We learn about what we call reality by
analyzing the information we acquire through our senses.

We.
We, the human people.
We, the conscious human people.
We, because nobody has ever been able to become conscious – as in aware of their own self, by their own. Alone…

Learn.
We are not the only ones who are able to learn.
Our dogs learn our ways. And we continuously learn about more and more living organisms being able to learn. And to remember what they have learned. To fine tune their behavior according to the circumstances into which they happen to live.

What we call reality.
First and fore-most, reality is a concept. We call it ‘reality’. And many other names…
Believers call it ‘god’, scientists call it ‘physical world’ and the scientists who happen to believe are convinced that by studying the reality they will eventually divine the will of the Lord.
The believers being convinced that whatever exists, is here because the Lord wished it into existence.
So, basically, the main difference between the believers and the nonbelievers is the fact that the believers are convinced that the ‘out-there’, the ‘source of it all’, has a conscience of it’s own. A will of it’s own…

By analyzing.
We have been able to build our conscience – our ability to ‘observe ourselves while observing other phenomena’ (Maturana, 2005), because we have a big enough brain, the ability to share complex and meaningful information using language and the ability to put in practice some of our wishes/thoughts through the use of our hands.
At a certain point in its evolution, human conscience has become sophisticated enough to need explanations. It was no longer satisfied with mere ‘connections’ – If… then…, it had started to wonder about why-s. ‘Why does this happen as it does?’ ‘Will it happen again tomorrow?’
Using our by then already established ability to speak up their minds, our ancestors shared among themselves these ‘anxieties’. Discussed them around the fire-place. Started to analyze. The reality. What they perceived to be real. The ‘thing’ which continuously generates the circumstances in which we – all of us, have to make do.

Information.
In order to analyze, the analyst – each and everyone of us, has to separate the meaningful information from the surrounding noise. In order to do that, we have started by coining the very concept of (useful/meaningful) information. As being different from ‘noise’. The difference consisting, obviously, in us being able to find its use and/or pinpoint its meaning.

We acquire.
Information is acquired on an individual basis. For an ‘event’ to become information, it has to be ‘noticed’ by an individual. It has not only to be sensed but also identified as useful/meaningful. Different from ‘noise’.
Which process of identification implying methods which had been agreed upon by the members of the community. Music would be a good example of how various groups of people make the difference between sublime/abhorrent and white-noise. While ‘use of language’ is a very poignant example of how people can both share information and mislead one-another.

Senses.
Everything that we know, had entered our mind through our senses.
Before setting it aside as information or discard it as noise, we have to get in contact with it as a sensation.
Or as a thought. A conjecture. A few pieces of information which put together have given birth, inside our individual mind, to new information. To ‘something else’ which passes the threshold into being information. At least according to our own mind…

Which transforms our minds into our famous sixth sense.
In the sense that our individual minds are capable of building ‘sensations’ on their own. Starting from information that has already been stashed in our memory.
Which brings us to the third reality.

We have – in the sense that we have agreed upon its existence, the surrounding reality. The things we – as in most of us, consider to be real. The mountains we climb, the air we breathe, the pebbles which happen to sneak into our shoes. The reality which is being studied by science. The reality to which we have access through our senses. Our minds and our sense enhancers – scientific instruments, included.

We also have the ‘out-there’. The things we know we’ll never be able to grasp. During our lives! The things our followers might be able to figure out…

And each of us has their own reality.
Individually built even if ‘carved’ from the same (type of) material as the reality shared by the rest of us.
Individually built even if using more or less the same (culturally accrued) methods.
Individually built even if neither of us is alone.

H.M. Romesin, 2005, The origin and conservation of self‐consciousness: Reflections on four questions by Heinz von Foerster

A planned after-thought.
Rumsfeld is both wrong and right. There are unknown unknowns but they are no longer unknown since we speak about them…
Which actually proofs the limits of our languaging.
The imprecision of the manner in which we gather, share and analyze information.

Am vrut să las următorul text pe post de comentariu.
Site-ul respectiv nu acceptă păreri.
Așa că am promovat comentariul la rang de postare.

Există vreo diferență între legea omenească și legea lui dumnezeu?

Da și nu.

Diferența dintre legea omenească și legea lui Dumnezeu, ca toate celelalte diferențe, există doar în mintea noastră.

Pentru simplul motiv că noi suntem cei care vedem diferențele. Noi am ‘născocit’ însuși conceptul de diferență. Moment care a fost relatat și în biblie. O carte scrisă de noi, oamenii.

„Şi a zis Domnul Dumnezeu: “Iată Adam s-a făcut ca unul dintre Noi, cunoscând binele şi răul. Şi acum nu cumva să-şi întindă mâna şi să ia roade din pomul vieţii, să mănânce şi să trăiască în veci!…” ”

Să revenim la diferența dintre cele două de legi.

Da.
Există fundamentaliști în toate taberele religioase. Care fundamentaliști încalcă regula primordială din orice religie. ‘Dumnezeu are întotdeauna dreptate și nici unul dintre noi nu poate cunoaște Voia Sa!’ Regulă cunoscută în spațiul creștin sub formularea „Să nu-ți faci chip cioplit, nici altă asemanare, nici să te închini lor.” ‘Că oricât te-ai strădui, nu vei reuși să înțelegi – și cu atât mai puțin să descrii – întreaga mea complexitate.’
Iar fundamentaliștii, de orice culoare, exact asta fac. Își cioplesc, în inima lor, idolul în care vor să creadă. Își cioplesc, în conștiința lor, convingerea că ei sunt singurii care știu cu adevărat care este adevărul. Pretind că ei sunt singurii care știu ce vrea Dumnezeu și că toți ceilalți sunt în greșeală. Așa că nu iau în seamă nici o părere care nu este conformă, în cele mai mici amanunte, cu ceea ce cred ei.

Nu.
Am folosit literă mică atunci când am scris dumnezeu la începutul postării. Pentru că există doi dumnezei.
Dumnezeul care face obiectul credinței iudeo-creștine și islamice. Despre care credincioșii cred că a creat tot ce există. Inclusiv pe noi, oamenii.
Și dumnezeul creat de oameni, prin însăși credința lor. Dumnezeu în care unii cred și pe care alții îl neagă.
Dumnezeul creat prin eforturile concertate ale tuturor. Credincioși, negaționiști și indiferenți laolaltă.

Dacă citim biblia ca pe o metaforă, descoperim că Biblia este, de fapt, povestea conștiinței noastre.
Etapele prin care am trecut de la stadiul de ‘maimuță’ la cel de ‘trestie cugetătoare’. De la copii inocenți la agenți. La oameni cu o oarecare putere de discernământ.

Dacă citim Biblia ca pe o metaforă, înțelegem că Dumnezeu este, de fapt, Realitatea.

Care realitate conține două straturi de legi. Exact așa cum spune Baștavoi. Imuabile și perfectibile.

Te poți juca cu legea gravitației? Sau cu cea care ne spune de câtă căldură e nevoie pentru a fierbe o anumita cantitate de apă? Tot ce putem face cu privire la genul ăsta de legi este să le sesizăm. Să le descoperim. Să ne perfecționăm în arta de a descoperi Realitatea.

Te poți juca, în schimb, cu legea circulației. Putem stabili, în comun, pe care parte a drumului să conducem mașina. Unii pe stânga, alții pe dreapta….
Doar că există o limită până la care ne putem juca cu aceste legi! După ce am ales, împreună, trebuie să conducem cu toții pe aceiași parte! Altfel iese cu nasoale….

Cu alte cuvinte, legile sunt – simultan – absolute și relative.
Relative la noi. La noi, cei care trebuie să le descoperim.
Și absolute tot la noi. La noi care trebuie să le respectăm. Pentru că în capul nostru se sparg consecințele…

Relative la noi, care putem să le facem mai bune.
Să le apropiem din ce în ce mai mult de chipul lui Dumnezeu.

Să le apropiem din ce în ce mai mult de chipul absolut al lui dumnezeu.
După vrerea realității…

În teorie, o teză de doctorat trebuie să aducă ceva nou în domeniu. Nou și interesant…

Asta fiind diferența dintre licențiat, master și doctor.

Lucrarea de licență dovedește o oarecare familiaritate cu domeniul. Că ai ceva idee despre ce ce se vorbește în jurul tău.

Dizertația de masterat dovedește că ești confortabil în mediul respectiv. Că înțelegi tot ce se vorbește pe acolo. Că încă nu ai mare lucru de spus dar ca nu mai poți fi ‘aburit’ în acea materie.

Teza de doctorat este ‘prima luare de cuvânt’. Ai gasit ceva ‘nou’, ai stat de vorba cu un ‘îndrumator’ și acesta a determinat că ‘pietricica’ pe care ai găsit-o tu merită să fie prezentată celorlalți membri titulari ai comunității de oameni preocupați de respectivul domeniu al cunoașterii.

Nu prea seamană cu ce se întâmplă pe la noi? Și prin alte părți?

Există nu știu câte teze de doctorat despre diferența dintre teorie și practică….

We need to go forward.

Going back is not an option. If back were good enough, we wouldn’t have left it in the first place.

Many people believe we’re reliving the fall of Rome.
Contemporary with that fall was the advent of Christ’s teachings. The fact that, eventually, Christianity has altered his teachings to fit the needs of the christian hierarchy doesn’t demean any of what he taught us.

That people who treat each-other respectfully fare a lot better than those who allow the exploitation of the weak.

That people who live ‘together’ fare a lot better than those who keep forgetting that ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ are both relative and temporary.

That people who are convinced that ‘survival belongs to the fittest’ will eventually make place for those who understand that evolution is solely about the demise of the unfit.

“And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Or else how can one enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.
He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.”

How many times have these words been invoked? By people who use them to divide? To carve a follow-ship? A follow-ship for them to lead…

How many times have these words been invoked? By individuals cocky enough to pretend they are speaking for Christ? Cocky enough to pretend they are able to fill Christ’s shoes…

Any way you look at what’s currently happening, it doesn’t make any sense.

Forget about ‘we’re throwing away 30% of the food we produce while a third of us die of hunger’.
That’s ‘peanuts’. Not for those whose children go to bed hungry but…

People living on the northern side of the Mediterranean Sea had accomplished something marginally short of miraculous.
They had come up with an ideology which convinced them to respect each-other. Christianity.
They had been able to develop the best mechanism for allotting resources. The ‘free market’.
And the best mechanism for reaching decisions for the entire community. Currently called ‘democracy’.

In their attempt to understand, they have devised an extremely original manner of looking at things. ‘Science’.
Based on what they had learned through ‘science’, they had developed ‘technology’.

Working as a team – they used to respect each-other, as children of the same god – and making ‘good’ use of their technology, they had been able to conquer the rest of the planet.

At some point, Europe used to export almost everything – including coal, and import inconsequential things. Silk, spices, tea, sugar, cotton and tobacco.
At that moment, England was considered the factory of the world. It used to manufacture and export the most technologically advanced ‘wares’. Fabric, ‘china’, steel products, machinery, chemicals… And coal! Which was warehoused around the globe and used, eventually, by the English steamships plying the seas for commerce. And for war…

Look at us now!
We depend on our former colonies for much of our energy. Oil, that is.
We depend on the rest of the world for much of the fancy foods we currently eat. Brazilian beef, tropical fruit, fancy sea-food…
And we depend on China for cheap manufactured goods. From clothes to cameras to cranes. ‘White goods’, electronics – computers included, and almost everything else which is sold at decent prices.

Not to mention the fact that Europe had been the flashing point for three World Wars. I, II and the Cold one.
Not to mention the fact that as I write the biggest country in Europe – Putin’s Russia, is trying to annex some 15 % percent of one of its neighbors. Ukraine, also an European country.

If any of this does a modicum of sense to any of you… please let me know!

I, for one, am at a loss. I understand what happened – stay tuned, but I have no idea when we’ll figure out we’re on the wrong track. Going in the wrong direction.

Many people consider man – as in ‘human people’, is a fallen creature.

For the simple reason that we had failed to obey our father.

Failing to obey your father may be considered a bad thing. The particulars of the incident should also be taken into account but, generally speaking, we should indeed obey our fathers. At the bare minimum, we should pay attention to what they have to say about things.

Coming back to us, humans, being fallen creatures, let’s examine what we’ve done to deserve this label.
According to the ‘many people’ I’ve already mentioned, we are fallen creatures because we have eaten – against our father’s specific interdiction, “from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil“.

Further more, the guilt for our transgression is unequally shouldered between men and women. Since it had been Eve who had talked Adam into eating that fruit, women are considered to be the ‘weaker’ amongst us, humans.

Now it’s the moment for me to remind you about Cain.
Abel and Cain had been the two children brought to life by Eve.
For whatever reason – and, again, against God’s advice, Cain had slain his brother Abel.

We – according to what the ‘many people’ continue to believe, in a literal manner – are the direct descendants of Cain. And of Eve, of course.

Yet we are ‘fallen’ because Eve had helped her husband, Adam, to develop a conscience. To learn the difference between good and evil.
Cain killing his brother has nothing to do with our promiscuous nature …

To me, it’s more than obvious that our fallible – not fallen – nature consists in the fact that we are prone to ‘misunderstandings’. We tend to see things in the most favorable manner.
Favorable for us, those who get to call things as being good or evil.

Whenever we are able to do it, we distribute ‘guilt’ and appropriate success.

Eve had offered us the ‘apple’. The opportunity to see ‘the’ difference.
From now on, it’s up to us to consider the facts.

Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.””

Does it really matter?

Both fascism and communism appear when enough people are fed up. Really fed up.
So fed up that they have become gullible enough to accept the lies promised by those who want to get ‘at the top’, in the given circumstances.
The difference between fascism and communism, the only one, being the exact conditions which had caused the ire of the people.
Communism can, and will presently be, presented as the only possible alternative to those confronted by a ‘black ceiling’.
Fascism, on the other hand, can, and will presently be, presented as the only possible alternative to those confronted by a ‘glass ceiling’.
The always poor who have no chance of improving their lot will accept the lies promised by the communists. They don’t know any better so they believe those lies are possible.
The impoverished who have no chance of returning to their former situation will accept the lies professed by the fascists. They know what they have lost and need to find a culprit to blame for what had happened.

In a sense you can identify fascism with the right and communism with the left.
In reality, fascism and communism are the two ugly faces of the same fake coin.

An embassy is a conduit.
It brings information back and forth between the ‘host’ and the ‘sender’.

A spy ring is (intended to be) a ‘one way pipe’. It gathers information about the ‘host’ and transports it to the sender.

They have in common the fact that the bulk of the information is gathered from ‘open’ sources. From the media, that is. Newspapers, TV, radio, internet…

Imagine now the following situation.
There is this planet. Let’s say ours. Inhabited by us, the human people.
And you have some other people. One or more species capable of interplanetary travel. Who have found out about this planet and want to learn more about us before making contact.
Since they haven’t yet conquered us – as per our knowledge, and since there’s no evidence of any galaxy wide conflict raging on we may presume the aliens are fundamentally peaceful. Either naturally ’empathic’ – hence in no need whatsoever of being governed, or having such a ‘natural’ form of government that they’re very happy with it.
In their attempt to learn about us and to understand our situation before engaging in any way with us, the aliens have sent an ‘undercover’ fact-finding mission on Earth.

Right now!
When a country capable of yielding almost half the (self) destructing power available on Earth ‘happens to be’ at loggerheads with a coalition of countries which controls most of the other half of the destruction power already mentioned above.

The local agent employed by the fact-finding mission compiles two news articles which, in his opinion, summarize perfectly what’s going on on the planet.

“Medvedev alleged that some in the West would like to “take advantage of the military conflict in Ukraine to push our country to a new twist of disintegration, do everything to paralyze Russia’s state institutions and deprive the country of efficient controls, as happened in 1991.” “

Meanwhile, on the other side of the ‘planetary divide’,

Among those in the audience was Melissa Sauder, who drove nearly 350 miles from the small western Nebraska town of Grant with her 13-year-old daughter. After years of combing internet sites, listening to podcasts and reading conservative media reports, Sauder wanted to learn more about what she believes are serious problems with the integrity of U.S. elections.
She can’t shake the belief that voting machines are being manipulated even in her home county, where then-President Donald Trump won 85% of the vote in 2020.
“I just don’t know the truth because it’s not open and apparent, and it’s not transparent to us,” said Sauder, 38. “We are trusting people who are trusting the wrong people.”
It’s a sentiment now shared by millions of people in the United States after relentless attacks on the outcome of the 2020 presidential election by Trump and his allies. Nearly two years after that election, no evidence has emerged to suggest widespread fraud or manipulation while reviews in state after state have upheld the results showing President Joe Biden won.
Even so, the attacks and falsehoods have made an impact: An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll from 2021 found that about two-thirds of Republicans say they do not think Biden was legitimately elected.

So.
Forget, if you can, about the war in Ukraine and about the US mid-term elections.
Let’s pretend you’re the head of the alien fact-finding mission.
What recommendation would you send back to those calling the shots in your organization after reading the two articles I mentioned above?

Cică se urcă Ceașcă-n mașină și se duce în vizită la un combinat de creștere a porcilor.
Cum se plimba el pe-acolo, vede o scroafă gestantă cu o burtă enormă. N-are ce face și spune, jumate-n glumă, ‘asta fată cel puțin 12 pui!’. Ăia-își notează grijulii și grupul pleacă mai departe.
Peste ceva vreme, la soroc, scroafa ‘sloboade’ doi pui. Îngrijitorul raportează 4. De frică. Șeful de hală raportează 8. Tot de frică. Directorul combinatului trimite la minister 10. Îi țâțâia curul. Ministrul cere audiență la Ceașcă și începe:
– Tovarășe secretar general, permiteți-mi să vă aduc aminte că în timpul vizitei de lucru efectuate la combinatul de creștere a porcilor v-ați exprimat opinia că o anumită scroafă urma să fete 12 purcei. Ei bine, scroafa respectivă a fătat. 13!
– Bine, bine… Uitasem dar bine că mi-ai adus aminte. Pe cel în plus trimiteți-l la export, restul pentru consumul populației.

‘Te-ai dus cu pluta? Ca restul boșorogilor? Ce-i cu aiureala asta?!?’

Bancurile reprezintă un foarte bun instrument de măsură atunci când vrei să iei pulsul unei societăți.
Indiferent dacă bancul a fost inventat într-o ‘fabrică de trolli’ sau ‘ejaculat spontan’ dintr-o minte ‘excitată’, dacă intră în circulație înseamnă că o parte suficient de mare din populație este de părere că ‘e ceva acolo’. Pentru suficient de mulți dintre cei care intră în contact cu textul respectiv – indiferent cum, bancul este suficient de ‘interesant’ încât să fie ținut minte. Reamintit la momentul oportun și ‘dat mai departe’.
Cu alte cuvinte, unele dintre bancuri – adică cele care supraviețuiesc ‘în libertate’, generează o ‘reacție în lanț’. Care ‘reacție în lanț’ are nevoie de o ‘masă critică’. De suficient de mulți oameni care să considere că textul respectiv merită atenție. Efortul de a fi ținut minte și dat mai departe.

Un moș se duce să ceară pașaport. (Suntem deja în secolul XIX, Ceașcă era mort demult)
Nenea de la ghișeu, în timp ce completa formularele, îl întreabă:
– Ce-ți veni bade? Ori te duci în vizită la ceva copii?
– N-am copii. Iar de plecat, vreau să plec din cauza homosexualității…
– Mai ai probleme din cauza asta?!? Legislația s-a schimbat de câțiva ani, acum e voie!
– Ce probleme să am?!? Eu sunt normal. Sunt căsătorit cu muierea mea de 50 de ani. N-avem copii că nu poate ea! Iar problema mea cu homosexualitatea e că după cum merg lucrurile… mi-e frică ca nu cumva să devină obligatorie!

