Archives for posts with tag: conscience

Quite a popular mantra nowadays, don’t you think?

Whenever somebody tosses you a problem without also giving you the tools to fix it and you dare ask for instructions about how to fulfill your new task, you’ll inevitably get this very helpful ‘advice’… And most often it’s your boss who does this, right?

So?

Ever tried Google-ing it?  Wikipedia has, of course, an extensive entry about this notion. Lifehack.org has a decent list of 11 to do-s on this topic, only many of them are things you’d better do in advance…

But what can a man do in a hurry?

First of all stop searching desperately for a solution.
Most of us entertain the idea that the human brain is a well honed tool that only needs to be pointed at the target, fed the pertinent information and, presto, it will provide a solution if pressed/enticed hard enough.
The problem is that something inside that tool (part of our subconscious) has been conditioned during our formative years to stay inside a set of limitations/comfort zone. Don’t do this, don’t touch that, don’t lie…

While staying inside the rules is, usually, a very helpful rule of thumb – specially when it comes to survival situations where you don’t have time to consider the matter – sometimes you really need to do exactly the opposite. Drinking your own piss, for instance.

Whoa! Another quack… I’m out of here!
Hold your horses and keep on reading. Or, even better, click on the highlighted link and find out about how a guy saved himself by simultaneously braking two taboos. Not only the one about drinking your own urine but also the one about ‘not hurting yourself’.

And by reading that article you’ll also understand a lot about the inner workings of the human mind.

So, what do we have there?
A guy wants to convince us that drinking pee is wrong for us. To do this he needs to grab our attention so he brings in Aaron Ralston, a well know character who had his hand pinned down by a fallen boulder, waited awhile to be saved, drunk his own urine during some of that time and, finally, when he got tired of the entire situation, cut himself free, leaving behind his right palm.
Do I still have your attention? My post is about thinking out of the box and I’m trying to illustrate my point by using an article about how bad it is to drink urine, which uses as an attention grabber the story of a guy who did drink his own piss and cut his hand in order to free himself…

A box in a box which lies inside another box… Yep. that’s it, you got it.

The first thing you need to do when having a hard time trying to find a solution is to understand that no matter what you think about your current situation you ARE in a box. In fact not in only one box but deep inside the bowels of a regular Matryoshka.

matryoshka

Feeling desperate? That’s OK. Now that you don’t have anything more to loose than your shackles you’ll have an easier time.

Being ‘inside’ a box is not that bad. The point is that you need to be aware of this fact and to choose yourself which box is the right one for you instead of allowing some ‘strangers’ to box you where ever they want you to be.

So all that is left to be done is to look around, identify the walls of the box you are currently in, the limitations imposed upon you by those walls and how those limitations might prevent you from solving your problem. Finally, look for a way to accede into the wider box. Don’t be afraid nor dream that you’ll ever get out into the open, the walls I’m speaking about are constantly being build by our very own minds.

And this is good. Out there there is no order we can speak of. It’s the Unknown and we are rightfully afraid of it. That’s why we conquer any new ground piece by piece, precisely by building a wall immediately after we have a glimpse of understanding about something.  Usually this process takes place unnoticed by our consciousness. We have a moment of grace, the old wall becomes transparent, we see something behind it and we imediately build another wall a little further. Both to protect the new acquired knowledge and to defend the realm of the familiar from the dark forces of the unknown.

The problem with this process is that most of the time the walls are opaque. Not only the exterior one, most of the interior ones stay opaque for most of us even after they have been breached numerous times. And much of their opaqueness come from nothing else but our own fright.

The Ancient Greeks divided the world in two parts. The Cosmos, which had a certain structure and was governed by rules, and the Chaos, the  frightful rest. The separation between these two places, Cosmos and Chaos, was nothing but one of the walls I keep mentioning and the Greeks never dared look behind it so they didn’t have to face any of the monsters created by their own imagination and set free to roam the Chaos. We, despite our modern belief in science, are no better than they were. Still afraid we wait, wriggling our hands, behind the protection walls we have erected to protect our inquisitive minds from straying into the unknown.

So, next time you feel like taking an exploratory trip into the unknown, start by identifying the walls around you. Both to understand what you have to overcome and to find out where your fall back positions are.

Some recent developments (I’ll list a few at the end of this post) brought me back to this subject.

So what is freedom?

