the meaning – name and connecting ties, we’ve attached to each object.
Only after the Ancient Greeks had come up with the concept of “phusis” things were separated into natural and man-made. Into real and illusory…

That being the moment when the elephant had been born.
When we have started to steer our fate. Not to determine it – we’ll probably never be able to do this in a comprehensive manner, but to influence it.
Which influence has two dimensions. Size and … there’s no words for what I have to say right now. ‘Awareness of what’s going on’?!? Our ancestors did what they used to do because they had to do it and they did it as things were done at that time. We, on the other hand, get to choose among the many things which should be done and the manner in which we see fit to do it. Meanwhile, we entertain the illusion of doing all these things in a fully conscious manner.

A part of the elephant I have in mind consists of the fact that our consciousness is limited. But our illusion about our consciousness is bigger than the reality of the matter.
Another part of the elephant consists of the fact that more and more of us no longer consider advice. From those who entertain different opinions (illusions?!?) than us.

And why should I accept advice from somebody who promotes illusions?

I didn’t say you should accept advice from a peddler of illusions. From a con artist or from a snake-oil distributor.
What I said was ‘be careful, your own convictions are nothing but, ultimately, illusions. Man made illusions. Some of them, maybe, closer to reality than those entertained by other people. Meanwhile, others of your illusory convictions – most of them, probably, are more distanced from reality than those entertained by those who ‘control’/master each particular realm of ‘knowledge’.
This being the reason for which we go first to the doctor instead of raiding a pharmacy when our child gets sick.

I didn’t say you should accept advice from any peddler of illusions.
All I said was that we should pay more attention to what other people have to say. More considerate attention to what other people say, bearing in mind that our own convictions – about anything, are nothing but ultimately illusory.

Tags , , , , ,
Categories alternative ways of acquring knowledge, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, cooperation, Culture, effective communication, evolution, In English, man as a measure for all things, Mutual Respect, Psychology, teleology, time, Transparency

‘Handles’

March 12, 2023 //
0

I’m afraid things are a little bit more complicated.
In this translation, the Turkish proverb puts the onus on the ‘forest’ for what’s going on.
Which isn’t helpful. It somehow validates the notion that ‘people’ get what they deserve.
The way I see it, the responsibility belongs to the wooden handles. The axes – the steel parts, do what is in their nature to do. Axes split wood, dictators dictate… and so on.
On the other hand, those who ‘help in the process’… While it also is in their ‘wooden’ nature to be helpful, the handles do not necessarily have to attach themselves to forest hacking axes.
While it is in their nature to give advice, analysts and pundits do not necessarily have to court the Trumps/Putins/Xis of this world.

Blaming the people for voting for those who are being put forward by very skill full political promoters is not that different from blaming the victim of a rape. Yes, she should have known better than to drink that much at the party but the rapist didn’t necessarily had to take advantage of her.

Tags , , , , ,
Categories 1989, authoritarianism, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, effective communication, evolution, In English, man as a measure for all things, Mutual Respect, Psychology, skin in the game, teleology

Alien report

March 10, 2023 //
0

In the beginning was the word

– How did you manage to mess things up so thoroughly?
– By allowing too much coherence to slip away. After we – well, some of us, already had a fair understanding about how things worked. About how we got there in the first place.
– Would you care to elaborate?
– Things went on more or less linearly up to when we had learned to speak. That was when it had all started. When we had realized what a start was.
And that was it.
Speaking to each other allowed us to access the second level of consciousness. Self awareness.
Speaking to ourselves – a.k.a. ‘thinking’, gave us the illusion of ‘knowing’.
‘Knowing’ led to ‘knowing better’ and ‘knowing better’ gave birth to arrogance.
For a while, this process had been kept in check by the harsh reality. People, like all living organisms, have certain needs. Basic needs. Food, shelter… During most of our evolution, getting enough food and shelter consumed most of our resources. And time. Only a very small number of people had enough spare time. And energy left for thinking. And only a very small percentage of this already small number of people used their minds to think about anything else but how to preserve their privileged status. Which status was the source of their ‘spare time’ in the first time…
Slowly but surely, those having something else in their minds besides their selfish self interest have come up with a thing called ‘technology’. By carefully, and considerately, watching those who worked, the selfish thinkers have noticed that from time to time and from craftsperson to craftperson there could be noticed small differences in how things were done. Hence the concept of ‘how things are done’. With the natural sequel of ‘let’s do things in a better way’.
Technology made it possible for workers to be more productive. Communities as a whole became more productive. Hence increased the possibility for more people to have spare time for thinking.
Some communities made good use of this new possibility while others failed to do so. Usually for reasons depending on the ‘general conditions’ and not at all imputable to the communities themselves.
Unfortunately, technology also had two less fortunate consequences.
By freeing more and more people from want, it also freed them from ‘religion’.
Until that moment, people who were ‘excluded’ from society – who did not partake in ‘religion’, could not survive on their own for any significant length of time. After the advent of technology, reclusion no longer meant almost instant death.
Technology also produced ‘hard science’. A corpus of knowledge about how nature works. Which knowledge can be summarized as a collection of natural laws.
No longer depending as much on their contemporaries and cognizant of those natural laws, some of the thinkers – whose numbers had been constantly swelled by the continuously improved technology, have reached the conclusion that through thinking a human might, given enough time and resources, understand basically everything.
Some of those had become dictators. Others had become consultants.
Both categories extremely confident in their own knowledge. Arrogant, even.
This is how we messed things up. This bad.

