Archives for posts with tag: community
« Older Entries

The Best Religion

May 4, 2026 //
0

Evolution-wise, ‘survival of the fittest’ denotes lack of adequate comprehension.
Evolution is about survival. Coping with change. Getting through the ‘dire straits’.
Evolution is free. The only thing that matters is to get through. Nothing else but getting through in one piece.
No referee other than the dire straits themselves and no points for the artistic impression.
‘Survival of the fittest’ is ‘getting through in certain conditions’. Getting through after knocking down all competition…
Survival of the fittest is not about coping with change.
Survival of the fittest has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with winning.
Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is

History-wise, Cortes’ religion was better than that sported by the Mexica. Which was good enough – as in ‘fittest’ – for the given conditions, inside the Aztec empire, but unable to withstand being challenged from the outside.

‘Now, will you make up your mind? Is there a best religion or not?!?’

Is there a better DNA? Or a better religion?
Better against which benchmark?

Exactly!

DNA is how species translate information from one generation to the next one.
Religion is how cultural species translate, and conserve, Weltanschauung.

Of course there are differences. But I’m more interested in the similarities present.

We have discovered DNA, and genetics, a couple of generations ago. Evolution, as a process, in the XIX-th century.
Yet animal husbandry and plant breeding are as old as agriculture…
Which means that in certain conditions – having reached a certain ‘maturity’ – humans have started to behave ‘as if’.
Our ancestors, lacking any formal knowledge regarding genetics or evolution, somehow managed to breed a variety of farm animals and plant crops. Each adapted, as in bred to fulfill certain needs, to the ‘task at hand’.

DNA/RNA, the existence of genes, supports all life forms. Plants, animals, fungi, viruses and everything else that lives. As far as we know, there is no life form outside the ‘genetic’ realm. There are many forms of life and all of them work according to the same principle. Each species functions in a specific manner, which manner is transmitted from one generation to the other. The relevant information ‘written down’, encoded, in genetic messages is passed from parents to off-springs.
Evolution, the phenomenon, is a consequence, not a goal.
The messages passed from one generation to the next one are not ‘rigid copies’ of the previous ones. When the messages are put together by the previous generation alterations occur inexorably. Whenever an alteration, or a combination thereof, is incompatible with life, the organism sporting that alteration dies. The alteration disappears.
If the individual organism survives, and is able to generate a new generation, the alteration also survives. And may come in handy when something changes in the environment. Or may prove to be too burdensome in certain circumstances.
Individuals sporting certain alterations have better chances to survive in circumstances where the alterations are useful while the ‘normal’, unadulterated, individuals might struggle. Alternatively, alterations which may have survived for a number of generations might become too burdensome after something had changed.
The point being that evolution occurs ‘outside’. None of the individuals has anything to say about the matter.

‘But you just said that animal breeders have altered their farm animals according to their wishes!’

Yes, the animal breeders have influenced the evolution of their animals! The animals themselves, the individual organisms suffering the process of evolution, still had nothing to say about what was happening to them.

Which brings us to religion.
Information being transmitted from one generation of people to the next one and fundamentally shaping the fate of the community. Of the cultural species being defined by each religion.

And this is where the parallel between DNA/genetics and religion stops.

We don’t know for sure what was going on in our past.
Historians and archeologists have a few ideas but those ideas change as more and more information is literally dug out.
But no matter how much we’ll be able to learn in the future about our history it is safe to say that we’ll never know exactly how we got here. In the present.
But it’s also safe to say that the past was different.

And the most obvious difference being the fact that community mattered more.
In the sense that each and every member of the community was acutely aware of the fact that they could not survive alone.
Each and everyone of the adults living a few thousand years ago were vastly more capable than any of us to survive, for a while, in the ‘bush’. Yet all the evidence we’ve gathered so far suggest they lived in close knit communities.

Absence of proof is no proof of absence?
The fact that “all the evidence we’ve gathered so far suggest they lived in close knit communities” doesn’t mean there were no individuals who managed to survive for long periods of time on their own. Or in small groups.
No, it doesn’t!
The fact that “all the evidence we’ve gathered so far suggest they lived in close knit communities” only suggests, strongly, that close knit communities are more likely to survive. And to leave behind discoverable traces of their existence!

Tags , ,
Categories awareness, Bounded rationality, effective communication, evolution, In English, skin in the game, teleology

Karma

April 2, 2026 //
1

What goes around
comes around.

All religions worth their salt attempt to fulfill three needs.

A bed-time story, a survival manual and a get-back-on-track strategy.

The bed-time stories depend on what had already happened before their respective inceptions. On the particular histories of the people entertaining those stories. On the respective cultures which have generated each of the religions.
The get-back-on-track strategies, again, depend on the specific social-psychological aspects of each individual civilization using a particular religion.
Unsurprisingly, given the consistent nature of the human being, the survival manual is the same.

Regardless of the specific wordings used by various religions, the core of each of those manuals is faithfully summarized by “what goes around comes around”.
Mind you, I’m speaking here about ‘successful’ religions. About religions which actually help the civilizations which use them to survive for sizeable amounts of time. About effective religions which create a collective mindset capable to cope with ‘the unexpected’.
For example, the religion used by the Aztecs had failed in their hour of need.

Do you have a better explanation for what had happened?
A very small group of lousy invaders – yes, the Spaniards led by Cortes were full of lice – being able to overcome an entire empire demands a better explanation than the technological differences between the two civilizations.
“Yet weaponry alone clearly would not enable Cortés’s tiny force to overcome a large, densely populated society of about twenty-one million. Quite apart from military technology, Cortés ’s expedition benefited from divisions among the indigenous peoples of Mexico. With the aid of Doña Marina, the conquistadors forged alliances with peoples who resented domination by the Mexicas, the leaders of the Aztec empire, and who reinforced the small Spanish army with thousands of veteran warriors. Native allies also provided Spanish forces with logistical support and secure bases in friendly territory.”

The point I’m trying to make here is simple.
The Aztec Empire observed a certain religion. They had to, in order to function as a state. As a social organism.
Which religion allowed (demanded?) the rulers to treat the general population in a certain manner. Which general population ‘made good’ of the first opportunity to rebel.
Little knowing that their new masters were no better than the old ones but …

The Aztec religion wasn’t good enough. Was unable to unite those who observed it into a community. Was unable to convince the believers to behave. To treat the ‘others’ in a respectful manner.
Was unable to convince its believers that ‘what goes around comes around’!

The idea wasn’t mentioned at all in the Aztec ‘bed-time story’?
The faithful stopped believing it at some point? For whatever reason?
The religious leaders had given up promoting the concept? In earnest? As in behaving like they were convinced themselves as opposed to merely paying lip-service to the ‘whole thing’?

Does any of the above even matter?
For us, trying to make sense of what had happened?

Tags , , ,
Categories alternative ways of acquring knowledge, awareness, Bounded rationality, effective communication, In English, skin in the game

“Don’t Look Back in Anger”

March 2, 2024 //
0

It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law
if it acquires the political power to do so,
and will follow it by suppressing opposition,
subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young,
and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.
Robert A. Heinlein, Postscript to Revolt in 2100.

Religion is the metaphusical ‘thing’ inside which people who hold a set of tenets to be true are able to build a community.

Religion is sociological phenomenon. Something belonging to the realm studied by those who try to understand how large number of people work together.

Religions – on the other hand – are ‘sets of tenets’ put in practice by various groups of people.
Sets of tenets which survive for as long as they continue to help the people who uphold them in their quest to survive as a group. As a community.

Religion cannot be ‘changed’.
Religion can be studied. May be better understood.
Like physics. You can’t ‘change’ physics! With what? With chemistry? Things don’t work like this. The only thing you may do about physics is to ‘deepen’ your knowledge about it.

Religions can, and sometimes have to, be changed.
By the very people who ‘use’ them to survive.

Since nobody can survive on their own, each and everyone of us needs to belong.
To a community.
To a religion, actually!

And what do people do when they realize survival is impossible in certain conditions?
Die or do something about it, right?

Now, which community can survive based on hate?
It doesn’t matter whether you are asked to hate somebody inside or outside your community.
Whether you hate individually or collectively.
Hating – or despising – somebody blinds you and exhausts you. Puts a huge burden on your back. Focuses your attention so tight that you are no longer able to notice the real dangers.
Those which actually make you less likely to survive.

And this is valid both for you as an individual and for you as a hating community.

Tags , , , , , , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, authoritarianism, awareness, collective identity, effective communication, evolution, In English, man as a measure for all things, Mutual Respect, Psychology, religion, skin in the game, Trust

Choice

March 16, 2023 //
0


Basically, there are two meta-rules.

According to the first, if you follow the precepts – to the letter – you get ‘there’.
According to the second, avoiding the forbidden sets the stage for things going your way.