Consider a lump of dirt someplace in the middle of nowhere, so far from any galaxy that it is under no gravitational pull whatsoever. In theory it would be able to go anywhere, right? With almost no ‘energy costs’… But it has none available … it’s nothing but an lump of dirt…
How about replacing that hypothetical lump of dirt with the most sophisticated spaceship you can imagine and add to it an inexhaustible energy source. This would be ‘free’ for sure, no? But where would it go?
Now add to it a human being. But mind you, one that not only knows how to drive a spaceship but also that can hold his own in absolute solitude. Can you find such a human being? Can you even imagine one?

So, again, what is freedom? Or liberty, if you prefer this word?

So, real, effective liberty is something that has to be perceived and has to be implementable. It’s not enough for an individual to think himself as being free, that individual also needs to be able to exert his freedom. I don’t have any doubt that Stephen Hawking, one of the brightest minds alive, is one of the freest spirits on this Earth but I’m afraid that he is also one of the individuals who depend heaviest on those around him.

And, in fact, all of us are in almost the same situation as he is. OK, most of us can move on our own. But before even thinking about liberty each of us has to become aware of himself, to develop his consciousness. Only we cannot do that on our own. As Humberto Maturana amply demonstrated human conscience has developed, slowly, in time. It was a process that could take place because by some genetic mutation or accident our brains had suddenly grown close to the present dimension but that was not enough. We needed another 70 or so thousand years after we learned to speak (by doing so we were able to exchange ideas and think about concepts) to become what we are today. In Maturana’s words people are not only conscious, they are conscious of their consciousness.

I believe you already have an inkling about what I have in mind.

Liberty is nothing but a concept, one that has been refined by human thinking along our entire history. It was us who defined the notion of ‘degrees of liberty’ which is used extensively not only in statistics  but in many other scientific domains.
And it was still us who came up with such a social arrangement that allowed for free people not only to coexist with slaves but also to own them.

So what is freedom? An absolute (divine) ‘human right’ or a social construct? Both?

The point I’m trying to make is that we should never forget that freedom hasn’t been given to us on a silver plate. All along human history there have been enough people who tried hard to dominate as many as they could and too many who accepted to be dominated. And invariably the societies/communities where social relations were based on authoritarianism have eventually failed while the more egalitarian, the ones where individuals enjoyed a higher degree of freedom coped better and usually survived.

My conclusion of all this? There is no such thing as ‘liberty/freedom’ against all others. The only liberty that can survive long term is liberty with the others. While the first is nothing but a synonym for the ‘Law of the jungle’ (another human concept, the jungle doesn’t have any laws) the second is the foundation for any civilized nation. And when we’ll be able to extend the notion for all peoples (usually the slaves came from outside the people of the slave-owners)  we’ll have lasting peace.

What prompted me to write this? Which of the following do you think is a proper way of exerting one’s liberty? Or free will, which includes proper/professional behavior in every conceivable circumstance?
‘Rights’ are to be exerted no matter what or with great consideration? Tradition/order has to be upheld/maintained at all costs or only as long as it makes sense? ‘Makes sense’ to whom?

teen Jesus     cops student

 

 

women peshmerga    IS police

 

An animal.
An animal with a conscience.
God’s most precious creation.
Nothing but another member of the society.

All of the above and then some.

Judging by the wealth of possible answers we might conclude that the question that started all this is an open one, right?
One that prompts ‘the student’ to think before formulating an opinion. One that elicits an elaborate answer. Or one that doesn’t lead to/doesn’t contain in itself a certain answer.

The problem is that there is no such thing as a really open question. OK, some questions allow the respondent to come up with his version of reality while others elicit a very precise answer. Only every answer, no matter how personal, has to have a very strong connection to the question. Otherwise it would not be an answer any more.
If somebody asks me ‘what time is it?’ and my answer would be ‘green’ it would be just as stupid as responding ‘hate’ if asked ‘what would like to have for dinner’.

Lets go back to my initial question, and the plethora of possible answers from which each of us are supposed to choose one as ‘his personal’.
Clue: ‘choose’!

Really now, what are we, human people – God’s creations or not, it doesn’t matter – but warm blooded animals who have developed a conscience and, because of that, are able to choose?

And here comes the unpleasant part. The very fact that our main job is to choose from the many opportunities we are presented with makes us responsible for all the decisions we make. Sooner or later the consequences of our choosing will inevitably catch up with us.