Tags , , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, arrogance, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, effective communication, In English, man as a measure for all things, Mutual Respect, Psychology, religion, skin in the game, teleology, Trust

Complementary, my deal Watson

March 8, 2023 //
0

Equality has become ‘the’ thing.
But things are not that simple. Not simple enough to be explained/solved in such a trivial manner.
Equality is a theoretical concept. It doesn’t exist, as such, in nature. Nor in practice.
Two ‘objects’/issues/items are declared, by us, to be equal if the differences between them are smaller than a threshold. Instated, again, by us. Mathematics – a theoretical field by excellence, being the only domain where the difference between two equal ‘objects’ is exactly zero.
On the other hand, societies where people consider themselves to be equal fare better than those where the differences between people are ‘manifest’.
Hence ‘equality’ must be important, right?
‘Societies where people consider themselves to be equal’…
The key word here is “consider”, not “equal “.
In this situation, equality is not only a concept but also a value.

The fact that a functional majority of the people living in those societies consider themselves to be equal creates a certain ‘environment’. A situation where those people actually complement each-other. A society which works as an organism. Not as a shoal of fish nor as a simple herd. A society which works a community.

A single parent can raise children. But two parents do it a lot easier. And, in most cases, better.
A single parent can adopt children. But no single parent, man or woman, is able to give birth to a child without being helped by a member of the ‘opposite sex’.
Societies where people consider men and women to be equal fare a lot better than those entertaining other beliefs. Which doesn’t negate the fact that men and women complement each-other. In a lot more situations than those in which they merely reproduce themselves.
Economies where the market is free fare a lot better than those where the economic decisions are made in a centralized manner. The communist camp – where the economies were run by the party, had crumbled under their own weight. Which strongly suggests that no matter how skilled it may be, a central planner will never be able to balance such a complicated process as a whole society/economy. Monopolistic situations, where decision making became too concentrated, invariably ended up in a pile of mess. Another proof that no decision maker, no matter how skilled/well intended, was ever capable of managing, by itself, a really complicated situation.
What is the real difference between a free market and one where decision making is concentrated in an unsustainably small number of hands? Or heads?
Economic agents are equal? Suppliers are equal among themselves, buyers are equal among themselves and suppliers are equal with buyers?
Or suppliers complement each-other in adequately supplying the market while buyers and suppliers complement each-other in maintaining the market afloat?
Which brings us back to where we have started.
Where people who complement each-other have reached the conclusion they’d better consider their complements as equals. And treat each-other as such.

Tags , , , , ,
Categories 1989 and the Global Financial Crises, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, Economy, effective communication, evolution, In English, man as a measure for all things, Mutual Respect, Psychology, skin in the game, teleology

Which way out?

March 6, 2023 //
0

Word of mouth has it that a dissatisfied customer will be more vocal than a happier one.
A search over the internet yields unconvincing results. The statistical jury seems to be still out on this one.

A misspell in the search window unveiled something a lot more interesting.

The brain is hard wired to recognize an angry voice. As well as an angry face.

Are we aware of all this?
Probably not. Statistically speaking…

And this is important why?

Being able to recognize anger makes it easier for us to deal with conflict.
Individuals who do it better have more chances to survive when involved in dangerous situations. Or even to turn them around. To find ways in which to use conflict in a profitable manner. Profitable for them… And only time will tell for how long!
Communities adept at taming conflict into something useful have greater chances to survive than those less able to deal with it.

Now, where are we in this moment?
Do we talk to each other? Are we aware of what’s going on around us? Cognizant enough to take the appropriate measures?
Or do we just vent out our bile? Creating such an environment that no coherent answer will be presented when needed?

Are we, each of us, part of the solution?
Or we just create more and more problem?

Tags , , , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, effective communication, evolution, fail better, In English, man as a measure for all things, Mutual Respect, Psychology, skin in the game, Trust

Use it or lose it

March 4, 2023 //
0

Trying to make sense of this this proverb, one might find handy a deeper understanding of ‘it’.

I’ll be arguing in a future post about the synthetic nature of equality. A concept we came up with, based on things found in the natural world. But the concept itself has no natural precursor. It was invented by us and exists exclusively in our minds.

On the other hand, liberty – the ‘it’ I’m writing about right now – is ‘artificial’. Another concept we’ve came up with, based on things found in the natural world.
But one which has evolved from a natural precursor. It still exists exclusively in our minds – like all other concepts, but we didn’t actually invent it. We only noticed its natural precursor and built on in.

Orangutans are freer than us. They live individualistic lives, depending on no one but themselves. They are strong enough to do this and they live in such a manner and place that they don’t have to face any natural enemies. We, humans – their cousins, are the only agents powerful enough to represent a real danger for them.
Gorillas are less free than us. They live in strict autarchies, where they need nothing but what already exists in their domains – the plants they feed on, and where they respect the strict discipline imposed by their strictly authoritarian male leaders. Which are the only free(ish) members of the groups.
Chimpanzees and bonobos, each in their own way, are the closest to us. Some freer than others but none as free as the orangutans.

None of our cousins have the concept of liberty. As far as we know, they long for it – for freedom, that is – when they lose it. Hence they feel (for) it. But they haven’t, as far as we know it, came up with the notion of it. This being the reason for which the concept of liberty might be synthetic – like all other concepts, but liberty itself is artificial.

Our experience of liberty has a lot in common with what our cousins feel when they lose theirs. When they lose theirs to us!
We being the only agents who, after synthesizing the concept of liberty, have taken the process a step further.
Have started to take prisoners. And to justify our actions!

Tags , , , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, awareness, Choices we make, collective identity, effective communication, In English, Mutual Respect, Psychology, skin in the game, teleology, Trust
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »