Anger versus getting angry.

April 18, 2016 //
0

Just finished reading, again, another excellent post written by John Faithful Hamer on Committingsociology.com

I remember now that something was nagging me after reading it for the first time. I also remember the pangs of helplessness felt almost a year ago, when I couldn’t identify what was nagging me.

Well, this time I nailed it.

“Getting angry isn’t really like releasing the built-up pressure in a steam engine; it’s far more like exercising a muscle group. Every time you give in to the desire to lose it, you strengthen your “anger muscles”; every time you resist the urge, you weaken them.”….
“So perhaps it’s time to stop preaching the gospel of expression, and revisit the much-maligned virtues of repression.”

“Anger” and “getting angry” are not the same thing.
Anger is just a feeling – and, hence, a source of ‘energy’ – while ‘getting angry’ is the manner in which we allow it, consciously or unconsciously, to take us over.
I fully agree that ‘getting angry’ only worsens the situation only I’m afraid that ‘resisting the urge’ isn’t any better. In fact that would be no different from tightening your arse because you don’t want to fart in public.
The problem is not solved, not at all, only postponed. You still need to relieve yourself.
By widening Freud’s concept of repression to encompass more feelings than the simple embarrassment we might find a reason to continue to look for a manner in which to ‘release that built up pressure’.
Only now we are faced with a new problem, since we’ve already agreed that ‘getting angry’ is not the best thing to do.
Freud, again, to the rescue.
How about widening another one of his concepts, sublimation?
How about learning to express, this time consciously, our intense negative feelings in a socially acceptable, and hence a lot more effective, manner?
Tags , , , , , , ,
Categories Choices we make, cooperation, effective communication, freedom, Mindset, Mutual Respect, Psychology, Trust

Section 211

April 16, 2016 //
0

section 211-1

section 211-2

Yoshida Kenko, Tsure-Zure Gusa

Tags ,
Categories Choices we make, Frames of mind, freedom, limited rationality, Mutual Respect, Psychology, The kind of world we live in

O problema de atitudine

April 15, 2016 //
0

Aceasta postare este, deocamdata, o ciorna.

Pana la un moment dat sistemul de termoficare din Bucuresti a functionat, cel putin din punctul de vedere al ‘consumatorilor’, aproape ireprosabil. In apartamente era cald iar apa calda curgea tot timpul fierbinte. Iar pretul platit de populatie pentru acest ‘lux’ era cat se poate de accesibil. Singura chestie mai neplacuta era ‘revizia anuala’ – apa calda ‘se intrerupea’ pentru 2-3 saptamani – numai ca asta se intampla vara, adica exact atunci cand puteai face dus si cu apa rece.

Lucrurile au inceput sa se strice pe la sfarsitul anilor ’70.
Mai intai apa calda cu program, doar dimineata si seara. Apoi au restrictionat si caldura.
Iar cel mai ciudat, cel putin pentru mine, a fost faptul ca cei mai napastuiti erau chiar muncitorii, adica exact cei de la care se revendicau comunistii.Programul de apa calda fusese conceput in asa hal incat cei care lucrau in schimbul 1 se spalau dimineata cu apa inghetata – apa calda venea abia pe la 7 jumate iar ei trebuiau sa fie in fabrica la ora aia – iar cei care lucrau in schimbul 2 se culcau nespalati (sau inghetati, dupa preferinte) pentru ca apa calda se oprea pe la 9 jumate, zece, adica exact atunci cand ieseau ei de pe portile fabricilor.

In conditiile astea, si mai ales dupa ce lumea a inceput sa dardaie in propriile case, nu a fost decat o problema de timp pana cand sa apara o descriere mai ‘glumeata’ a fenomenului:

“Sistemul de termoficare este alcatuit din calorifere, tevi si centrale termice. Prin toate acestea circula apa. Aceasta se incalzeste in calorifere, apoi este pompata prin tevi si astfel energia termica ajunge la centrala, unde trebuie sa fie cald”.

Iar lucrurile au mers in felul acesta pana in 1989.

Cam acelasi lucru se intampla acum in sistemul bancar.

La prima vedere treaba bancilor ar fi sa faca legatura dintre cei care au bani, dar nu stiu ce sa faca, deocamdata, cu ei si cei care au, simultan, nevoie de bani si o suficient de buna perspectiva de a-i inapoia. In ipoteza asta banii care raman bancilor – diferenta dintre dobanzile active si cele pasive – ar fi recompensa pentru efortul lor de a organiza colectarea banilor de la deponenti, de a evalua bonitatea celor creditati precum si pentru abilitatea lor de a adecva dobanzile pasive cu ce se intampla pe piata si dobanzile active cu riscul prezentat de fiecare dintre cei creditati.
La o privire mai atenta observam ca, datorita consecintelor provocate de ‘principiul rezervelor fractionare‘, rolul sistemului bancar este mult mai complex decat atat.In loc sa ramana un simplu ‘broker de bani’, cum ar parea la prima vedere, sistemul bancar devine, in realitate, ‘creator de bani’. Iar lucrurile se complica prin faptul ca banii apar prin doua izvoare diferite.

Inainte de a trece mai departe simt nevoia sa fac cateva comentarii despre natura a ceea ce sunt, in realitate, banii. Si nu ma refer aici la diferenta dintre hard currency – adica aur, si fiat money – banii ‘tramway’ aflati astazi in circulatie.

Multa lume, inclusiv majoritatea economistilor, considera banii ca fiind un fel de marfa.
Eu, in calitate de inginer convertit in sociolog, consider ca banii sunt cu totul si cu totul altceva. Si anume ‘incredere formalizata’.

Va continua.

Tags ,
Categories aici sunt banii dumneavoastra, autoritarism, banii ca scop, cadre mentale, psihologie, rationalitate limitata, respect mutual

Language as a negociation medium

April 14, 2016 //
0

First and foremost language is perceived as a communication medium.

As such it needs clarity and consistency, otherwise information could not have been reliably exchanged and or preserved through its use.

But language is used for many other purposes than for simply ‘translating’ raw data. Where to find a certain object or how to execute a certain task.
We use it to convey sentiment – the way we are affected by the raw data that has become known to us, and to communicate our particular understanding of things. Our point of view about what has happened around us.
Furthermore we use it to convince people. To do things or to accept our points of view.

All these different uses involve a considerable amount of negotiation.

Regarding immediate goals – the things we are negotiating about, but also some that is taking place ‘under the table’ and involves the continuous fine tuning of the instruments used during the negotiating process. The words themselves.

These negotiation instruments – the language itself, in fact, have to be constantly re-calibrated for two rather obvious reasons.
For starters, the reality around us – and our understanding of it – is changing constantly.
Secondly, every negotiation involves a degree of ‘shade’. In fact that ‘shade’ is exactly the space where ‘change’ happens, where the positions of the two negotiators overlap and where the two can swap ideas.
If words would be rigidly precise than we’d have to invent new ones every time reality changes, no matter how minutely. Also whenever our understanding about things deepens, no matter how shallowly.
Simultaneously, too much ‘linguistic precision’ would kill not only poetry and our ability to convey our real feelings to other human beings but would also gravely impair our ability to influence each-other. Could you imagine how our life would be if a polite intervention would sound exactly like an SMS message of if a marriage proposal would be similar a requisition order?

More about how the linguistically mediated interplay between us has brought about our own self-awareness can be found here:

Humberto Maturana, The Origin and Conservation of Self-consciousness.

Tags , , , , ,
Categories Choices we make, collective identity, cooperation, effective communication, limited rationality, Mutual Respect, Psychology

Section 172

April 12, 2016 //
0

 

section 172

Yoshida Kenko, Tsure-Zure Gusa

I just can’t make up my mind about this.
Is it the figment of an idealist monk’s imagination, the factual description of how things happened in Medieval Japan or a wise advice coming from a great teacher?

Tags ,
Categories altruism, Choices we make, collective identity, cooperation, Frames of mind, limited rationality, Mutual Respect, Psychology, The kind of world we live in

Why Is Circumcision So Popular in America?

April 11, 2016 //
0

Matthew Tontonoz's avatarMatthew Tontonoz

The recent decision by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to endorse circumcision as a prophylactic measure against disease has once again drawn media attention to America’s most controversial surgery. In draft guidelines issued in December, the CDC emphasized that the most up-to-date medical science indicates clear health benefits of circumcision—including a 50%-60% reduced risk of female-to-male HIV transmission, a 30% reduced risk of transmission of the human papilloma virus (HPV), and lower risk of urinary tract infections during infancy. On the basis of these data, the CDC is recommending that health care workers counsel uncircumcised adolescent boys and men, as well as the parents of newborn males, on the potential benefits and risks of circumcision. The guidelines are currently undergoing a 45-day review period, during which the CDC is actively soliciting feedback.

According to the CDC, 80% of American males are circumcised. According to the CDC, roughly 80% of American men are circumcised.

The CDC guidelines follow similar…

View original post 3,137 more words

Categories Uncategorized

Taxes as a cost.

April 5, 2016 //
2

The ‘Panama Papers’ rekindled the public interest in the subject of ‘what legitimate goal could anyone have in setting up a company in a fiscal paradise?’.

Taxes, stupid!

Actually it’s quite simple.

Let’s pretend you are an alien from the outer space who has a business idea backed up by enough capital and you want to put it in practice somewhere on Earth. Aren’t you going to shop around for the best environment you might find? So that your business would have optimal conditions to grow? And when the business ripens wouldn’t you want to be able to cash on it – and end up with as much money as possible?

Rather conflicting demands, isn’t it?

First you want an ‘operational base’ with relatively low costs but secure and full of whatever amenities your business might need in order to thrive. Next you’ll need fast access to a market where to sell your wares. Last but not least it would be important for you to incorporate your business in such a way/place that you’ll end up pay the least amount of tax, both while operating the business and after the cash out moment.

While all these are legitimate demands there are a right and a wrong way to meet them.

I’ll refrain myself to discussing exclusively about the tax part, the rest being relatively easy to balance.

In this respect you can choose to incorporate the business in the same place you have selected for your operational base and pay whatever taxes are due in that place, under the rationale that those taxes cover the cost of doing business there and are nothing but a compensation for benefiting from the conditions present there at the time. After all, when you have chosen a particular place as the home of your business you have entered into an informal arrangement with that place. It lets you make good use of whatever is there to be used – exactly the things that convinced you to select that particular place, and expects you to fulfill your side of the bargain. Provide enough compensation so that that place can continue to be a good place to conduct business and, if possible, improve itself. Pay the local taxes.

Or, equally legitimate, use two different places for each thing. Organize your operational base where it would work best and incorporate your business in a place where you’ll be able to pay as little tax as possible.

And here’s the catch. No matter where you incorporate your business you’ll still have to pay some taxes in the place you have chosen as your operational base.

Then why bother?!? you might legitimately ask.
Since this is not an accounting dissertation I’ll just tell you that there might be serious financial advantages in making this choice, not the least of them having to do with the cash out moment.

And this is the very point where some people get greedy. They try to avoid altogether the taxes tied to the ‘operational base’ – by employing various semi, or even completely i-legal stratagems, and by doing so completely transform the very nature of the entire operation.

From one of fiscal optimization to one of money laundering.

There are a lot of rationalizations for this course of action. From ‘the state is a thief that uses force in order to part me from the fruit of my efforts!’ to ‘why give it to the state since the money will be squandered by the inefficient government?’.

Now let’s please remember where we started from.
OK, you are not an ‘alien from the outer space’ but what’s stopping you from conducting your business where ever you want on the face of this Earth? (My bad, this question is not valid for exactly everybody, there still are countries that don’t allow for people, or capital, to exit freely, but I’m sure you get my drift)
Oh, you like it where you are but you hate paying taxes and/or you’re disgusted by the way the government handles its finances!

Then let me remind you of two things.

First, you probably live in a democracy. Speak up. Make your concerns known. Loudly. Make sure you are listened to. Vote wisely.

Secondly, you are probably fed up not only by the fact that in your country taxes are really high but also by how little you get back in return.
Well… that’s because there are so many people who do not pay their fair share and that your government has to take more from those who do pay in order to make the ends meet.

Savvy?

iceland prime minister resigns over Panama papers

Tags , , , ,
Categories authoritarianism, Choices we make, collective identity, cooperation, corruption, democracy, effective communication, Frames of mind, Money as goal, Mutual Respect, politics, The kind of world we live in

Sistemul bancar, o necunoscuta?

April 5, 2016 //
0

Recentul sondaj cu privire la legea ‘darii in plata’, si mai ales modul in care este comentat de presa, releva faptul ca majoritatea ‘consumatorilor’ nu prea inteleg care e treaba cu bancile si ca prea multi dintre cei care stiu se fac ca ploua.

“Majoritatea respondenților s-a pronunțat împotrivă ca beneficiarii legii să fie cei care și-au cumpărat mai multe case/terenuri și au dificultăți, fiind indicați ca beneficiari ai legii numai cei care au o singură casă (81%). De altfel, 89% dintre români consideră că este bine să existe o lege care să ajute persoanele fizice care au luat un credit și se află în dificultate financiară”, se menționează într-un comunicat al ARB.

Comunitatea bancară din România reiterează că se impune devansarea termenului de intrare în vigoare a Legii 151/2015 privind procedura insolvenței persoanelor fizice.”

Teoria spune ca rolul bancilor este relativ simplu.
Ca orice intreprindere comerciala, acestea supravietuiesc doar in masura in care reusesc sa se faca folositoare clientilor lor.
In cazul bancilor moderne serviciile ‘vandute’ acestora pot fi impartite in doua categorii: fundamentale si accesorii.
Cele accesorii fiind facilitarea transferului de fonduri si tot ceea ce are de a face cu chestia asta.
Pe vremuri mai era vorba si de asigurarea protectiei banilor numai ca acest aspect a cazut in desuetudine. Avand in vedere comisioanele de retragere si dobanzile pasive extrem de mici este mai ieftin sa inchiriezi o caseta de valori decat sa tii banii in banca, cel putin pe termene relativ scurte.

Si iata ca am ajuns la rolul fundamental al bancilor.
Sa ia cu imprumut bani de la cei care nu au ce face, momentan, cu ei si sa-i dea, tot cu imprumut, celor care au, acum, nevoie SI reusesc sa-i convinga pe oficialii bancii ca vor fi in stare sa returneze, la termen, respectivele fonduri.
Remarcati ca nu am facut nicaieri vorbire despre ce fel de clienti este vorba – persoane fizice sau juridice.

Ei bine, in momentul actual bancile fac aceasta diferenta.

In afara de faptul ca persoanele fizice platesc alte comisioane si primesc alte dobanzi pasive fata de persoanele juridice.

In realitate persoanele fizice sunt discriminate de banci in mod groaznic.

Sa luam cazul cuiva care se hotaraste sa intreprinda ceva si ia credit ca persoana juridica. Incepe operatiunea si, la un moment dat, totul se duce dracului. Ei bine, firma da faliment, investitorul pierde ce bani a bagat acolo – de obicei toti, iar banca mai recupereaza ceva, daca mai poate. Iar investitorul ramane fara nici un fel de datorii si chiar cu obrazul curat.
Bine, vorbim aici de ‘cazul banal’ in care nimeni dintre cei implicati nu a savarsit vreo ilegalitate – atunci cazul se schimba fundamental.

Daca acelasi investitor are proasta inspiratie sa incerce aceiasi operatiune pe persoana fizica – din diverse motive, le discutam mai tarziu, atunci s-ar putea ca acesta sa-si blesteme zilele. Daca operatiunea nu-i iese, chiar daca el nu are nici o culpa in chestia asta, acesta va trebui totusi sa returneze bancii toata suma.

Chiar si in conditiile in care ar functiona legea falimentului individual – ceea ce inca nu este cazul, situatiile ar fi complet diferite. Dupa declararea falimentului firmei investitorul este ‘spalat’ de orice in timp ce dupa declararea falimentului personal individul mai are multe de tras.

In anumite situatii diferenta asta este pe deplin justificata. De exemplu in cazul unui imprumut de nevoi personale sau a datoriilor facute pe cardul de credit.

Dar nu este in nici un fel justificata in situatia unui credit ipotecar. Care este similar pana la identificare cu un credit acordat unei persoane juridice.
Persoana juridica garanteaza cu capitalul social si cu celelalte active ale sale in timp ce persoana fizica garanteaza cu bunul supus ipotecii. Iar banca, inainte de a vira banii, analizeaza cu atentie atat valoarea, si perspectiva acesteia, bunului ipotecat precum si posibilitatile viitoare ale creditatului – atat persoana fizica cat si juridica, de a restitui creditul.

Diferenta de abordare se vede cu ochiul liber.
Unde mai este raspunderea bancii pentru due-dilligence inainte de acordarea creditului unuei persoane fizice? In ce fel mai putem spune ca cei doi sunt parteneri egali in contract?

In situatia in care creditul este acordat unei persoane juridice banca isi preia, in mod efectiv, partea ei de risc. Daca nu a apreciat bine valoarea gajurilor sau perspectivele planului de afaceri banca are mari sanse sa ‘o ia in barba’ – chiar daca cei implicati se comporta perfect onest.
In cazul unui credit ipotecar acordat unei persoane fizice, cel putin deocamdata, banca nu isi asuma nici un fel de raspundere. Indiferent de orice, acesta va fi urmarit pana in panzele albe. Dispare total egalitatea care ar trebui sa existe intre parti.
Atat egalitatea dintre partile aflate in contract cat si egalitatea dintre clientii persoane fizice si clientii persoane juridice.

Iar faptul ca ‘oamenii de rand’ sunt intrebati ‘ce opinie au despre chestia asta’ este o actiune interesanta din punct de vedere sociologic dar irelevanta din punct de vedere rational, economic.

Da, intr-adevar, nu este ‘frumos’ sa fie iertati de datorii cei care s-au gandit sa faca ‘dezvoltari imobiliare’ pe persoana fizica cu scopul de a scapa de impozite.
Numai ca treaba asta nu are logica. Nici economica si nici legala.
Fenomenul trebuie controlat cu ajutorul legislatiei despre ‘faptele de comert’, nu pe baza vre unor considerente de ordin moral.
Ca sa nu mai vorbesc despre imposibilitatea de a face diferenta intre cei care ‘nu pot plati’ si cei care ‘pot plati dar nu vor’!

Tags , , , , , ,
Categories aici sunt banii dumneavoastra, alegerile pe care le facem, an electoral, banii ca scop, cadre mentale, economie, Hazard moral, Justitie sociala, psihologie, rationalitate limitata, respect reciproc, Tara din care traim

What’s going on there?

April 3, 2016 //
3
Us electoral sinopsis, re-edited

Favorability: People in the News, Gallup, April 2, 2016

Clinton vs Sanders, April 2, 2016

Source: AP

So, it looks like that the concerned Democrats – those who bothered to show up for the preliminaries, and specially the ‘super delegates’, are going to send Hilary Clinton to compete on the national stage, despite her constant ‘negative favorability’ and despite the fact that Sanders is constantly improving his chances – both favorability and ‘never heard of’ scores are slightly better now than they were at the start of the year. Furthermore, Sanders is the one who can ‘grow naturally’ – simply by making himself known – while Clinton needs to convince the voters that their erstwhile opinion about her was mistaken. An almost impossible feat, given the length of her public career…

republican pack, April 2, 2016

Source: AP

On the Republican side things are even stranger.
Trump gathers more and more delegates while his ‘negative favorability score’ becomes slightly even ‘more negative’, Cruz gets a second lease on life despite his ‘unfavorable’ score increasing dramatically while Kasich, the least favored by the hard core Republicans, climbs nationally from +4% to + 18% in 4 short months. And if you look closely almost all new opinions on him, those that have been developed during the last 4 months, have been in his favor.

One of my Republican friends said “I can’t speak for the other candidates, but people support Cruz because they believe in what he believes, and feel that sometimes it’s more important to stand up for what’s right, rather than what’s popular.“.
OK, I can understand that. The despondent and/or exasperated use Trump as a banner for their state of mind while the hard core, value toting, Republicans hope that by backing Cruz they will somehow bolster those values.

But let’s see what some ‘significant Republicans’ have to say about the matter.

Scott Walker, Governor for Wisconsin and ex candidate, being interviewed on WTMJ’s Charlie Sykes Show:
““If you’re someone who is uneasy with the frontrunner, right now there’s really only one candidate—I think if you’re just looking at the numbers objectively, Ted Cruz, Sen. Cruz, is the only one who’s got a chance other than Donald Trump to win the nomination,” Walker said in the Wednesday interview on WTMJ’s Charlie Sykes Show. “Statistically, my friend Gov. Kasich can not.””

Then there is Lindsay Graham, Republican Senator for South Carolina and ex candidate who endorsed Jeb Bush when dropping from the race:
“Graham said there are other candidates he likes better, but he doesn’t think they can win. “I prefer John Kasich; Cruz is not my first pick by any choice,” the South Carolina senator explained. “But I don’t see how John Kasich can mount the opposition that Ted Cruz can to stop Donald Trump from getting 1,237” (the number of delegates needed to secure the nomination).
Graham has made it abundantly clear that he really doesn’t like Cruz at all. In January, he said Cruz has “exhibited behavior in his time in the Senate that make it impossible for me to believe that he could bring this country together,” adding that choosing between him and Trump is “like being shot or poisoned — what does it really matter?” Last month, he joked about Cruz’s general unpopularity among his colleagues, saying, “If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you.””

The way I see it, these guys, the Republican ‘apparatchiks’, are more concerned about derailing Trump than with promoting the more suited candidate among the trio. Suited for Presidency, that is.

sansele candidatilor

source: Huffpost Pollster

So, according to the polls compiled by Huffington Post, Sanders would lick the entire Republican field – if allowed to compete, while the Republican candidates are stacked, at least for now, according to the ‘who has the least chances on the national front’ criterion.

?!?

Does any of this make any sense? Any at all?

Here’s my Republican friend again: “In the case of Clinton, despite her unfavorability in the polls, there’s a sense in the Democratic Party that it’s her “turn.” ”
Some others think she is ‘in cahoots’ with the ‘big business’… “Family charities collected donations from companies she promoted as secretary of state“… Coming from Wall Street Journal this is a powerful allegation indeed…

But at least in this camp things are unfolding, lets say, ‘naturally’. The guys with vested interests (the super delegates, for example) are acting according to those interests while the rank and file Democrats are slowly (too slowly, maybe?) finding out what’s going on.

What really baffles me is what’s happening on the Republican side.

Some of the rank and file have adopted ‘the Donald’ as their mascot despite the obvious fact that he doesn’t belong, at all, in politics. He might have been a successful business man – read chock full of money, but the way he made that money disqualifies him from holding office. Does ‘eminent domain‘ ring any bells with you? Not to mention his antics on the public stage: “Excuse me”, ‘I’m the best thing that could happen to America!’
Are all these people delusional or are they so fed up with what’s currently going on in America that they can’t see the trees because of the forest (is on fire)?

Some others have gone ‘back to basics’ and try to revive what they consider to be the ‘sound Republican values’ – I’m speaking now about those who support Ted Cruz, if you didn’t figure that out by yourselves.
But what are these ‘hard core Republican values’?
How come some of Cruz’s followers are blaming Lincoln for being the first ‘statist’ in American history – not for abolishing slavery but for imposing that measure by force to the unwilling Southern States.
And how come those values have come to be embodied in someone so ‘popular’ among his Senatorial colleagues that “If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you.” ?

And isn’t it strange that so many Republicans are so mesmerized that they are willing to give up almost any chance of electing a Republican President?
OK, I can understand that way of thinking being used by ‘lay people’. But what is the real meaning of ‘pundits’ rallying behind the ‘value laden’ Cruz when it is obvious that Kasich is in a way better position on the national front?

Could it be that these pundits are more concerned about their own careers than with the fate of the Republican party? And even about the Republican values?
Farfetched?
Are you sure? Don’t you see that by energizing their constituencies into a frenzy they are simply building Republican (local) fortresses for their own use, leaving the rest of the (national) Republicans out to dry?

more stuff

Well, I was under the impression that Conservatism was about maintaining a common way of life, not about conserving privileges.

I still believe that.

Tags , , , , , ,
Categories Choices we make, collective identity, cooperation, democracy, effective communication, limited rationality, manipulation, politics, Psychology, Social justice, The kind of world we live in

Ouroboros

March 31, 2016 //
0

ouroboros

Ever since people have become aware of their own awareness philosophers have entertained opposing views as to what is more important: matter or soul.

The materialists point out that everything, including us, is made of matter and, hence, nothing would be possible without it while the idealists maintain that everything that exists is nothing but a projection of our own thoughts.

As an engineer who had designed (material) objects before actually building them I find it strangely rewarding that both these fiercely opposing sides are, simultaneously, right.

Just as we are simultaneously made of flesh and animated by souls.

If you disagree, just pinch yourself.
Now tell me, ‘did it hurt?’.
Who felt it? Your flesh or your soul?
And who’s able to meditate about the whole experience? How come are we not only able to feel things but also to think about them? Then to communicate, efficiently, among ourselves about our relatively different experiences?
Surely, there must be something shared amongst us, something that constitutes not only a medium for our communication but also a common base for our experiences.

I’m going to use ‘reality’ to designate that commonality, irrespective of the fact that reality is a two tiered thing.

A material reality, something that exists per se – according to its own, natural, set of laws, and a social reality, something that we, the people, have agreed upon – either willingly or by omission to protest, efficiently, against it.

These two tiers of reality are no longer independent.

In fact they have never been. The social reality has grown, as a bud, ‘on top’ of the material reality. And this has happened according to an opportunity enshrined in the natural laws that govern the very existence of the material reality.

Now, after its birth, social reality has started to alter the material one.
In two ways.
By developing an ever more sophisticated understanding of the inner workings we gradually discover inside the material realm and, subsequently, by using various aspects of that (inherently limited) understanding in order to effect voluntary change.

I’m going to make a brief pause here.
Social reality is a human construct, one that came to life fueled by our own volition and shaped by the sum of the choices we’ve made during our entire history.
The mere fact that we are also ‘animals’ – and have changed the world around us by our mere, and long time unwitting, existence, is something else. Related to our social existence but nevertheless different from it.

What I’m trying to say is that by coming of age – by becoming aware of our own awareness, we are currently adding a third dimension to that Ouroboros thing.
The ‘serpent’ has been ‘eating its tail’ from the very beginning of the world. New stars have been born from the dust left after the older ones have exploded and decaying organic matter is what used to feed our crops until a few short years ago – and still does for the organic farmers.
But now, that we’ve become aware of the entire process – and of our contribution to it, we are in a position to influence its direction.

We can turn it into a vicious or a virtuous circle.

Which will it be?

who needs what

And please, please, don’t make this confusion.
People do, as for now at least, need ‘nature’ in order to lead what we call/feel to be a normal life.
But nature also somehow needs us. Otherwise it wouldn’t have allowed us to become what we are today.

Until now, during our development, we haven’t broken, not significantly at least, any natural laws. Otherwise we wouldn’t have reached this stage – according to Ernst Mayr’s interpretation of  Darwin’s teachings, anyway.
‘Evolution is not about the survival of the fittest but about the demise of the unfit.‘
We’re not dead yet, are we?

Let’s keep it that way, lest we’re gonna be replaced.

Fast.

 

Tags , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories Choices we make, Culture, effective communication, limited rationality, physis, The kind of world we live in
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »