The materialists point out that everything, including us, is made of matter and, hence, nothing would be possible without it while the idealists maintain that everything that exists is nothing but a projection of our own thoughts.
As an engineer who had designed (material) objects before actually building them I find it strangely rewarding that both these fiercely opposing sides are, simultaneously, right.
Just as we are simultaneously made of flesh and animated by souls.
If you disagree, just pinch yourself.
Now tell me, ‘did it hurt?’.
Who felt it? Your flesh or your soul?
And who’s able to meditate about the whole experience? How come are we not only able to feel things but also to think about them? Then to communicate, efficiently, among ourselves about our relatively different experiences?
Surely, there must be something shared amongst us, something that constitutes not only a medium for our communication but also a common base for our experiences.
I’m going to use ‘reality’ to designate that commonality, irrespective of the fact that reality is a two tiered thing.
A material reality, something that exists per se – according to its own, natural, set of laws, and a social reality, something that we, the people, have agreed upon – either willingly or by omission to protest, efficiently, against it.
These two tiers of reality are no longer independent.
In fact they have never been. The social reality has grown, as a bud, ‘on top’ of the material reality. And this has happened according to an opportunity enshrined in the natural laws that govern the very existence of the material reality.
Now, after its birth, social reality has started to alter the material one.
In two ways.
By developing an ever more sophisticated understanding of the inner workings we gradually discover inside the material realm and, subsequently, by using various aspects of that (inherently limited) understanding in order to effect voluntary change.
I’m going to make a brief pause here. Social reality is a human construct, one that came to life fueled by our own volition and shaped by the sum of the choices we’ve made during our entire history.
The mere fact that we are also ‘animals’ – and have changed the world around us by our mere, and long time unwitting, existence, is something else. Related to our social existence but nevertheless different from it.
What I’m trying to say is that by coming of age – by becoming aware of our own awareness, we are currently adding a third dimension to that Ouroboros thing.
The ‘serpent’ has been ‘eating its tail’ from the very beginning of the world. New stars have been born from the dust left after the older ones have exploded and decaying organic matter is what used to feed our crops until a few short years ago – and still does for the organic farmers.
But now, that we’ve become aware of the entire process – and of our contribution to it, we are in a position to influence its direction.
We can turn it into a vicious or a virtuous circle.
Which will it be?
And please, please, don’t make this confusion.
People do, as for now at least, need ‘nature’ in order to lead what we call/feel to be a normal life.
But nature also somehow needs us. Otherwise it wouldn’t have allowed us to become what we are today.
But did you know that it was a catholic priest that came up with the Big Bang Theory
and that Darwin was at least as interested in religion as he was in the theory of evolution? OK, in time he had become agnostic, like I am, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t religious.
A real scientist knows that knowledge is infinite and that he has no chance of mastering it all.
A truly religious person believes that there is something ‘above’ him and that his partaking in that something produces a strong bond between those who share that belief.
The person who barely reads one book, or more, and thinks that he knows it all is a fundamentalist, not at all a religious person.
A scientist can be a religious person and a religious person can be a scientist but neither a scientist nor a truly religious person can ever become a fundamentalist.
Religion is, above all, about respecting the others. So much so as to be able to cooperate with them.
Being convinced that you are in possession of the whole truth and that (most of) the rest of the world is wrong is the dead opposite of being religious.
Ilie Badescu, unul dintre stalpii sociologiei contemporane romanesti, ne atrage atentia ca “…marile revolutii se dezmiarda in mediul cel mai reactionar cu putinta. Marile reactii, procesele reactionare, sunt tot atat de necesare, ba poate ca acestea sunt, pana la urma, cele care confera sens, atat cat poate fi acesta, oricaror revolutii”. (Enciclopedia Sociologiei, 2005, Vol 1, pg 6)
Evident ca sunt deosebiri calitative. Daca in primele trei cazuri reactiile sunt de tip ‘automat’ – ‘specificate’ de legile valabile in cazul fiecarui domeniu – in cea de a patra situatie ‘reactiile’ sunt modelate de liberul arbitru al persoanelor implicate in interactiune.
Ei bine, modul in care Ilie Badescu prezinta acest concept – ‘inainte’ si ‘dupa’ – este extrem de important in intelegerea a ceea ce este ‘schimbarea sociala’. Revolutiile apar in mijlocul si din cauza unor medii reactionare iar in urma fiecare dintre ele ‘supravietuitorii’ reactioneza la ceea ce s-a intamplat si isi recladesc societatea. Cu alte cuvinte daca ‘reactiunea’ initiala ar fi fost mai putin intensa lucrurile ar fi putut fi schimbate treptat, fara sa fie nevoie de o ‘revolutie’ in adevaratul sens al cuvantului. la fel, pentru ca o revolutie sa nu se iroseasca este nevoie ca ‘reactiunea’ sa fie adecvata la motivele care au produs acea rasturnare de situatie.
Genul asta de analiza poate fi facut si pe evenimente mai marunte iar concluziile desprinse s-ar putea sa fie surprinzatoare.
In urma cu aproape un an o fata a fost ‘condusa’ pe un camp unde a intretinut relatii sexuale cu 6 tineri dupa care a fost condusa pe un alt camp unde celor 6 li s-a alaturat un al 7 iar fata a mai indurat inca un calvar. Dupa ce a ajuns acasa tanara i-a acuzat pe cei 7 de viol iar trei dintre ei au recunoscut faptele. Acum toti sunt acasa, sub control judiciar, si isi asteapta procesul.
Fapta mi se pare barbara dar nu despre asta am de gand sa vorbesc acum ci despre modul in care reactiile noastre releva amanunte interesante despre societatea in care traim.
E adevarat ca mersul istoriei a fost dur cu comunitatile de la ses. Mai intai aparitia arendasilor – ciocoi a produs o intensificare a ‘luptei de clasa’. Acestora nu le pasa de nimic in afara de castigul imediat – vechii boieri, proprietarii pamanturilor, mai aveau o oarecare legatura cu locurile, ciocoii luau in arenda mosia, stateau cativa ani si plecau in alta parte dupa ce il inselau si pe boier. Nici o mirare ca taranii au dezvoltat ‘strategii de supravietuire’ care presupuneau ‘disparitia misterioasa’ a unei parti din recolta.
Dupa colectivizare fenomenul s-a accentuat iar oamenii furau, pentru a supravietui, roadele propriului pamant.
Numai ca genul asta de ambiguitate morala nu putea sa ramana fara consecinte. Chiar si pentru un observator neantrenat exista diferente enorme intre satele cooperativizate si cele ocolite de acest flagel. Nu este vorba aici despre dimensiunea caselor ci despre modul in care sunt gospodarite aceste sate, despre cum unii matura si altii nu in fata curtilor. Despre modul in care oamenii se ajuta, sau nu, unii pe ceilalti. Despre ce parere au unii si altii despre furt. Sau despre viol.
Initial nici restul societatii nu a reactionat mult mai bine. Trec peste faptul ca cei 7 se plimba pe strada si pot da nas in nas in orice moment cu victima lor. Pana la urma acest aspect se va rezolva. Sau cel putin asa sper.
Unii s-au indignat atat de tare incat au propus pedeapsa cu inchisoare pe viata pentru cei 7 – si au folosit pentru a-i descrie termenul de ‘limbrici’.
Apoi si-au facut aparitia comentatori care pun pe acelasi plan exagerarile din ambele tabere. Ca si cum indignarea deplasata ar fi acelasi lucru cu ‘favorizarea infractorului’. Nici una nu este buna dar nu sunt in nici un caz comparabile.
Altii prefera sa nu bage in seama ce se intampla. Dupa principiul ca ce nu stiu nu poate sa-mi faca rau. Ba da, numai ca nici macar nu vei sti ce ti se intampla.
Toate astea nu sunt altceva decat simptomul atomizarii societatii. In loc de o mare comunitate – natiunea – am inceput sa dezvoltam tot felul de loialitati meschine de tipul ‘noi impotriva celorlalti’ – care de cele mai multe ori sunt descrisi ca fiind mult inferiori. Femeile sunt menite sa-i distreze pe barbati, “Toata Romania stie ca moldovenii/ moldovencele sunt o buba a societatii noatre“…
Din fericire incepe sa se faca auzita si ‘majoritatea de obicei tacuta’. Curg mesajele de sustinere a victimei si incep sa iasa la iveala alte si alte cazuri de viol a caror anchetare a batut pana acum pasul pe loc.
Exact asa cum spunea Ilie Badescu, dormim asa cum ne asternem. Avem datoria, fata de noi insine, sa rezolvam problemele inainte sa se instaureze starea de exasperare. Trebuie sa trecem odata peste efectele trecutului pentru ca nu are cine o faca in locul nostru. Altfel ne vom strecura printre degetele istoriei si vom deveni o simpla umbra pe una dintre paginile ei.
What on Earth is ‘itall’ and why would anyone bother about it?
Let me re-frame that.
Why on Earth are we so obsessed with winning in the first place?
It’s indeed nice to win from time to time but aren’t we overdoing it? Regardless of costs?
Already been there? You must surely understand where I’m driving at. Even if you are not ‘that competitive’ yourself you must’ve been wondering why hamburgers taste the same almost all over the world, and not only those mass produced by McDonald’s.
You see, there are two sides of the winning game. No, not those two obvious ones – the two players.
There are the players and the spectators. None could exist without the others but only the players, and the trainers, are aware of this.
Yet the very existence of the game and the manner in which it is played heavily influences the life of the people belonging to both categories.
As Don Boudreaux explains us in “Insipidness Guaranteed” our very fondness of winning big leads to the market being inundated by the very blandest – but generally acceptable – of products. Originality becomes stifled, contrary to the very fact that, from time to time, it’s exactly the original thing that gets the jackpot.
Three things concur to this.
I already mentioned the first.
Most players, or at least those at the top, know what’s going on while most of the (paying) spectators don’t. This leads to the spectators watching mesmerized what’s happening in the pitch while the players ratchet up the tension till it becomes unbearable least the spectators become bored and leave. So the spectators spend their time, and resources, watching instead of creatively using their brains to build something new – and potentially useful.
Our culturally enhanced obsession for winning.
Those players insist because they are plainly ‘hooked’. ‘Adrenaline is one of the most powerful drugs‘. This is true, if you don’t believe me check it on Snopes.com. The problem with this particular addiction is that adrenaline is produced naturally in our body when we compete and that the winning moment is ‘scored’ in the brain by a powerful shot of dopamine, another hugely addictive natural drug.
On top of winning being highly pleasurable, and addictive, it is also positively sanctioned by the society. Drunkenness and being high on drugs are shunned by a considerable number of people while winning is applauded by all.
It also helps.
Yes, winning helps a lot. Otherwise ‘the quest for winning’ would have withered away a long ago by the very same mechanism that encouraged the advent of the moderate altruistic behavior – natural evolution.
No, this is not about ‘the survival of the fittest’ – that’s a mirepresentation of Darwin’s words, set straight by Ernst Mayr in ‘What Evolution Is‘ : ‘It’s not about the survival of the fittest but about the demise of those who cannot cope’.
So, competition is good in the sense that it’s telling the loosers ‘stop trying this and look for another venture if you want to thrive/survive’. The real winners are exactly those who understand something when they loose.
Just as we need to balance altruism with the need to preserve our own personae, both physically and psychologically, by constantly adjusting that balance according to the prevailing circumstances, we also need to understand where our obsession for winning has brought us.
When all we want is to win, we tend to forget that survival is, most of the times for individuals and at all times for the communities, more important than winning.
Darwin had titled his most important work ‘On the origin of species by means of natural selection‘ and had amply demonstrated there that ‘natural selection’ (= competition) is just a means toward the ultimate survival. Evolution, that is.
That’s why we are hard wired to compete among ourselves – so those more adapted to a certain environment might continue doing what they are good at while the others are ‘encouraged’ to look for something else to do. But natural selection never works on the premises that ‘the winner takes it all’: very seldom competitors that belong to the same species kill each other.
Ernst Mayr demonstrates in the book I already mentioned that overspecialization is bad for you. ‘Survival of the fittest’ is stupid precisely because of that. ‘Being the fittest’ – and doing it for any considerable amount of time – means gradually becoming unable to cope with the slightest change that might occur in your environment.
That’s why natural selection includes a mechanism through which small alterations appear haphazardly in our DNA – those who are benign enough survive and provide the individuals that carry them with additional capabilities, so that they might take advantage of slightly different conditions than those where their ancestors have evolved.
Maybe it is high time for us to understand that a 2500 years old fallacy is still a fallacy. Plato marked the pinnacle of the Greek civilization, not it’s start. After he published his works, and Pericles had finished building his architectural wonders, Athens went slowly downwards and gradually lost it’s significance. Telling people what to think is the sure fire recipe for disaster. Ask the Soviets if you think what happened to the disciples of Plato isn’t convincing enough.
Coming back to where we started, winning, I have to remind you that a fundamentally aggressive attitude leads to the complete disappearance of respect. The aggressor becomes so engrossed in what he does that not only ceases to respect those around him – “He who is not for us is against us” was how Lenin used to see the world – but also looses sight of what he does to himself and to where he is leading his followers.
Why, I ask all of you, would they – or any other of the putatively democratic candidates – do any different if we, the voters, continue to behave as hapless spectators and choose to watch as they fight for power instead of reminding them that they are being interviewed for a job, not wrestling for the privilege to take home the prom-queen?
And if they don’t get it – cause they’re too busy flaunting their feathers, we don’t get it – cause we’ve been hypnotized by those very same feathers as they are, how come the trainers – those close advisers who handle the players at every occasion – don’t get it that the whole bandwagon has started to go astray?!?
Real democracy means that the would be leaders put on the table the important issues, discuss them honestly till the voters develop a real understanding of what is going on and then some of them get elected by a knowledgeable community to implement a set of policies.
nicichiarasa 