Unfortunately, things are not as simple as they look at first sight.
The first meta-rule deals with individuals. Getting ‘there’ is each individual’s job. They have to do what they are supposed to and failing to fulfill any item banishes the unworthy from the cherished ‘prize’.
The second one is even ‘trickier’. While its precepts must be followed, again, by the individual followers, the ‘spoils’ belong more to the community rather than to the individual. On top of that, they are not ‘certain’! Following the rule only ‘sets the stage’. Disobeying the rule makes it certain that the goal will never be reached while following it only ‘opens the door’. Makes it possible for each of the community members to search for their individual paths towards their particular goals.

Do I need to remember you that both these rules exist only in our heads?
As figments of our imaginations?
And that the difference between the two can be observed at the practical level?

The first rule can never be fulfilled. Nobody can follow it to its ultimate consequence. No matter how hard any of us might try. It would be like measuring with infinite precision. Something will always happen. Go wrong. Throw us back to where we have started.
The second one also leads to disappointment. Some members of the community will inevitably attempt to cut corners. Take the easy way out … Hence the rule needs policing. You’ve certainly witnessed at least on occasion when ‘bad (money) has driven out good’… at least temporarily! Furthermore, some members of the community – while faithfully sticking to the rule, will still fail to get ‘there’. Set their aims too high, didn’t have what it takes… or simply had lots and lots of bad luck! But regardless of the why’s, not getting there still generates disappointment. Usually directed at the rule… and creates a lot of doubt towards the weltanschauung based on the rule…

Which way out?
How to choose?

Would it be helpful to notice that, historically speaking, the communities which have followed the second rule, primum non nocere, have fared decently while those who had attempted to prescribe, and impose, a ‘recipe for happiness’ have invariably failed?
‘Don’t do anything, upon another, which you wouldn’t welcome when done upon you’ versus ‘treat all the others exactly as you would like to be treated yourself’?

Tags , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, authoritarianism, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, effective communication, evolution, In English, Intent, man as a measure for all things, Mutual Respect, Psychology, skin in the game, teleology

Alien report

March 10, 2023 //
0

In the beginning was the word

– How did you manage to mess things up so thoroughly?
– By allowing too much coherence to slip away. After we – well, some of us, already had a fair understanding about how things worked. About how we got there in the first place.
– Would you care to elaborate?
– Things went on more or less linearly up to when we had learned to speak. That was when it had all started. When we had realized what a start was.
And that was it.
Speaking to each other allowed us to access the second level of consciousness. Self awareness.
Speaking to ourselves – a.k.a. ‘thinking’, gave us the illusion of ‘knowing’.
‘Knowing’ led to ‘knowing better’ and ‘knowing better’ gave birth to arrogance.
For a while, this process had been kept in check by the harsh reality. People, like all living organisms, have certain needs. Basic needs. Food, shelter… During most of our evolution, getting enough food and shelter consumed most of our resources. And time. Only a very small number of people had enough spare time. And energy left for thinking. And only a very small percentage of this already small number of people used their minds to think about anything else but how to preserve their privileged status. Which status was the source of their ‘spare time’ in the first time…
Slowly but surely, those having something else in their minds besides their selfish self interest have come up with a thing called ‘technology’. By carefully, and considerately, watching those who worked, the selfish thinkers have noticed that from time to time and from craftsperson to craftperson there could be noticed small differences in how things were done. Hence the concept of ‘how things are done’. With the natural sequel of ‘let’s do things in a better way’.
Technology made it possible for workers to be more productive. Communities as a whole became more productive. Hence increased the possibility for more people to have spare time for thinking.
Some communities made good use of this new possibility while others failed to do so. Usually for reasons depending on the ‘general conditions’ and not at all imputable to the communities themselves.
Unfortunately, technology also had two less fortunate consequences.
By freeing more and more people from want, it also freed them from ‘religion’.
Until that moment, people who were ‘excluded’ from society – who did not partake in ‘religion’, could not survive on their own for any significant length of time. After the advent of technology, reclusion no longer meant almost instant death.
Technology also produced ‘hard science’. A corpus of knowledge about how nature works. Which knowledge can be summarized as a collection of natural laws.
No longer depending as much on their contemporaries and cognizant of those natural laws, some of the thinkers – whose numbers had been constantly swelled by the continuously improved technology, have reached the conclusion that through thinking a human might, given enough time and resources, understand basically everything.
Some of those had become dictators. Others had become consultants.
Both categories extremely confident in their own knowledge. Arrogant, even.
This is how we messed things up. This bad.

Tags , , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, arrogance, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, effective communication, In English, man as a measure for all things, Mutual Respect, Psychology, religion, skin in the game, teleology, Trust

Complementary, my deal Watson

March 8, 2023 //
0

Equality has become ‘the’ thing.
But things are not that simple. Not simple enough to be explained/solved in such a trivial manner.
Equality is a theoretical concept. It doesn’t exist, as such, in nature. Nor in practice.
Two ‘objects’/issues/items are declared, by us, to be equal if the differences between them are smaller than a threshold. Instated, again, by us. Mathematics – a theoretical field by excellence, being the only domain where the difference between two equal ‘objects’ is exactly zero.
On the other hand, societies where people consider themselves to be equal fare better than those where the differences between people are ‘manifest’.
Hence ‘equality’ must be important, right?
‘Societies where people consider themselves to be equal’…
The key word here is “consider”, not “equal “.
In this situation, equality is not only a concept but also a value.

The fact that a functional majority of the people living in those societies consider themselves to be equal creates a certain ‘environment’. A situation where those people actually complement each-other. A society which works as an organism. Not as a shoal of fish nor as a simple herd. A society which works a community.

A single parent can raise children. But two parents do it a lot easier. And, in most cases, better.
A single parent can adopt children. But no single parent, man or woman, is able to give birth to a child without being helped by a member of the ‘opposite sex’.
Societies where people consider men and women to be equal fare a lot better than those entertaining other beliefs. Which doesn’t negate the fact that men and women complement each-other. In a lot more situations than those in which they merely reproduce themselves.
Economies where the market is free fare a lot better than those where the economic decisions are made in a centralized manner. The communist camp – where the economies were run by the party, had crumbled under their own weight. Which strongly suggests that no matter how skilled it may be, a central planner will never be able to balance such a complicated process as a whole society/economy. Monopolistic situations, where decision making became too concentrated, invariably ended up in a pile of mess. Another proof that no decision maker, no matter how skilled/well intended, was ever capable of managing, by itself, a really complicated situation.
What is the real difference between a free market and one where decision making is concentrated in an unsustainably small number of hands? Or heads?
Economic agents are equal? Suppliers are equal among themselves, buyers are equal among themselves and suppliers are equal with buyers?
Or suppliers complement each-other in adequately supplying the market while buyers and suppliers complement each-other in maintaining the market afloat?
Which brings us back to where we have started.
Where people who complement each-other have reached the conclusion they’d better consider their complements as equals. And treat each-other as such.

Tags , , , , ,
Categories 1989 and the Global Financial Crises, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, Economy, effective communication, evolution, In English, man as a measure for all things, Mutual Respect, Psychology, skin in the game, teleology

The C Word

August 19, 2022 //
0

Social cohesion is a key concept in modern sociology.
There are many definitions – most of which complement each other, and the gist of them is ‘glue’.

“…the glue that bonds society together…“

Do you actually perceive modern society as being glued? Bonded? Together?!?

As an engineer – MSc in Mechanical Engineering, Bucharest Politechnica University 1986 – I’m primarily interested in ‘consequences’. ‘Causes’ come second. A close second but still second. Because it’s ‘consequences’ we have to face/endure directly, not ’causes’.
Whenever I feel bad, really bad, I begin by stopping everything that I was doing. To have enough time to determine the proper cause for my malaise. Identifying/dealing with causes ‘on the go’ – usually by having faith in what I already know, without realizing that it was exactly that which had led me to where I am now – is not such a good option.

Very few societies (countries, nations) continue to behave coherently. Many of them – most of them, actually, used to. Until very recently.
Yet most of my ‘recent’ colleagues – B in Sociology, Bucharest University 2009, continue to discuss about ‘cohesion’.

Communities continue to be cohesive. And, as a consequence, continue to behave coherently.
Why?
The easiest answer is ‘by definition’.
That’s how you recognize a community. A group of people who act coherently because they are ‘bound together’ by ‘social cohesion’. How that happened to be? Some other time!

Societies, on the other hand, no longer are.
Nations, which used to be whole, are now ‘fractured’. Not entirely, but they certainly behave a lot less coherently than, say, 50 years ago.
OK, this is not the first time that something like this had happened….

Civil wars are nothing new.
None of them had been ‘civil’ though. Which makes ‘civil war‘ an oxymoron…
Something so ‘impossible’ that we haven’t coined a proper word for it. Something so horrible that we speak about it using an ‘impossible’ name in order to properly mark its utter impropriety.

What is new is the amount of knowledge we currently have about the whole matter. About the inner workings of our collective psyche.
How we use that knowledge, what we have understood from learning it, the manner in which we allow that information to shape our actions … that’s another matter!

Whose consequences are in the making.
There are no other ‘makers’ but us.
Also, there are no other people to bear the consequences of what we’re doing now.

Tags , , , , , , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, awareness, Bounded rationality, collective identity, effective communication, In English, man as a measure for all things, man induced fragility, Mutual Respect, Psychology, skin in the game, teleology

Peering, Sideways, at the Looking Glass

May 22, 2022 //
1

‘On the face of it’, it makes perfect sense.

But why bother?

If I’m on the ‘right’ side, why would I make it easier for the other guy?
If on the ‘wrong’ side, why not just switch sides? Why would I bother to straighten the tree? Against the wishes of those who have a lot to lose in the process?

From the other side of the looking glass, things are a lot simpler.

‘Fiat justitia, ruat caelum’ is a warning, not a behest.

‘Make sure that justice is served, unless you want the heavens to fall on your shoulders’ is what any open minded reader of history makes of this ancient adage…

The fact that we concentrate our attention on what justice means for each of us is a measure of our individualism.
Of our nearsightedness…

Our respective individualities, each and everyone of them, have grown into what they are now in a social context.
None of us can exist for long, let alone protect and develop their individuality, in solitude.

We need the others.
We, each and everyone of us, need to belong. To a community.

To a functional community!
To a community where each individual is cherished.
Where each individual can develop its potential.

Where each individual has the opportunity and the tools to develop their potential.
For his own good, in concert with the main interest of entire community.

Survival.
Things remaining as they should be.

Us toiling here, on the surface of the Earth.
The heavens perched safely up there.

Justice must be served if things are to remain as we, each and all of us, need them to be.

Tags , , , , , , ,
Categories 1989 and the Global Financial Crises, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, awareness, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, cooperation, evolution, In English, man as a measure for all things, Mutual Respect, Psychology, skin in the game, Trust

Becoming

September 26, 2021 //
0

Ordinary people are aware of their own self, have an identity and are driven by goals.
The ‘fulfilled’ ones have developed an understanding, belong to a community and are driven by compassion.
The really ‘lucky’ have found meaning.

And peace.
Those who are still driven try to spread it.

Tags , , ,
Categories 1989, alternative ways of acquring knowledge, awareness, Choices we make, collective identity, effective communication, evolution, In English, man as a measure for all things, Mutual Respect, Psychology, religion, skin in the game, teleology, time

The ‘biological’ history of mankind

July 28, 2020 //
0

Culture is to human communities what DNA is to biological species.

It transports vital information from one generation to the other. Hence providing a venue for survival.
Furthermore, both culture and DNA can change in time. Hence providing a venue for evolution.

The difference between culture and DNA being, of course, the fact that culture is way more fluid than DNA.
DNA changes only once for each generation – what you get at birth is what you’re taking to the grave, while culture is in constant flux.
No individual organism has anything to say about their genetic information but almost every human is capable of learning almost anything.

Now for the historical part.

Stage one.

Veneration of the elders. The elders were the depositories of the common knowledge. Hence everybody took good care of the ‘data bases’.

Stage two.

Somebody learned to write.
Elders were no longer indispensable. More and more information could be ‘warehoused’ in alternative ways.
A structure was needed to manage the new ways of dealing with the vital information.

Stage three.

The state is born.
At first the structures which insured that culture was passed from one generation to another had been rather empiric: kingdoms, monasteries, etc.
Soon after the Enlightenment things had become more rational. Cultured people became nations and the academic scholars gave us the state. As the structure charged to make sure that culture and people stay together. Hence providing for the nation’s survival.

States who had been in constant contact – read rivalry, kept each-other fit. Or else.
States ‘removed’ from reality – geographically, by becoming too powerful to care or both, had experienced a natural decay. The people at the top of the food chain had forgotten about those at the bottom and those at the bottom had lost faith in their leadership.

States too weak to survive – for various reasons, have succumbed while those too powerful for their own sake have eventually imploded.

Psychology to the rescue.

Culture is more fluid than DNA for a reason.
DNA follows exclusively the laws of nature while culture is heavily influenced by us.
We, men, are the measure of all things.
All life heavily transforms the place it inhabits.
So do we, humans. Only we do it willingly. On purpose, that is.

Now, that we have amassed so much information – about life in general and about how we relate, as agents, to the entire process, we have reached a reckoning moment. What next?

Are we going to choose the path of the cuckoo or that shown to us by Hokule-a?

Tags , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories 1989, arrogance, authoritarianism, awareness, biology, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, complementary ways of attending knowlege, cooperation, effective communication, fail better, In English, limited rationality, man as a measure for all things, Mutual Respect, Psychology, skin in the game, teleology, The kind of world we are building for our children, Trust
« Older Entries