‘Chiar că te-ai dus cu pluta!
Ce legătură are sula cu prefectura?!?’

După cum spuneam și mai sus, faptul că unele dintre bancuri și unele dintre narațiunile false devin virale spune multe lucruri. Că ‘textangii’ sunt suficient de buni… Și că există un public pentru ‘textele’ alea!!!

Și mai este un lucru de scos în evidență! Menționat deja mai sus…
Publicul respectiv este suficient de numeros încât să constituie o masă critică!

OK, apariția mijloacelor de comunicare în masă – și faptul că aceste mijloace oferă o cale directă de comunicare între ‘troli’ și publicul țintă, a dus într-adevăr la apariția „bulelor”. Locuri unde publicul țintă se concentrează în mod natural.
Locuri unde publicul țintă este ‘educat’. Unde o vagă ‘pornire’ este transformată, treptat, într-o ‘convingere de nezdruncinat’…
Toate astea sunt cât se poate de reale.
Dar nu schimbă cu nimic faptul că ‘pornirea’ exista încă de la început. De dinainte ca ‘cineva’, indiferent cine, să-și înceapă ‘compunerea’.

Pe vremea deja apusă – cu toate că ‘nu era voie’, bancurile politice zburdau. Lumea era împărțită foarte clar.
‘Noi’ și ‘Ei’!
Iar ‘Ei’ erau întotdeauna de vină… ‘Noi’ nu! Noi niciodată nu…

În lumea liberă, chestiile astea nu țin. Nu există ‘Noi’ și ‘Ei’. Toată lumea ‘împreună’!

Până își bagă dracu’ coada…

Uite că am căzut și eu în capcană!

Reformulez!
Până când ne ia somnul și cădem în mrejele diavolului!

De fapt, avem de a face cu un fel de ‘infecție cu germeni oportuniști’.
Exact așa cum atunci când sistemul imunitar nu funcționeză ‘la capacitate’ facem coșuri pe față – sau chiar un sepsis letal, de la microbi aflați în mod normal în organism tot așa pățesc și unele societăți.

Care fie n-au știut niciodată cum să se apere de dictatură, fie au uitat.

Indivizi care în timpuri normale ar fi ignorați – sau, cel mult, considerați a fi amuzanți, ajung să domine ‘peisajul’. Și să-l ducă de râpă….

For the outsiders, it seems like Gorbachev ‘made’ Putin.
Gorbachev had destroyed the Soviet Union and, thus, had set the scene for Putin to take over.

I’m afraid things are a little more complicated than that.

Gorbachev – at that time, the best informed decision maker in the whole USSR – had been smart enough to understand that no matter what he might had tried to do, the corpse was already rotten.
That everything but a major ‘upheaval’ could not accomplish anything more than prolong the agony. What he had done was nothing more than allowed the things to happen according to their nature.

I’ll make a short break here and remind you that all ‘imperium’ had eventually ended in failure. The tighter the control exercised by the ruler, the more abject the eventual failure. Check your history book.

So. Gorbachev had taken the appropriate steps. What he had done was in step with the natural flow of history.

Eltsin and Putin, on the other hand, had done the exact opposite.
Eltsin had tried and Putin had succeeded in regaining the ‘reins’ of the government. The reins, the whip, ever stronger control over the barn where the whole stash of hay is deposited…

Why things had unfolded like this?
Because they – Eltsin and Putin, had chosen this venue and because nobody else had been able to do anything about it.

OK, Gorbachev, Eltsin and Putin had made their respective calls in basically the same social and political environments. The economic situations were ‘somewhat’ different but this doesn’t change what I want to stress out. Each of them had done what had crossed each of their individual minds.
Each had been able to do whatever each of them had wanted because…
Because that particular ‘social arrangement’ allows the ruler to make whatever decisions they may see fit.
Because that particular ‘social arrangement’ – dictatorship, no matter how much window-dressing had been slapped on it, allows the person who happens to clamber ‘on top’ to keep making mistakes until the whole ‘carriage’ disintegrates.

Until we learn this lesson…

%d bloggers like this: