Avem un pod.

Aveam un pod… Aveam 216 m de pod, din beton, care permiteau traversarea Siretului în dreptul localității Luțca.

Acum mai avem doar o grămadă de moloz.

Și multe întrebări…

Cine să ne răspundă?
Specialiștii, prin intermediul presei.
Cel puțin deocamdată… până când va apărea un raport oficial. Despre (pe) care (îl) vom citi tot în presă…

Și cum se întâmplă treaba asta?
Ziaristul sună un specialist iar acesta acceptă – sau nu, să își spună părerea. Ziaristul își notează/întregistrează informațiile, redactează materialul – eventual cere o reacție din partea specialistului, după care articolul ajunge pe masa secretarului de redacție. Unde capătă titlul definitiv și ultimele retușuri.

Nu pot să mă pronunț mai mult pentru că nu am fost acolo, am văzut doar fotografiile pe care le prezintă presa și nu sunt concludente.”

După care urmează circul…
Se apucă câte unul să citească. Și să pună întrebări….

Articolul este … banal. Nici nu muge, nici nu rage. Nici măcar nu știu câți cititori ajung la capătul textului…
Unde dau cu nasul de disclaimerul citat mai sus.
Acesta fiind momentul în care cei cu memoria bună își aduc aminte de cuvintele cu care începe articolul:

Este expertiza făcută de decanul facultății de construcții…

Pe bune?!?
Atâta vreme cât decanul cu pricina a simțit nevoia să sublinieze, iar autorul articolului să consemneze, „nu pot să mă pronunț mai mult pentru că nu am fost acolo” cum mai poate cineva să catalogheze considerațiile făcute de respectivul specialist ca fiind o „expertiză”?!?

Și după aia se scarpină câte unii în cap încercând să înțeleagă ‘fenomenul’ prin care ‘specialist’ a devenit subiect de bășcălie iar din ce în ce mai mulți oameni cumpără ziare doar pentru a avea pe ce să curețe cartofi…

The human head works like an organic computer.
It has a ‘hard’ component. Which is actually soft. The brain tissue.
And many levels of ‘software’.

You might want to skip this introductory part if you’re not familiar with/interested in how computers work
The ‘machine code’. The inner workings of the brain. The ‘things’ which continue to function when we’re not at all conscious. Breathing, coordination of the of various organs which keep us alive, etc.
‘Assembly language’. The level which works on ’emotions’/’feelings’. A not yet conscious baby suckles when hungry and cries when uncomfortable. A patient with dementia is not a ‘fully functional human being’ but can learn/retain many human functions.
‘High-level language’. Human conscience. While the ‘machine code’ and the ‘assembly language’ levels run in the ‘background’, human conscience constantly evaluates ‘what’s going on’ and decides ‘the next move’.

Humans, like computers, work a lot better when ‘put together’.
Each individual’s human conscience develops only ‘in concert’ with other people while the most powerful computer chip is ‘dead’ before the operating system has been installed. A (mature) individual human being might survive in isolation, but not for very long. A computer is completely useless if not ‘put to work’ by an ‘operator’. Alone or ‘inside’ a network.

Computers can ‘cooperate’ because we made them so.
Even if using various operating systems and communication protocols, we – humans, have developed them – computers, in such a way that we can communicate with them and they can communicate among themselves.

For humans to be able to communicate among themselves, they need a common language.

Computers do not need to coordinate among themselves. We’ve made them, instructed them, in such a manner that they (still) do what they are told.

For humans to be able to coordinate themselves – to act in a congruent manner, they need to use – or at least to acknowledge, the same referential system.

To think ‘alike’ or, at least, to acknowledge that ‘those who do not think like me/us might have a point’.

Historically speaking, humankind has achieved ‘coherence’ through the use of ‘religion’.

‘Reality’ – which was far more complex ‘before’ simply because the unknown is the place where fantasy is free to give birth to anything, had to be tamed. Translated into ‘operable’ things. Into generally accepted concepts. Into generally accepted ‘myths’.
And for as long as a given set of ‘foundational myths’ had maintained their ‘magic’, the religion which had been developed starting from those myths had continued to be ‘the coalescing factor’ for the community which believed those myths. Or, at least, behaved as if those myths were still ‘valid’.
Whenever those myths had failed – or were no longer enough, the corresponding religion had been quickly replaced. By another.
This was the heave-ho approach. Wholesale replacement of the referential system, which is both ‘wasteful’ and time-consuming.

In time, people have learned that it was far more ‘efficient’ to pay ‘lip service’ to each-other’s opinions
when the other side was too ‘strong’ for outright ‘coercion’. Read “conversion”.

When/where things had become ‘ripe’, some people had invented ‘science’.

Science, like religion, is a manner of thinking. A manner of translating reality into something which can be managed by the human brain.

Religion relies on a set of ‘axioms’. Which had been considered true – by those who had established any given religion, at the moment when that particular religion had been established. When freshly acquired knowledge diverges too far – and too convincingly, from the until then generally accepted ‘founding myths’, the religion which depends on those myths conserving their ‘allure’ is abandoned in totum.

Science, on the other hand, relies on a different set of ‘beliefs’.
Derived from the basic tenet of the Judaeo-Christian creed and no less axiomatic but still different.
The point being that instead of trying to fit any new information into the previously held set of ‘teachings’ science mandates the diligent use of the ‘scientific method’ whenever we attempt to evaluate any ‘piece of knowledge’:

Reproducibility: ‘do I find/learn the same thing each and every time I examine this phenomenon/class of objects using this particular procedure?

Peer review: Does everybody else who examines the same subject, using the same procedure, reach the same results? In earnest?

Falsifiability: Does the subject of our musing have a correspondent in reality? Are we concerned about something which has consequences? Can this particular ‘piece of knowledge’ be proven wrong? Or, at least, incomplete?

The three paragraphs above have described the scientific method yet I still have to mention the Judaeo-Christian belief without which science makes absolutely no sense.

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, and over all the earth itself and every creature that crawls upon it“.

According to the Old Testament, God had made man to “rule… over all the earth itself”. Which means that God was going to refrain himself from performing other miracles. The Earth being entrusted to the rule of man means that man was going to ‘see’ the same thing each and every time he was looking at the same thing. From that moment, ‘things’ were going to ‘happen’ in a ‘rigorous’ manner. No more ‘hanky-panky’, no more divine intrusion. From then on, things were going to happen according to the ‘law’. ‘Regularly’, hence ‘reproduciblely’. In a consistent manner!
Again according to the Old Testament, ‘God had made man in His image’. Hence all men – and women, had been created equal. In the same image, that is. And all men – and women, harbor something ‘special’. A spark of divinity! They have all been created in the image of God itself, hence they all should respect each-other. And each-others’ opinions! Hence ‘peer-review’.
All that remains to be ‘explained away’ is the small matter of falsifiability. Of science concerning itself only with verifiable subjects. Which brings us back what was the man supposed to rule over. ‘The earth itself’. The realm of reality. Man – men and women, were supposed to rule over ‘reality’, not over other people.
They were supposed to concern themselves with ‘evident’/measurable things found ‘on earth’, not with ‘fancy’ figments of ‘unaccountable imagination’.

If both religion – well, at least the Judaeo-Christian one, and science depend on the same axiom/fundamental myth, then where’s the difference?
As I mentioned before, whenever fresh knowledge contradicts ‘irreparably’ the before held religious convictions, the community who upholding those convictions reaches a ‘passage rite’. Has to either ‘close its eyes’ – actually denying reality, or change its religion. The very definition of the ‘heave-ho’ approach.
For those using the ‘scientific method’, things are a lot simpler. And smoother. For them, reality suffers a constant change. Piece-meal instead of wholesale. ‘Easy-does’ it instead of ‘gung ho’.

One other thing before I let you go.

“If you’re not a scientist, and disagree with scientists about science, that’s not disagreement! You’re just wrong!”

Well, this is the most unscientific thing I’ve read for a long time.
What comes next makes absolute sense. If you apply the scientific method to “Science is not truth. Science is finding the truth.” you determine that the message is consistent, agreed among the peers and falsifiable. Science can be misused and, potentially, the very meaning of the word can change in time. For now, the generally accepted meaning of ‘science’ is, indeed, ‘the path towards truth’. And, by definition, all scientific knowledge is considered to be ‘improvable’. Hence forever ‘not yet true’.
Coming back to the ‘disagreement’ part, this is an obvious ‘sleigh of hand’. For starters, ‘scientists’ do not concern themselves with ‘science’. Each of them controls an area of expertise. Which is not the entire science…
Furthermore, what does it mean ‘you’re not a scientist’?!? You don’t have a formal accreditation? Anybody who uses the scientific method when examining the reality is a scientist, regardless of their credentials.
I presume the author meant well. There are quite a few people out there who are in the ‘business’ of sowing doubt. Who contradict whatever ‘starts their ire’. Who very ‘skillfully’ spin apparently convincing words about subjects of utmost importance. But if we want to remain true to our words, if we want to remain on the straight and narrow path to truth, we must convince our audience with arguments. We must un-spin those ‘words’ in a rigorous manner.
Using the very same set of ‘spinning skills’ downgrades us to ‘their’ level.
As the saying goes, ‘Don’t allow your opponents to drag you to their level of expertise. Remain on yours. Any attempt to beat the other guy using their weapons will, more often than not, yield the undesired result. For the obvious reason that they have used those weapons for far longer than you’.

Aflăm de pe internet:

Comentariu ‘la botul calului’:

Până la urmă, sunt două chestii diferite…

Ghiță a fugit peste graniță cu un sac de bani în spate. Că altfel n-avea ce să mănânce ‘dincolo’.

Nicușor Dan a trecut strada ca să scoată niște bani. De la bancomat. Cu copila-n brațe. Vorbind la telefon. În fugă…

Dacă se împiedica Sebastian Ghita… îl prindea Europolul.

Daca se împiedica Nicușor Dan, își rupea ceva copilul ăla nevinovat.

Dacă dădea cineva peste Ghița, primea o medalie. Sau măcar o citație pe unitate.

Dacă dădea vre-un șofer peste Dan… avea ceva de tras!

Dacă noi, cei care trebuie să tragem din 4 in 4 ani niște concluzii, nu vedem că diferențele astea sunt, de fapt, niste ‘trăsături de unire’ … ne merităm soarta!

Care e realitatea ‘din teren’:

Și încă ceva.
În principiu, nu am mare considerație pentru presa de scandal.
Sau, mai bine spus, pentru modul ‘scandalos’ în care ‘se face presă’ în zilele noastre.
Dar uite că așa mai aflăm și noi chestii interesante din viața aleșilor noștri…

This is the first time that I’ve read anything written by Daniel Kowalski. Here’s what I learned, about Kowalski, while reading his his essay about Marx.

I’m not sure that Kowalski had actually read the communist manifesto. And I’m sure that he didn’t understand much of it.

The point being that Marx described society as being composed of the ruling class – those who owned things and gave orders, the ‘doers’ – the qualified/skilled workers, those we currently describe as ‘middle class’, and the ‘underdogs’ – the lumpen-proletariat.

And if Marx hated anybody more than he hated the rulers… those people were the lumpen-proletariat! Because the lumpen-proletariat were so poor that they did everything the rulers asked them to do.

Let’s get to the ‘visionary’ part. Read carefully, the manifesto is crystal clear. Communism was not supposed to ‘dawn’ while Marx was still alive. For communism to become viable, the middle-class had to became poor. To loose their perks. To be reduced to ‘lumpen’ status. But since the middle class already had ‘conscience’ – was aware of its ‘value’, they were supposed to understand what was happening to them. And to revolt against those who were benefiting from the process.

In Marx’s vision, the impoverished middle class was supposed to become aware of its predicament, and only then to let itself be led into the new era of ‘eternal bliss’ by the “the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.” Also known as ‘communists’.

I’ll end up my comment drawing your attention to the growing wave of anti-capitalist propaganda which is being ‘vented’ over the internet.

The fact that Marx’s remedy for what he saw as the scourge of capitalism – inequality, was an absolute idiocy – the “workers’ dictatorship”, doesn’t erase the fact that Marx the prophet was right after all. The middle class is being squeezed out.

The communism has failed. Because it was based on dictatorship.

The current flavor of capitalism – increasingly monopolistic, will soon follow suit. Not because its capitalist nature but because of its monopolistic – aka dictatorial, dimension.

In my book – I have experimented both communism and democratic(ish) capitalism, there’s no real difference between the communist ‘one ideology solves all problems’ and the ‘greed is good’ mantra.
In practice, all we have is a single, uni-dimensional, idea forcefully being imposed upon all the people who happen to live in a place at the given moment. ‘Money/capital is bad’, hence it has to be abolished, versus ‘money/capital is everything’, hence it has to be enshrined.
I’m not a christian but I’m fully aware that ‘you shall not make yourself an idol’ is a very wise teaching. Specially when that idol is golden.

Am aflat pe FB, și apoi am verificat în presă – adică pe net, adus pe ‘fibra’ de RCS-RDS, că Digi l-a concediat pe CTP.

Reacțiile internauților – a celor din bula mea, a fost ‘vigilentă’.

(Nu-)(Î)mi place CTP, (dar) așa ceva nu se face!
Nu voi mai urmări acest post de știri.

OK, pot înțelege genul ăsta de răspuns. Cât se poate de adecvat, de altfel.
Mai ales că nu m-am mai uitat cam de mult la vre-un buletin de știri la tembelizor. Nu în limba română, în orice caz.

Și aici începe adevărata problemă.

Eu mă uit la BBC. Ascult RFI. Și mă dau pe net.
Nu prea rămân de din-afară…

La cât m-am uitat, cu câțiva ani în urmă și, expre’, aseară… Digi 24 e, de departe, cel mai civilizat post de știri în limba română. Restul…
Mai sunt, cei drept, telejurnale relativ civilizate la Pro-Tv și la TVR.
Doar că la capitolul televiziuni de știri… Digi e singura frecventabilă. Dintre cele cu o oarecare tracțiune… or mai fi și altele, dar nu am auzit eu de ele.

Și atunci?
Dacă singura televiziune civilizata de știri face așa ceva…
Poate că hotărâseră mai demult să ‘scape’ de CTP.
Poate că CTP-ul aflase de faptul că era deja pe făraș și a băgat ‘șopârla’ ca să nu rămână dator.
Indiferent de variantă, faptul că toată tevatura asta a avut loc în spatele siglei Digi 24 și în mijlocul singurei televiziuni de știri cât de cât civilizata de pe malurile Dâmboviței demonstrează, fără drept de apel, că noi avem o problemă!
Noi, nu Digi!

‘Piața’ noastră e informație este disfuncțională în ceea ce privește zona audio-vizuală.
La radio e mai mult miștocăreală iar la televizor…

If you really need to read the rest of the story, click on the picture above.

If you’re ready for the ‘next level’, consider this perspective:

We, the human species, have been ‘eating away’ the Earth, our home, ever since …
Now, that we’ve finally figured out we’re ‘trapped’ on a finite planet, we’re making analogies!
Conjuring the next generation to behave responsibly.

Why is this happening to me?

Because you’re alive, because of the previously made decisions and because of ‘hazard’.

You notice what’s happening around you – not necessarily to you, because you’re alive. A sensitive animal. And you try to make something out of it – to find meaning, because you are conscious. A conscious human being.

Everything around you – assuming you live in the civilized world, is man-made. The consequence of previously made decisions. The consequence of culture – string of accrued decisions, and the consequence of culturally influenced present day decisions. Decisions which are being made, by us, as we speak.

Your life, and everything in it, has been shaped by hazard.
You could have been born a slave somewhere a few centuries ago or you could have been born as the only child of Kim Il Sun.
You could have been born healthy – I hope you were, or you could have been the victim of a rare genetic abnormality.

We can’t, none of us, do anything about ‘hazard’.
We can’t change culture. But we can reinterpret it. Learn more from it than blindly following rules.
We can make better decisions.

And, for starters, we may decide to stop killing each-other. To stop hurting each-other. To stop bullying each-other.
NB. ‘Stop killing’ doesn’t mean give up defending ourselves. ‘Stop hurting’ doesn’t mean giving up.
‘Stop bullying’ doesn’t mean the bully has stopped bullying because the victim caved in.

What we really need to do is to stop all forms of aggression.

Putem negocia si cu stră-strănepoții lui Kim-Ir-Sen…
Toate negocierile astea vor avea același rezultat!

Dacă vrem să rupem cercul vicios, dacă vrem să evităm apariția unor noi Putini/Stalini/Zedongi, trebuie să înțelegem că Putin este consecința modului în care am negociat, noi, cu Stalin.
Că Xi este consecința modului în care noi am re-integrat China în lume. După ce am negociat acest lucru cu Mao Zedong.

Da, evident, orice război se încheie printr-o negociere.
Da, Macron are dreptate. O Rusie umilita va fi un partener de negociere mai dificil decât o Rusie care va reuși să-și salveze ‘fața’.
NB. Vorbim aici de Rusia, nu de Putin!
Rusia trebuie să găsească o cale cât mai onorabilă de ieșire din această situație.
Situație în care a fost pusă de Putin…
Că Rusia va ieși din această situație împreună cu Putin… sau fără… asta e treaba Rusiei.

Treaba noastră este să ne asigurăm că Rusia care va fi ieșit din această situație nu va mai reprezenta un pericol pentru noi.
Și asta nu pentru că Rusia va fi slabă!
Ci pentru că noi ne vom fi organizat astfel încât să nu mai fim la mâna Rusiei. Sau la mâna oricui altcuiva.

Suntem suficient de multi si de diferiți – Europa, America de Nord, Japonia, Australia, încât să putem face față oricăror provocări. Dacă vom reuși să devenim un exemplu pentru restul lumii…

Doar că înainte de a deveni un exemplu cu adevărat demn de urmat, avem mare nevoie să facem curățenie în curtea din spate!

‘Most people confuse liberty and democracy. They are not the same.’

Liberty and democracy are not the same indeed.

Like my left hand is not the same with my right one.

But I need both in order to lead what I consider to be a normal life.

Most people – specially if they get help, can survive without a hand. Or without either liberty or democracy.

But without both… without both hands or without both liberty and democracy… I’d be at somebody else’s mercy!

What kind of liberty is there under communist rule???’

You see, liberty has two ‘faces’. Two dimensions.
Three, actually, but I’ll be talking about only two of them in this post.

There is the ‘inner liberty’ and there is the ‘socially sanctioned liberty’.

Liberty itself is a human concept.
We have noticed something, wondered about it, named it and then attempted to understand it.
This was, and continues to be, a collective effort.

In some places ‘liberty’ had appeared ‘naturally’.
There was enough liberty naturally sloshing around, hence the circumstances were right for those who had happened to live there at the right time to notice it. Furthermore, the conditions had been right again for the entire community to be able to agree among themselves about the concept and about how to use it/put in practice their new intellectual achievement.

Other places have not been so lucky.
They had been close enough, geographically and socio-historically, to notice the ‘birth of liberty’ but their specific conditions were not ‘right enough’. Many people living there coveted liberty but the local conditions made it impossible for liberty to take hold.
In these places ‘inner liberty’ – individually assumed freedom, can be found a lo more easily than presumed by those unfamiliar with the local realities.

Yet other places had it even worse.
Initially on the path towards liberty – and democracy, they have somehow stumbled.
For whatever causes – internal and/or external, something went wrong. People became disappointed enough to give up not only democracy but also liberty. Including their own, individual inner freedom.

A somewhat intermediary situation constitutes the third abnormal quadrant.
The people involved have given up their liberty – partially, but those running the show continue to use (‘pretendingly’) democracy as a window dressing to hide their true intentions.

The last hundred years or so have been extremely relevant in this matter.
All communist regimes had fallen. Under their own weight.
Most fascist/nazi regimes are no longer with us. Had been so ‘arrogant’ – read self destructive, that their neighbors had to do something about them. Had created so much disruption around them that those whose very existence was endangered had been forced to spring into action.
‘Illiberal democracy’ is a rather new ‘development’. Would be fascist/nazi dictators don’t have all circumstances aligned to make their final move so they have to make do with what there is at their disposal. The local population is ‘despondent’ enough to pay attention to their arguments but not desperate enough to follow them into the ‘unknown’. Hence this oxymoronic abomination.

‘Illiberal democracy’…
On the other hand, the spin doctors promoting illiberal democracies hope to be able to reap the benefits of democracy – the population being ‘rather favorably disposed’ towards the government while having to pay less ‘lip service’ to individual human rights.
A balancing act, with no safety net, which is alluring to those reckless enough to attempt it but which will end up badly. Sooner rather than later.

But the most interesting ‘combination’ – for me, at least, is Anarchy.
In the sense that those who ‘swallow’ the lure are self delusional.
They have somehow convinced themselves that their, own, liberty somehow trumps the liberty of everybody else. They feel so strong, so immune to any outside influence, that they would willingly accept to live in a no rule environment. Without understanding that ‘no rule’ means ‘no holds barred’.
They actually don’t realize that unfettered liberty actually means ‘Each of us free against all others’.
This being the reason for which Anarchy, as a political arrangement, has never survived for long enough to be noticed. Except as a transitory phase.

Many people interpret Darwin’s Evolution as ‘the survival of the fittest’.
Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, made is crystal clear that ‘evolution is not as much about the survival of the fittest as it’s about the demise of the unfit. Read the book, it’s well worth the time. https://www.scribd.com/document/358382958/Ernst-Mayr-What-Evolution-is-PDF

The meme above had been shared by somebody who was convinced that “Covid is solely a mental disease programmed into the minds of the masses to further ingratiate themselves in their loving servitude to their slave master tyrants“.

The fact that we have so many, and so conflicting, views on such a simple natural law as the law of evolution means that… we don’t know shit!

Hence Samuel Adams was right.
Since we know basically nothing, none of us should have ‘authority’ over others. Each of us should be free. To do as they please. To follow exclusively the ‘laws of nature’.

Which one of them?
Darwin’s – as some of us have chosen to interpret, or Mayr’s?

‘Survival of the fittest’ or ‘The demise of the unfit’?
‘I’m stronger than you so move over’ or ‘If you don’t agree with our commonly shared values, please find another place to live?’
‘Free against all else’ or ‘free together with everybody else’?




%d bloggers like this: