Posts relevant
"The stage is set"
"The end of free-market fundamentalism"
"My first lecture in Berkeley!"
"The End Of Free-Market Fundamentalism"
"Not recommended: frantically seeking escape from a chaotic situation, we find ourselves in."
"Throwing overboard relentlessly whatever is remotely connected with what is not agreed now."
"Imperfect kinds of consciousness"
If once more, I hear or read on chaos and chaotic conditions or situations in that manner I will explode.
Referring to chaos as synonym to mayhem and destruction and ignoring the fact that, this is a result, of our limited perspectives, every human individual's limited perspective. We should not attribute as chaos, what our obvious inability to asses any situations in their widest breadth and furthest depth ever, brings forth.
An inability which even comes out from the comment of Philippe, in the post 'My first lecture in Berkeley!'of 'Au bout de l'ouest / Running out of west' website,
"If you look at the quote by Poincaré (arguably the person who introduced the concept of chaos without naming it that way) I put in the text, it's clear that he takes an epistemological point of view compared to Laplace's "omniscient being" point of view (which is not that much useful for the actual practice of science with finite means of inquiry)."
Human individuals obviously suffering from an "omniscient being" syndrome, which drives them to assume the product of their senses and the information gathered, limited as is, as an absolute and unequivocal view of the world and ignore that as individuals, we have 'finite means of inquiry', which is even reflected in the way we practice science.
That, what we take as chaos, it is merely apparent, as our brains can not take in, everything there is out there. What is described and taken as chaos is a result of our very limited views for almost everything that unfolds around us.
Whereas, as it is pointed out in the same comment
"Another way you can see it is that if you believe the world is deterministic, "randomness" doesn't exist per se. True randomness would mean, for example, that the state of some object in the future is totally uncorrelated with its present state. Chaotic systems give the appearance of randomness, because there is a time in the future where our uncertainty in our knowledge of the present (no matter how small it is, as long as it's larger than 0) will prevent us from seeing any correlations."
the randomness which is a common theme, in the view of chaos as mayhem and destruction, 'doesn't exist per se', as states of objects, any object, are correlated with their states in the past, and the future states are correlated with their present states. That chaotic systems give the appearance of randomness, exacerbated by the enormity of objects around us, building up a complexity that our minds cannot fathom, a complexity out of countless processes and objects, which we can only 'see', understand, make it meaningful to us, a very limited portion. What is referred to, as 'our uncertainty in our knowledge of the present' which 'prevent us from seeing any correlations'.
Assuming such a stance towards chaos, accentuates helplessness, reduce ourselves, our capacity to provide solutions to any problems, to whatever size or implications in every aspect of our lives, our societies, the world at large.
Or even drive people, in groups or individually, to seek just another saviour of humanity whereas the only saviour that exists, is the very own human individual, himself or herself. An endeavour which dilutes and weakens the strength of any messages passed to wider circles, or any goals sought for, despite how worthwhile they might be.
Friday, 26 December 2008
Thursday, 25 December 2008
Why personality change is so hard? Because monetizing societies squeeze every inch out of the lives of the individuals amidst them.
Blatant remark, in the 'Set in Our Ways: Why Change Is So Hard', article in scientific american mind?
"Personality can continue to change somewhat in middle and old age, but openness to new experiences tends to decline gradually until about age 60. After that, some people become more open again, perhaps because their responsibilities for raising a family and earning a living have been lifted."
Killing dreams, shun new experiences? Why? Openness to new experiences decline until about 60. The age for retirement? Retirement from what?
Their squeezed out lives, being trapped in the cogs of western or westernized economies, pressured from any angle possible, sentenced to live their lives out, in the service of economic interests, which their sole purpose is to accumulate wealth that its bulk is siphoned in the pockets of a handful of individuals.
Leaving the equivalent of crumbs, as reward for their toil, a meager flow of wealth carefully administered so they can barely sustain vital functions for their survival and that of their families. Never a moment's peace.
Keeping them constantly on their toes, with sparse moments for rest through their whole working lives.
How can they ever be able to sustain the fervour of their youth?
No wonder the 22-year-old Christopher McCandless, chose death to a life, so ruthlessly drained of its force.
'Set in Our Ways', and the only thing offered is “The shortest path to oneself leads around the world.”, trivializing a trait responsible for the stagnant societies, the world over. As usually.
The whole article is a mock to the face of every individual, and they have the audacity to throw it in piles.
"Personality can continue to change somewhat in middle and old age, but openness to new experiences tends to decline gradually until about age 60. After that, some people become more open again, perhaps because their responsibilities for raising a family and earning a living have been lifted."
Killing dreams, shun new experiences? Why? Openness to new experiences decline until about 60. The age for retirement? Retirement from what?
Their squeezed out lives, being trapped in the cogs of western or westernized economies, pressured from any angle possible, sentenced to live their lives out, in the service of economic interests, which their sole purpose is to accumulate wealth that its bulk is siphoned in the pockets of a handful of individuals.
Leaving the equivalent of crumbs, as reward for their toil, a meager flow of wealth carefully administered so they can barely sustain vital functions for their survival and that of their families. Never a moment's peace.
Keeping them constantly on their toes, with sparse moments for rest through their whole working lives.
How can they ever be able to sustain the fervour of their youth?
No wonder the 22-year-old Christopher McCandless, chose death to a life, so ruthlessly drained of its force.
'Set in Our Ways', and the only thing offered is “The shortest path to oneself leads around the world.”, trivializing a trait responsible for the stagnant societies, the world over. As usually.
The whole article is a mock to the face of every individual, and they have the audacity to throw it in piles.
Tuesday, 16 December 2008
Rules fit for a monster? The human individual?
- Rules to serve the public and not the hungry for profit needs of providers, so-called entrepreneurs.
- Malthusian societies? Modern societies determined by bare subsistence wages?
- Are all individuals in a society considered potential offenders?
Laws and rules that they do not fall into the norms that drive human interactions, streamlined to paths that do not follow the painstakingly trodden by attractors, grooves. What the attractors that bear the norms, demand for.
State authorities asking for blind obedience, as any beat policeman will tell, your ignorance is not allowed, so fervently delivered in a stern, unforgiving manner, and profoundly unquestionable. An exterior which its main purpose is to dress with a shroud of importance meaningless code which barely touches what a human individual has to deal with, in its every day life.
Strict adherence to rules renders them stupid, as solutions offered are naive and short-sighted, as they are heavily influenced by monetising criteria, which utterly warp and distort the meaning coming out of even the most well-thought benign rules, barely touch the source of the problems, as they hardly manage to provide the solutions human individuals require
Rules which their natural place fit for shrines, objects to be revered and worshiped but not to be used, to deal with the problems individuals face in their every day lives.
As in their strict adherence, its enforcers miss the point, that the reason for the rules of being there in the first place is to facilitate the interactions of human individuals but instead the rules devised, their only purpose is to serve monetising interests.
Rules that deal with individuals problems, are in no need to be enforced, they are adhered by the individuals as it is the glue that keep societies intact.
The human individual has no need for anyone to tell them what to do.
The human individual is not the monster that so ingeniously is spread by states agencies and public media, that swamp human consciousness with the one in a million cases of aberrant behaviour examples, grossly exaggerated.
A fallacy constantly perpetuated by states agencies and public media held tight in the grip of monetising concerns and their acolytes.
So eagerly are out to convince us that the human individual is a monster to be afraid of and not the incessant strict adherence to monetise every bit of human activity that there is.
Adverts from state agencies, that their sole purpose for being aired is to twist and turn the feelings of a human individual for his fellow individuals, to drive them deeper into their cocoons, their comfort zones, isolate humanity, divide individuals and subsequently conquer, easy prey for all exploiters to squeeze out of them every bit of energy, and promptly monetise it.
- Malthusian societies? Modern societies determined by bare subsistence wages?
- Are all individuals in a society considered potential offenders?
Laws and rules that they do not fall into the norms that drive human interactions, streamlined to paths that do not follow the painstakingly trodden by attractors, grooves. What the attractors that bear the norms, demand for.
State authorities asking for blind obedience, as any beat policeman will tell, your ignorance is not allowed, so fervently delivered in a stern, unforgiving manner, and profoundly unquestionable. An exterior which its main purpose is to dress with a shroud of importance meaningless code which barely touches what a human individual has to deal with, in its every day life.
Strict adherence to rules renders them stupid, as solutions offered are naive and short-sighted, as they are heavily influenced by monetising criteria, which utterly warp and distort the meaning coming out of even the most well-thought benign rules, barely touch the source of the problems, as they hardly manage to provide the solutions human individuals require
Rules which their natural place fit for shrines, objects to be revered and worshiped but not to be used, to deal with the problems individuals face in their every day lives.
As in their strict adherence, its enforcers miss the point, that the reason for the rules of being there in the first place is to facilitate the interactions of human individuals but instead the rules devised, their only purpose is to serve monetising interests.
Rules that deal with individuals problems, are in no need to be enforced, they are adhered by the individuals as it is the glue that keep societies intact.
The human individual has no need for anyone to tell them what to do.
The human individual is not the monster that so ingeniously is spread by states agencies and public media, that swamp human consciousness with the one in a million cases of aberrant behaviour examples, grossly exaggerated.
A fallacy constantly perpetuated by states agencies and public media held tight in the grip of monetising concerns and their acolytes.
So eagerly are out to convince us that the human individual is a monster to be afraid of and not the incessant strict adherence to monetise every bit of human activity that there is.
Adverts from state agencies, that their sole purpose for being aired is to twist and turn the feelings of a human individual for his fellow individuals, to drive them deeper into their cocoons, their comfort zones, isolate humanity, divide individuals and subsequently conquer, easy prey for all exploiters to squeeze out of them every bit of energy, and promptly monetise it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)