Archives for posts with tag: herding

Cineva mi-a trimis urmatoarea intrebare:

“PITAGORA a zis:
Nu năzui la himera unei democraţii pure; egalitatea perfectă există numai la morţi. 
++++++
Si cred ca are mare dreptate. Voi ce credeti ????”
Dupa care mi-a trimis si unul dintre raspunsurile primite de el:”Orice apreciere temporala e marcata de relativitate, pentru ca ignora perspectiva eternitatii.”

Moise, Noe, David si altii au trait inaintea lui Pitagora.
Notiunea de viata eterna in preajma lui Dumnezeu nu a fost o idee doar a crestinismului.
David in Ps. 15:1 spune: “Doamne cine va locui in cortul Tau?” cortul Domnului fiind etern.
Egiptenii credeau mult mai profund in viata eterna inainte de Pitagora.
Hindusi au notiunea si credinta in Nirvana ca viata de apoi.
Islamicii lafel viseaza, ca daca mor ca martiri vor avea 72 de virgine in viata de apoi.

Ateii adica a-teii care prin auto-denumile se vor fara de Dumnezeu (Teo) printr-o incapatanare perversa, cum spunea Cioran, considera ca aici e raiul, aici e iadul, asa ca dece nu si-ar trai viata fara a se teme de vreo consecinta.
Poporului rus considerat pravo-slavnic, adica adevarat aducator de slava lui Dumnezeu i s-a inoculat aceasta idee perversa pt a putea ucide la comanda partidului fara teama consecintelor eterne, chiar daca consecintele imediate erau exercitate asupra lor de proprii lor tovarasi de lupta.

Problema care se pune e aceea ca dela niste oameni cu adevarat inteligenti ar trebui sa te astepti la mai mult decat la teoreme asupra unor lucruri existente. “Suma patratului catetelor este egala cu patratul ipotenuzei” nu e o inventie ci o constatare.”

Ce am vrut sa spun este ca asa cum a fost imaginata democratia initial parea sa conduca la o oranduire ce tindea asimptotic spre perfectiune, numai ca conditiile sociale si caracterul omului impiedica realizarea perfectiunii dealungul timpului, fapt pt care devine relativ modul in care se aplica orice principiu.
Acum cunoscand modul de gandire limitat al lui Pitagora in comparatie cu alti filosofi din vremea lui, mi-am dat seama de lipsa lui de perspectiva din cele ce le vei citi mai jos.

Traieste-ti viata;
nu exista nimic inainte si nimic dupa ea. Sa-ti placa sa traiesti si sa traiesti bine. Cel ce priveste viata cu dezgust, fie ca are spiritul bolnav, fie inima putrezita. ”

 

 

N-as fi citat atat de extensiv daca textele de mai sus nu mi s-ar fi parut extrem de descriptive pentru ceea ce cred destul de multi dintre contemporanii nostri si anume ca democratia este o inventie, similar cu dictaturile. Ori exact de aici apar problemele. Fiecare dictatura este unica, fiind rezultatul actului de vointa a celui aflat la putere in momentul respectiv.

Spre deosebire de dictaturi democratia nu a fost inventata, asa cum au fost, sa spunem, chibriturile – a stat cineva cu picioarele in apa rece si s-a gandit pana a ajuns la solutia ‘optima’. (Si care oricum au mai fost imbunatatite de nu stiu cate ori de atunci)

Democratia a fost inventata in comun, de catre grupuri intregi de oameni care au constatat (prin simpla supravietuire) ca daca se inteleg intre ei le merge mai bine (tuturor) decat grupurilor/comunitatilor care urmeaza orbeste pe cel care s-a nimerit sa fie in fruntea lor…
Esential in toata treaba asta este ca membrii comunitatii respective sa fie ‘echivalenti’. Nu trebuie sa fie egali, asta e o prostie, este destul ca fiecare dintre ei sa fie autonom, adica sa nu depinda in mod josnic de cei din jurul lui – asa cum depinde sclavul de stapanul sau, iobagul de posesorul mosiei, cel care beneficiaza de asistenta sociala de bunavointa politicienilor/birocratilor…
Si aici ajungem la rana purulenta care este realitatea cotidiana. Adevarul asta rostit de Pitagora a fost intors pe toate fetele. Exact asa cum legea lui despre catete nu este o inventie ci o constatare, la fel spusele lui despre democratie sunt tot o constatare. Si asa cum legile geometriei pot fi folosite atunci cand proiectezi o casa sau un pod dar si atunci cand vrei sa construiesti un abator/lagar de concentrare la fel si constatarile despre democratie pot fi intoarse pe toate fetele.
Intotdeauna se vor gasi cate unii care sa incerce distorsionarea procesului democratic astfel incat sa le fie bine doar lor. Chiar si Hitler s-a folosit de procedee democratice pentru a ajunge la putere. Tarile comuniste erau cunoscute sub denumirea de ‘democratii populare’…
In realitate soarta grupului social/tarii depinde, in ultima instanta, de raspunsul pe care comunitatea respectiva reuseste sa il dea acestor incercari. de fapt continue, de monopolizare a procesului de decizie, de transformare a lui dintr-unul de natura colectiva intr-o dictatura.
Chestia e ca sunt foarte multe argumente de natura teoretica (constatari) pe marginea acestui fenomen si care incearca sa explice de ce democratiile ar fi mai bune decat dictaturile dupa cum sunt aproape la fel de multe argumente in sens contrar. Un exemplu, recent, ar fi succesul economic al Chinei explicat, pertinent, prin faptul ca in China autoritariana ar fi mai usor de facut afaceri – mai ales pentru investitorii straini – decat in India democratica.
Ce mi se pare mie foarte surprinzator este ca toti analistii astia uita ceva extrem de evident. Este adevarat ca multe dintre democratiile care s-au perindat de-a lungul istoriei s-au degradat in timp dar este la fel de adevarat ca toate dictaturile s-au prabusit, mai devreme sau mai tarziu. Iar fenomenul asta este din ce in ce mai accelerat. Indiferent de constatarile teoretice si de incercarile de manipulare facute plecand de la aceste constatari, democratiile se deterioreaza din ce in ce mai incet iar dictaturile se prabusesc din ce in ce mai repede.
Si aici incepe nedumerirea mea. De ce se mai chinuie manipulatorii? Sunt atat de inteligenti incat sa inteleaga mecanismele dar in acelasi timp atat de orbi incat nu vad directia generala sau atat de aroganti incat cred ca pot intoarce mersul istoriei? Chiar mai poate cineva crede ca ‘de data asta e altfel’?
La final voi reveni la raspunsul primit de prietenul meu si dupa ce veti citi aceasta ‘anexa’ incercati sa faceti o paralela intre ce spune Pitagora si invataturile lui Lao-tzi. Nu cred ca s-au cunoscut, n-ar fi fost nevoie. Exact asa cum triunghiurile sunt la fel peste tot si natura umana are generalitatile ei.
Faptul ca nicaieri democratia nu e perfecta dar ca peste tot este mai buna decat dictatura este una dintre ele. O alta ar fi ca nici o interventie umana nu poate intoarce cursul natural al istoriei, acesta poate fi incetinit temporar dar niciodata abatut din drum…
“Legi ale moralei si ale politicii – Pitagora:
Viata cumpatata, in slujba binelui si a dreptatii, trebuie sa stea si la baza alcatuirii politice a unui stat.Nu incerca sa vindeci un popor mare si corupt: cangrena nu se poate vindeca.

Nu incerca sa schimbi oranduirea unei mari natiuni. Un popor numeros e ca o dihanie hada; e ceva impotriva firii. Dintre toate soiurile de dobitoace cea mai rea e speta umana ce se cheama “popor”.

Nu raspanditi vestea unei fapte rele! Faceti in asa fel incat sa-i dispara cat mai curand si cele mai mici urme. Lasati raul sa moara!

Sa-i crezi doar pe jumatate, pe cei ce vin sa parasca fapte rele.

Nu nazui la himera unei democratii pure; egalitatea perfecta exista numai la morti.

Legiuitorule!
Nu le lasa oamenilor de stat timpul sa se deprinda cu puterea si onorurile!

Legiuitorule!
Nu uni credinta, cu morala. Roadele acestei legaturi nepotrivite nu pot fi decat niste monstri.

Legiuitorule, baga de seama sa nu te inseli!
Drepturile omului nu sunt la fel cu ale popoarelor, din cauza ca oamenii deveniti “popor”, inceteaza a mai fi oameni.

Un Senat de 100 de capete e mult prea mult! Putini legiuitori, dar
intelepti! Putini razboinici, dar viteji! Putin “popor”, dar multi cetateni!

Da legi poporului-taur si boabe poporului-bou.

Supune-te legilor, chiar daca sunt proaste! Nu te supune oamenilor, daca nu sunt mai buni ca tine.

Taie-i unghiile poporului, dar nu-i spala capul cu propria-i urina;
pedepseste-l, fara sa il injosesti.

Nu chemati in magistraturi decat barbati ce sunt in saptamana mare a vietii lor.

Magistrati!
Fiti precum in Sparta! La intrarea in tribunale ridicati un altar al
Fricii; frica de a fi pedepsit inspaimanta poporul si copiii.

Magistratule!
Legea iti e sotie legitima; desparte-te de ea, mai bine decat sa o faci sa devina o femeie trandava si care se invoieste cu orice.

Magistrati ai poporului!
Nu urmati pilda pescarilor de pe Nil, care arunca cu noroi in ochii
crocodilului, ca sa-l poata stapani.

Sa nu fii legiuitorul ori magistratul unui popor care se lauda cu mintea sa luminata.

Urmand pilda locuitorilor din Creta, la fiecare 9 ani, legile sa fie citite
si indreptate de un intelept.

Cand magistratul vorbeste, preotul sa taca!

Scutiti-va magistratii de juramant, atunci cand intra in functie, dar nu-i
scutiti sa dea socoteala, cand o parasesc.

Poporule !
Cantareste-ti legile! Numara-ti magistratii!

Poporule!
Daca iti doresti o buna randuiala in ceea ce priveste politica, fereste-te de o organizatie fara vlaga, o administratie fara putere si de luxul
ospetelor. Acestea trei dau intotdeauna nastere vrajbei in viata civila si in gospodarii si au ca urmare, naruirea statului si a familiei.

Nu tulbura o apa statatoare, ori un popor in sclavie.

Fugi de poporul caruia ii place esafodul.

Nu te astepta sa ti se multumeasca, atunci cand ii faci un bine poporului: dintre toate dobitoacele, el este cel mai nerecunoscator.

Lucrul cel mai rusinos al unei stapaniri este pandirea si iscodirea
oamenilor.

Nu urma pilda omizii: nu primi sa te tarasti la picioarele printului sau in
fata poporului, pentru ca, intr-o zi, sa porti aripi.

Toti suntem egali! Sa nu credeti insa ca neghiobul este egalul inteleptului.

In fiecare an sa aveti o zi de sarbatoare numita pacea familiei. In aceasta zi, sotul si sotia, la pranz, in mijlocul familiei, isi vor da mana si isi vor ierta unul altuia greselile facute de-a lungul anului.

Invata sa vezi mai departe decat pot ajunge privirile tale.

Lebada tace toata viata, ca sa poata canta desavarsit, o singura data.
Omule de geniu! Ramai in umbra si pastreaza tacerea, pana in clipa in care vei putea sa apari cu toata stralucirea unei faime pe care nimeni nu o mai poate tagadui.

Nu admira nimic! Zeii s-au nascut din admiratia oamenilor.

Sa nu ai alt Zeu in afara de propria ta constiinta.

Fii cetatean al lumii intregi, pana cand vei intalni un popor intelept si
cu legi drepte.

Traieste-ti viata;
nu exista nimic inainte si nimic dupa ea. Sa-ti placa sa traiesti si sa traiesti bine. Cel ce priveste viata cu dezgust, fie ca are spiritul bolnav, fie inima putrezita.”

Image

 

OK, amu’ sa vad eu cine musca primul din cat-burgherul asta!

OK, now I’m anxiously waiting to see who’s going to take the first bite! 

By reading the comments at the bottom of this post one would get the feeling that the current Ukrainian government is nothing but a bunch of islamists and that Russia deserves kudos for standing up to western bullies…
Well…the Ukrainians are anything but islamic, bar the Tartars now living in the Russian occupied Crimea, and Putin is not standing up against any bully but trying to get some more elbow room at the bully convention he, and others, is currently attending.
And the rest of us, middle of the road people, will continue to stay in the sorry state we currently dwell as long as we’ll let others speak for us, unchecked. I understand why too many of us are so disheartened but this is exactly where the bullies want us to be and the longer we stay here the harder it will be for us to climb out of here.
So get hold of your shoe laces, pull yourself up and let’s go.
Don’t ask/wait for guidance. You already know, deep in your hearts, what is it that you have to do.

PS I must also mention that there is a big mistake, albeit a common one, to conflate the image of a people with that of those who temporarily rule that people. Yes, there is link between the two, but they are not the same thing. Not even when the rulers are democratically elected and so much less so when we are discussing a country that finds itself under a totalitarian regime.

People are having second thoughts about getting their children vaccinated and ask themselves if it makes any sense to do it at all. 

Things are relatively simple.
Vaccines work for whole populations, not necessarily for individuals. In order to make them acceptable those who market them try (or at least should try) to make them as good as possible.
For a rational (but callous) individual the best thing to do is to make sure that he is the only one not vaccinated: he cannot catch the disease since nobody can have it yet suffers no possible side effects from being inoculated.
If enough people opt out then the whole effort would have been in vain. The immunity obtained by vaccination isn’t as strong as the one one gets after surviving the disease so if enough people get the disease because they haven’t been vaccinated at all then older people, those who have been vaccinated first, start to fall ill.
From this point on nobody would vaccinate anymore their children – because it’s useless, right? – while the right thing to do would be to get a second vaccine, a rappel.
What’s getting on my nerves is the fact that sometimes we trust ‘scientists’/’technicians’ with our lives (for instance when we get aboard airplanes) yet other times we develop all kind of wild theories (about vaccines, for instance).
Of course we need to be extremely careful, both when choosing an airline or a pharmaceutical company, but to refuse altogether to fly or to vaccinate your children…

The sole characteristic that makes us what we are, human beings, is our ability to ‘get out of our selves’ and to make decisions as if their outcome didn’t matter to us. In other terms we are able of cold blooded reasoning.
I don’t say this is easy – it involves quieting down our emotions – nor that everybody is able to do it. In fact almost nobody is able to do it consistently yet here we are, all the better just because of this particular ability of ours.

I find it extremely strange that some of us, in fact too many of us, are willing to give up this special ability, for different reasons.

Some try to introduce self driving cars, in the name of safety and to increase the capacity of existing highways. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-04-03/the-problem-with-self-driving-cars-they-dont-cry

Some others came up with software to grade students essays. http://www.informationweek.com/mobile/mobile-devices/automated-essay-grading-software-stirs-debate/d/d-id/1111035?

Not even the stock market is immune to these developments. “High-frequency trading practices” – robots, that is – have become widespread enough as to create concern. http://www.aboutschwab.com/press/issues/

As you’ll notice if you read those articles there is no clear majority as yet, for or against this phenomenon. Pros are carefully weighted against the identified cons and then advice is given by the authors. Unfortunately none of them distances himself far enough from the brouhaha to notice the somber fact that by allowing so many automatons to take over our lives we not only basically give up our individual autonomy but also we give up more and more of the opportunities we have to exercise our capacity to decide for ourselves.

It is indeed increasingly safer and more profitable, in the short term at least.

But is it really good for us? For our ability to cope in unforeseen/unforeseeable circumstances?

Excellent post.
Obama failed to fulfill, by far, both the promises he made when he run for president AND the hopes/illusions nurtured by those who voted for him but holding him accountant for all the misery that befell on the regular Joe is a little too much.
This kind of mistakes is very costly. Those who forget that the daily actions of each and everyone of us aggregate into our common destiny tend to believe that we might change our fortune simply by changing the leader.
History has proven, time and again, that we’ll keep making the same mistake until we’ll eventually understand what went wrong. And start doing ourselves what needs to be done instead of looking up to somebody above us to direct our actions.

Image

 

“During the hearing, a lawmaker read out an internal company e-mail saying that a 90-cent per-piece increase that would have fixed the flawed part wasn’t justified by the offsetting 10 cents to 15 cents in warranty savings. Barra, 52, said the GM she inherited three months ago would never condone executives opposing fixes that might have saved lives because they’re too expensive.”

We all know were the ‘cost culture’ has taken the ‘old’ GM: into the ground.
I’ll be blunt on this one. In fact it is not about minimizing the costs. That is not only rational but also natural. The real problems arise from ‘maximizing profits’, sometimes at “all costs”. Non financial costs that is. I.e. lives. Human lives in this case.

And this will keep on happening until we’ll finally understand that profits are good – inexorable even – but only as long they are an indicator for being on the right track towards long time survival (sustainable growth if you want to call it that way).

Allowing for the customers to get killed just for the sake of some pennies shaved from the costs is an extreme but compelling symptom of the present confusion. Short time profits, made at the expense of the customers, can be extremely dangerous.

Eventually they’ll kill the business itself, not just the customers.

PS Click on the highlighted quote, or here, and read the entire Bloomberg article. It’s worth it.

 

Image

“But what, you may ask, has the early and welcome arrival of bees and blossoms to do with food?”

 

PS the video starts in earnest only after 0:30.

Little Akio

The teacher said “Let’s begin by reviewing some history. Who said: ‘Give me Liberty, or give me Death’?” She saw a sea of blank faces, except for Little Akio, a bright foreign exchange student from Japan, who had his hand up: “Patrick Henry, 1775 ” he said. “Very good!”

“Who said: ‘Government of the People, by the People, for the People, shall not perish from the Earth’?” Again, no response except from Little Akio: “Abraham Lincoln, 1863”. “Excellent!” said the teacher continuing.

“Let’s try one a bit more difficult. Who said, ‘Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country’?” Once again, Akio’s was the only hand in the air and he said: “John F. Kennedy, 1961”.

The teacher snapped at the class “Class, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Little Akio isn’t from this country and he knows more about our history than you do”.

She heard a loud whisper: “Fuck the Japs”. “WHO SAID THAT? I want to know right now!” she angrily demanded. Little Akio put his hand up “General MacArthur, 1945”.

At that point, a student in the back said “I’m gonna puke”. The teacher glares around and asks “All right! Now who said that?” Again, Little Akio says “George Bush to the Japanese Prime Minister, 1991”.

Now furious, another student yells “Oh yeah? Suck this!” Little Akio jumps out of his chair waving his hand and shouts to the teacher “Bill Clinton, to Monica Lewinsky, 1997!”

Now with almost mob hysteria someone said “You little shit! If you say anything else, I’ll kill you!” Little Akio frantically yells at the top of his voice “Michael Jackson to the children testifying against him, 2004”.

The teacher fainted.

As the class gathered around the teacher on the floor, someone said “Oh shit, we’re screwed!” Little Akio said quietly:

 “Albertans, if Justin Trudeau gets elected PM”.

“The people of Pakistan, when Zardari became President, 2008.”

– “The City of Toronto, if Rob Ford gets re-elected as mayor.”

“The Egyptian people, 4 month after Moursi was elected.”

– “The Australian people, when Gillard was elected, August 2010.”

–  ‘The Bermudian people, November 9, 1998.’ …

.

.

.

“What’s the meaning of all this?”, you probably ask yourself right now!
Well…how about globalization going on so well that we all share the same problem?

Image

Revederea acestui filmulet mi-a readus in minte o mare nedumerire:

Nu cumva Marx este un urmas intarziat al lui Platon?
Varianta originala a povestii se termina altfel.
Platon sustine ca cel care a cunoscut deja adevarul are obligatia de a le deschide ochii fostilor sai colegi, chiar folosind forta daca acestia nu se lasa de buna voie condusi spre lumina.
Tocmai din cauza acestei ‘obligatii’ resimtite de amandoi stau si ma gandesc daca nu cumva de la Platon a imprumutat Marx convingerea ca ‘avant-garda clasei muncitoare’ (patidul comunist) are ‘menirea’ de a-i conduce pe proletari in paradisul terestru, chiar si impotriva dorintei lor…
In ceea ce priveste ‘realitatea’… ambele lumi sunt la fel de reale…in primul rand pentru ca existenta lor nu poate fi pusa la indoiala dar mai ales pentru ca nimic nu este cu adevarat real pana cand nu este luat la cunostinta de un subiect cunoscator.
Simpla existenta unui obiect sau a unui fapt nu ii confera acestuia statutul de real, ele devin reale abia dupa ce existenta lor a fost certificata prin observare de catre o entitate constienta. (de fapt constienta de constiinta sa, e nevoie de o entitate care se poate dedubla, care isi poate spune siesi ‘i-a uita-te ce chestie se intampla aici!’)…