In order to survive, individual organisms have to ‘communicate’ with their exterior. To import nutrients and to export the by-products of their metabolism. In order to thrive, individual organisms need to know as much as possible about what’s going on as far as possible. In order to maintain their congruence – read sanity, individual organisms which happen to be aware of their own selves have to make sense of what’s going on around them.
We, the only fully conscious beings know to man – to us, gather information using what we call ‘senses’. In order to survive, thrive and make sense of the world we smell, taste, touch, listen to and look at it. At the world. Smelling and tasting have very much in common with ‘feeding’. The organism ‘imports’ tiny bits from the surrounding reality and uses them to learn things about what’s going on around it. Touching is the first sense which ‘closes’ the frontier between ‘inside’ and ‘outside’. Hearing is about becoming aware of other things interacting among themselves. Hearing a stream flowing means water moving relative to the banks. Also, hearing means both the hearer’s ears and the interacting things reside inside the same sound transmitting medium. Seeing means becoming aware of light bouncing off things happening to be ‘in range’. The seer’s ability to see depends on light being emitted in such a manner as to be reflected – or obscured – by the observed object towards the eyes of the seer. Making sense of things means integrating gathered information into a scenario where no piece of information contradicts any other. Specially any byte of information stored in the long term memory and held to be true.
Language is the tool we use to convey information. To speak our minds…
The consequences of tool use – messages, in this case – depend on the yielder. The consequences of shooting a gun depend mainly on the person aiming the gun. The consequences of using language … depend on those who are at the both ends of the ‘barrel’.
Messages – consequences of language being used to put together batches of information with the intent of transmitting them to an audience – are interpreted as soon as they reach their ‘target’. Meaning – what the receptor makes of a message, using the same languaging tools as those put to work by the emitter – depends mainly on the receptor. In fact, most of the times, there’s more information to be gleaned from a message than that intended to be conveyed by the person initiating the exchange.
If interested in who said what and what Orwell thought about the subject… just click on the link above. I’ll only add the reasons for which I know it to be a misleading affirmation.
The factual truth is that only dictators need to be guarded by rough men during their sleep. And during the rest of their lives… We, the rest of ‘the people’, go to sleep at night knowing there’s only a very slim chance to be targeted by thieves. Yes, we know that the police will likely come to investigate after the fact. After the fact… But we also know that we are less likely to fall prey to violence than those living in other countries because our societies work better than those which are more violent than ours.
Because our society works better, not because we employ more ‘rough men’ to guard us… On the contrary! The more violent a country, the more ‘popular’ the ‘rough men’ are. On both ‘sides of the isle’!
And the more violent a country, the less peacefully people sleep in that country…
There’s no other meaning but that attached by men to the stories they had spun themselves. For their own use.
Children are afraid of the dark. Not of ‘darkness’ but of ‘the dark’. Children, not babies! All babies let us know when they wake up. For the simple reason that they wake up to eat. Or to have their diapers changed. With small children – babies who had developed a certain level of self awareness – things are a little more complicated. They need more than simple sustenance. They need to learn. Their budding consciences needs to fit themselves into the world. Play being the first step. But play is impossible ‘in the dark’. Specially when previous experiences, hastened by ‘well meant warnings from well wishing adults’, suggest that ‘the dark’ is full of ‘hidden’ dangers.
In fact, it’s actually fascinating to observe how self awareness transforms darkness into the dark. Sheep – who are hunted during the night by various predators – don’t go into depression at sunset. OK, sheep are never alone and their senses – other than vision – are far sharper than ours. But I’m sure you understand what I’m driving at. While the rest of the animals do not have problems related to darkness, we – humans – are not comfortable in ‘the dark’. To the tune of developing various forms of phobia. From claustrophobia to agoraphobia. Simply because conscience – our ability to observe ourselves experiencing life – realizes it can observe/control less when in ‘the dark’. When its ability to see/influence what’s going on is reduced.
The point being that it’s our consciousness which makes the difference between darkness – lack of light – and ‘the dark’. That place/situation in which the conscious agents who cannot see/intervene experience their impotence. And call it for what it is. ‘The dark’.
Unfortunately, it was a ‘deep critical thinker’ who had come up with this idea in the first place. That ‘if you want to control, you need to isolate the intellectual’.
A ‘plain-clothes man’ doesn’t think in these therms!
Let me rephrase the whole thing.
I am rational. Which means that all my conclusions are valid. Simply because I have reached them in a rational manner. Hence all other conclusions are wrong. For the simple reason that they are different from mine. Since they are wrong, they should not reach their audience. For they might displace my conclusions from the public mind! Which brings me to the conclusion that if I want to conserve my position – as the official thinker – I must make it so that all other intellectuals must be isolated from the public. Only I need to dress up this conclusion as if it was about the greater public good.
And this is why Protagoras of Abdera and Socrates had been banished from the forum. Why Plato maintained that before being allowed to rule the philosopher-kings had to be specially trained for the mission. Taught to keep an open mind towards alternatives! Why Marxism, Fascism and all other authoritarian lines of thinking lead those who pursue them into the same dead-end. Into abject failure…
History doesn’t go anywhere. It pesters us with lessons. Until we figure out their meanings. Or until there’s no one left. No one left to be pestered! Darwin 2.0
One of the recurrent lessons history is peppered with: ‘Imperia always fail. Sooner or later, eventually all imperial social arrangements end up in abject failure. Empires as well as monopolies.’
And no, the Pharaonic empire didn’t last for 3000 years. What happened there was 30 something successive empires. Read dynasties. Whenever a dynasty lost its grip, its empire folded. Whenever a new dynasty took over, it presided over a new empire. Same thing happened in modern France. Same territory, same population, same culture, 5 republics and two empires since 1789. The fact that the last three republics have been consecutive doesn’t merge them into a single one.
Europe has been the scene of a whole host of wars. Some of them worldwide wars. Since the French Revolution, all empires which had attempted to subjugate their neighbors have failed.
Napoleon’s attempt had initiated the German ‘coming together’ and turned Russia’s attention back to Europe. Napoleon the 3rd had helped Bismark to finalize Prussia’s taking over the rest of what we currently call Germany. WWI was started by people who had no clue and put on hold by people who had no vision. Started by imperialistically thinking people who didn’t see any need to evaluate the consequences of their countries going to war and put on hold by (other) imperialistically thinking people who continued the well established tradition. Again, without any attempt to evaluate the consequences. Hence the vanquished - the only vanquished that was still standing at the end of the war, Germany – was presented with a hefty bill. And made to pay crippling war reparations. Which clumsy actions had prepared the scene for Hitler’s advent to power. WWII – or, more exactly, WWI 2.0 – was ended by far wiser decision makers. Who had chosen to integrate the vanquished rather than deepening the trenches. Although fought with ‘softer’ weapons, WWIII – also known as the Cold War – fits perfectly. It was also lost by the aggressor. Not as much won by those resisting as lost by the empire attempting to widen its grasp.
What we currently have on our hands, WWIV, is a ‘pinnacle’. Putin attempting to revive Russia’s ‘old glory’ and the reaction of the ‘free world’ are a case study. And a horrible remake. Mistakes already made since the French Revolution have been reenacted as if never happened. The aggressor failed to realize that at some point his actions will beget a reaction. That even if that reaction will be late, it will surely come about. The ‘good guys’ have forgotten – never really cared to understand? – the lessons of WWI and WWII. No real attempt to integrate post communist Russia into the democratic fold had been made. Not in an organized manner, anyway. Everybody was happy that ‘history had finally reached its end’ and Russia was left to its own devices. Even worse, it was treated as a no-man’s land. Mutatis mutandis, post-communist Russia had been treated just as South America and Africa had been treated after they had been discovered by the Europeans. Even worse, the ‘good guys’ have forgotten – or had never understood – that a bully has to be stopped early. And that the easiest way to stop a bully is to encourage his ‘sycophants’ to free themselves from his influence. And to help, in earnest, those who are bullied to overcome their plight.
Now, almost two years after the aggression organized by Putin against Ukraine has become ‘hot’, there still are people who consider Ukraine should negotiate. Should accept the inevitable. Other consider that helping Ukraine is ‘money down the drain’. That there’s no way for Ukraine to win.
The way I see this, we’re back in 1942. Nazi troops were controlling most of Europe and most of North-Africa. But the signs were already there. Russia, nor Britain, didn’t collapse under the onslaught. The nazis had been driven out from Moscow’s suburbs and Leningrad remained out of reach. From there on… Hitler kept making stupid moves. Until the Third Reich crumbled under its own weight. Helped by the Allied bombardments. And let’s not forget the huge amount of western weapons and munitions shipped by Russia’s then allies to Murmansk. Nor those hauled using the Iranian railway.
Now. Will we relearn the lessons which are readily available to us? The lessons we should have already learned? What’s keeping us? Does anybody still think Putin, or any other dictator, will ever stop? Tired of waiting? Be glad Ukraine isn’t. Be glad Ukraine isn’t tired of fighting!
What happened to our capacity to compromise? When did life become nothing but a zero sum game?
Our capacity to compromise – in the good sense of the word – has diminished when religion – the thing which keeps us together – has been split into religions.
And it completely drained out when we’ve become too confident in our ability to think things over.
We’re so confident now that our solution/decision is not only better than any other but the only one possible that we’re no longer capable of considering a compromise.
While religion taught us to respect and trust each-other, religions have split us into factions. Our intellectual arrogance has done the rest.
Your previous actions that were done in error now have consequences. Karma.
My father has cancer. And an eye problem. The cancer is being treated in a public hospital while the eye problem is taken care of at a private facility. In the last couple of days we have visited them both.
Besides the obvious differences there’s a huge, and overpowering, ‘common ground’. The money problem.
No, not the money you have to fork out if you want to be treated in a private facility. The fact that money has been elevated to goal status.
Functionally speaking, health-care is a ‘social function’. By helping each member to remain healthy, the society – as a whole – preserves it’s overall health. It preserves it’s functionality. It’s ability to survive and to thrive. By helping my father with his medical conditions, the society makes it possible for me and my family to remain productive. Instead of taking care of him – which we can’t do properly – we can continue to do what we’re good at.
And no, the subject of this post is not ‘who should pay for health care’. There is no ‘free’ anything so everything has to be paid, one way or another. The problem is the fact that money becoming the main goal has consequences.
Instead of trying to maintain the well being of the population – in an economically sensible manner – the health industry is focused on making profit. Instead of trying to maintain the well being of the population – in an economically sensible manner – the public health system is focused on being ‘thrifty’. The consequences are similar. Overworked doctors, crowded waiting rooms, impatient personnel, long waiting hours, irritation… And no spare capacity to cover ‘mass emergencies’!
Unfortunately, things go way deeper than this.
Do you remember what else ‘surfaced’ in the winter of 2020?
Put two and two together and it becomes a lot easier to understand how and why a huge number of people ended up believing that COVID-19 was a scam. A scam concocted by Big Pharma to convince us to buy their products…
In retrospect, what happened doesn’t make much sense, does it? So many people who had died because so many of us didn’t have enough trust in masks and vaccines… So many of us were convinced that we were being played! For money…
Because it had already happened!
“These consumers were getting a raw deal. They were being exposed to Mylan’s price increases and excluded from the market forces that might cushion them. They were getting ripped off. And it’s no wonder they got angry.”
I have to start by confessing that until yesterday evening I’ve never seriously considered this possibility. Why would anyone bother?
Then somebody – thank you, Jeffrey Mercer – introduced a whole new twist into this conundrum. ‘What if this whole (computer) simulation thing is nothing but yet another attempt to make sense of the Universe? To attribute sense to the Universe? Which whole thing, if anything, is the epitome of anthropomorphism…’ I took the liberty to rephrase Jeffrey Mercer’s words. To make them more ‘suitable’. To fit better my preexisting answer. Yet another ‘anthropomorphic’ thing….
My immediate answer was ‘our world is indeed a simulation. Or maybe not as much a simulation as an artifact.’
Before delving into the matter, I’m going to formulate two questions. Hence ‘the furcula’. If we live in a simulation, what kind of world does the simulator live in? Why would anyone bother? To study us responding to its simulating our senses/minds? Why doesn’t it study itself? Its own self/persona?
Coming back to my initial answer, I have to point out that the key word here is ‘our’. We’re speaking here about ‘our world’. The world we live in. Our reality!
We, the ones trying to make sense of this world/reality, have a few characteristics. We’re made of matter and we have, each of us, a conscience. Having a material nature introduces certain limitations and being conscious widens those limitations. Us being conscious widens those limitations, by introducing a ‘new dimension’, but this doesn’t mean those limitations disappear. A bucket is ‘wider’ than the circle at its base – the bucket has height, hence volume, while the circle is ‘flat’ – but the bucket itself continues to have limits.
Let’s examine the consequences of us being conscious agents of a material nature. Limited conscious agents of a material nature…
Us being conscious means us being aware of our material nature. Of our limits. Having a material nature means the most powerful instinct we have is our ‘need to survive’. Both as a biological organism – a.k.a. animal – and as a conscious agent.
Our consciences – I’m speaking about the individual ones here – are very crafty ‘devils’. They can accept our individual material fate – death – but have a problem accepting their own dependency on the ‘bodies/brains’ they need to inhabit. Hence ‘the soul’.
Which ‘soul’ has been invented – by our conscious selves – as the first step towards building a sense for this world. For the reality we inhabit. Which soul is the building block for all religion. For all religion known/built to/by man.
Are you still here? I have to make a pause here. And to mention the fact that I’ve already cut a few corners… A lot of corners… What I say is probably rather hard to follow. Mostly because I don’t have time/space to explain myself. Not now but certainly in due time.
And yes, what we call ‘religion’ is of our own doing. The Bible itself has been written by us, regardless of the origin of the ideas mentioned there. It doesn’t matter whether we have been the interface between (a) God and ‘the world’, we are the ones who have written the Bible. And all other sacred texts. We have written them, we have believed in them and we have shaped the reality we live in.
We have done all that according to how we have interpreted the teachings we have inherited from our forefathers. And we continue to. Even those of us who consider themselves to be ‘free of religion’. We might not believe but we continue to act as if. Believers and nonbelievers alike hold the same things as being valid. Don’t kill, don’t steal, respect the values which keep society together…
What about where we started from? What about the ‘original’ simulation?
One moment please, I haven’t yet finished with ‘God’. If (a) God made us who/what we are, then who made God?
If someone took the trouble to build the simulation we consider to be ‘home’, what about the ‘real’ world? What about the reality harboring the simulating agent?
There’s no need for an outside agent? The world we live in, our world, is the world we have built for ourselves? Using the things which were at our disposal and the information we have gleaned about how things work? Maybe not always fully aware of what we were doing?
You got it! That’s exactly what I was trying to say!
Does it really require an understanding of the principles?
Very good question!
Maybe not. If all you want to do is to light a fire using the same kind of implements as those gifted to you by your teacher … then no. All you have to do is to remember how to build a new set of implements when the old one is gone and follow the instructions. To a T.
But if you want to make one step forward… to improve the implements… to rise to the next level…
nicichiarasa 