Archives for category: teleology

First things first.

May 13, 2020 //

Knowledge is being constantly (re)generated by us.

Everything we know, individually and collectively, has been first felt, then interpreted and finally communicated by us.

For something which has happened inside our sensorial sphere to become a piece of information we have to first notice it, then evaluate it and, finally, deem it important enough to remember. To codify it as information.

For something to make sense – whatever that means, the information we have about that something has to fit in to the rest of information we already have.

These three premises, which I hold to be self evident, lead me to the conclusion that:

Individual human beings will always have but a limited knowledge/understanding about/of the world.
A group of people are able to develop an aggregate understanding of the world which might be wider than those belonging to the individual members.
In time, a community of people will cobble together an even more complex weltanschauung. But still an incomplete one. For no other reason than the fact that the sum of a finite number of finite quantities will always be finite.

Consequences.

Since our understanding of the world is finite, determinism doesn’t make sense.
This being the reason for all authoritarian regimes/monopolistic arrangements caving in sooner rather than later. For the simple reason that those regimes/monopolies use but the brain power of those in power and waste the rest.
Our understanding of the world being finite, there is no way to demonstrate or refute God.

Which God is, anyway, nothing but a figment of our imagination.
Because of the very reasons I mentioned above.
Even if God itself would appear right now in a public square and on all the TV monitors in the world, the impression/understanding of him we would be left with after the experience would be of our own making.

Incomplete and inexact. Heavily dependent on everything else we already know.

Tags determinism, finite, God, information, knowledge, Understanding, weltanschauung

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

Conflict? Synergy? MAD?

May 12, 2020 //

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 Becoming, Carl von Clausewitz, Conflict, MAD, politics, Synergy, War

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

Existence

May 4, 2020 //

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 being, dictionaries, existing, making a fool of myself, notice, Puppy love, Teenager

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

Despre spațiu

April 29, 2020 //

Pentru ca ceva să se întâmple este nevoie de:

– Suficient loc. Care să fie și adecvat.
– Suficiente resurse. Care să fie și adecvate.
– Un factor declanșator. Specific…

‘Trivial…’

Perfect. Înseamnă că știai deja ce vroiam să spun.
Că pentru a încerca să controlezi ceva trebuie să:
– Ai habar de existența acelui ceva.
– Să-l înțelegi.
– Să-ți pui mintea cu el.

Tags cauze, Constiinta, cunostinte, resurse, spatiu, vointa

Categories alegerile pe care le facem, constiinta de sine, evolutie, In limba Romana, Intentie, Libertate, Omul ca masura a tuturor lucrurilor, psihologie, teleology

The cart before the horse.

April 27, 2020 //

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 functionalism, hermeneutics, horse cart, logic, relative importance

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 //

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 Banking system, economy, Money as goal, Payday to payday, Postal Service, Profit

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 //

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 Bishop Myriel, communism, Do unto others, Jean Valjean, Nazism, the new man, Victor Hugo

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

Poate fi anulată primăvara?

April 13, 2020 //

Când am intrat la Politehnică, am aflat că inginerii și câinii au câteva lucruri în comun. Privirea inteligentă și incapacitatea de a se exprima în cuvinte.
Când m-am apucat de fotografie am aflat că întotdeauna ‘there’s more than meets the eye’.
La școala de mediatori am aflat, dacă mai era nevoie, că ‘adevărul este undeva la mijloc’.

Așteptăm acum, cu toții, ca știința să-și spună cuvântul.
Să găsească răspunsul.
Să spargă, încă o dată, bariera necunoscutului. Să ne ia de mână și să ne ducă, din nou, la lumină.

Dar parcă treaba asta cu ‘străfulgerarea’ ținea de domeniul artei!
Chiar dacă savantul Arhimede a fost primul care a strigat ‘Evrika’. În timp ce alerga, gol pușcă, pe străzile Siracuzei…
Artiștii erau cei care intrau cu bocancii în banalul vieții de zi cu zi ca să ne deschidă ferestrele unor noi orizonturi.
Cei pe care îi așteptam să topească noroiul în opere de artă.
Suferința în speranță.

Și, oare, este chiar atât de mare diferența dintre știință și artă?

E adevarat că ‘omul de pe strada’ este convins că arta se bazează pe inspirație în timp ce știința e definită de rigoare.
Poate că trebuie să ne spună cineva de câtă inspirație ai nevoie atunci încerci să descoperi un tratament.
Și de câtă rigoare este nevoie atunci când încerci să-ți transformi inspirația în ceva pe care să-l poți propune unui alt suflet.

Abordând problema dintr-un alt unghi, „poate fi anulată primavara”?

Un prieten mi-a spus ca da. Dacă nu e nimeni care să se bucure de ea…
O prietenă mi-a spus ca nu. Și că ăsta e singurul lucru care îi ține mintea, și sufletul, laolaltă.
Să ne bucurăm împreună de primavara care ne înconjoară.

Să n-o lăsăm să înflorească degeaba.

Tags Arhimede, arta, evrica, moduri complementare de cunoastere, primavara, stiinta

Categories Choices we make, comunicare efectiva, constiinta de sine, cooperare, identitate colectiva, In limba Romana, Incredere, moduri complementare de cunoastere, Omul ca masura a tuturor lucrurilor, psihologie, teleology

Consistency.

April 12, 2020 //

Given my experience of living under communist rule, I can tell you that too much consistency is bad. Having to toe the line is dangerous. For individuals and for societies, as a whole. Communism did fall, you know.

On the other hand… some consistency is needed.

Let me give you an example.

The whole world is asking China to do ‘the right thing’ about its wet markets. In Bill Maher’s terms “eating bats is bat-shit crazy“.

Why?!?

Because of what science tells us. That bats are full of corona-viruses, which are bad for us.

That’s what we say, anyway. Those of us who side with ‘science’… And who ask the Chinese to give up their traditions.

Let’s examine the problem from the other side.

‘We’ve been eating bats for ages. And nothing happened to us. Now you say that this flu like disease is produced by viruses who live in bats. Why would we believe you – and give up eating bats, if you don’t believe your own scientists? And balk when they tell you to quit smoking. To stop piling plastic into landfills. To stop heating up the planet.

To vaccinate your children, for God’s sake…’