Friday, 26 November 2010

.. going through life, on an automatic pilot.

In, Chapter 'Structures', Paragraph 1.4, in Smith, R. D. (1998) 'Social Structures and Chaos Theory'

"Despite the fact this definition is nearly 30 years old it is sufficiently expressive of what most social scientists actually believe to be deemed 'intuitively clear'. Most researchers talk of such social-structural phenomena as 'class', 'ses', 'family', 'household', 'babyboomers', 'Xers', 'ethnic groups', 'minorities', 'women', 'homosexuals', 'races', 'castes' and so on without much further thought."

.. without much further thought, it donned to me, how cannot be any thing else? Automations. We are going through life, on an automatic pilot. Part and parcel of the program followed, becomes ingrained into our mind, solidifies, consolidates. And one morning, when the conditions, our program is set to deal with, cease to be, while fully on the autopilot mode, drives us into despair.

Our whole life crumples around us in ruins. Our lives scattered. Chaos? When we stick thoughtlessly to our automatic pilot? Is that becoming of the human individual?

Sunday, 14 November 2010

Axiomatic societies

As if they come by themselves, out of nowhere. Why? Because they come, from out of the system boundaries, the supersystem, or the inclusive system, the system including the system under observation, under study. Be that the system that we live in.

The previous paths, the paths already in, within the system are circumvented, they are not visited any more, they are not included in the paths taken, the new paths.

As the paths do not include the ideas, whose extent is confined within the system, that avoids clashes inherent in the system, only. The feeling of helplessness and loss disappears, it does not materialise.

Clashes ensue following the paradigm of Gödel, as they develop out of contradicting rules that nullify each other, as a result there is loss of consistency

"Gödel proved fundamental results about axiomatic systems showing in any axiomatic mathematical system there are propositions that cannot be proved or disproved within the axioms of the system."

To get away from the idea, that using Gödel's theorems, outside what is meant to be in the first place, namely mathematical systems, or even the volumes of Principiae Mathematica, is wrong.

In the particular case, of states, governments and societies, they are all axiomatic. Being systems based on axioms, values that are evident, without further arguments. And they are axiomatic, as it is widely based on values that they are regarded as evident without proof or argument.

the whole of society is based upon axioms

In a world that is based on money, it is unthinkable to be without money and certainly you will find quite a lot of things to ease your 'pain' and add comfort to your life
But think about, in a world that is not based on money, what would be the 'value', of the things you value in a world based on money? Would that 'value' change? Would, the demand on our lives, be less taxing for comfort sought? Comfort achieved without 'paying' high 'prices'?
Then the question is .... without buried into the 'how-to-mechanics' .... only expressing choice
What world would you prefer? With or without money.

The subjective vs. objective struggle built-in, in social structures.

It donned to me. The subjective vs. objective contradiction surpasses the boundaries of science and extends to the structures of society. Societies are built along the lines of seemingly objective perspectives. Governments, agencies, corporations demand to submit and surrender our subjective nature, to their ways of seeing and interpreting of what is objective. An all pervading, arbitrary, dominating directive alien to the notion of objective. An objective which its primary and foremost goal is monetary. Maximise profits and minimise losses.

The objective loses its meaning. The objective that serves the purpose of a government, an agency, a corporation is elevated to the objective of the whole, the sum of the individuals in a society, and demands to be their objective. For all individuals to submit their subjective to the objective which is self-serving to the needs of the government, agency, corporation. It is beyond even the objective that science today promotes. Whereas science uses its methods to make sure for what will be accepted as objective, it satisfies criteria that are acceptable by logic, the objective promoted by governments, the criteria used are biased towards serving their needs. And further they have the affront to use their brand of objective as the objective offered by science.

What defines the objective in the mentality of individuals that run governments, agencies, corporations? They are so overwhelmed in their tasks, so deeply involved in their brand of objective, that they loose track of reality, their reality is so squeezed, the boundaries narrowed, they are unable to see the bigger picture. Their mind present to their consciousness, this limited view of reality, as a whole. The part becomes their whole world. They see the part as a whole and they attribute that part as a whole, and not what really is, just a part.

And to that view they require our obedience, our blind submission. Does that have further implications to the monetising urge that pervades and overwhelms society norms? That everything humans do, every human action as having the goal to maximise profits? That every thought, every ability human possess to be directed towards, to be used for, a servant to accumulating economic value? For every act to be measured in dollars, pounds, euros, namely in currency? According to that view, it won't be long, monetising forces will stick a price tag to planet earth? To the air we breathe, the space we use, the thoughts we think, the lives we live?

It goes deeper than that. It goes as far as what we think is objective. It is rooted down to when we ourselves try to elevate our subjective view to an objective one. Regard our subjective views as being objective. Our ways of seeing the world as the only ways to see the world. That goes down to submitting to the notion that the world is filled with imperfect views (in the theory of minds, that particular paragraph with the monkeys), that goes even further about solipsism and our infallible selves. We ignore that in the same way that we require from other individuals to let us make sense out of the world by ourselves, at the same time we deny others the right to make sense of the world in their own way. Our subjective sense of the world becomes overriding in our contact and behavior that we do not allow, simply deny, other individuals their subjectiveness.

And this is the very same tendency in individuals responsible for putting forward the guidelines that mark the decisions made for large social groups and their actions more serious as it involves of imposing their will in a lot more individuals than in one to one cases. Geared? Chaotic? A minute change in the parameters that has an enormous effect in the outcome state? The variables that determine the outcome state? And sensitive dependence to the initial conditions?

We require to stick to our subjective views, to defend our subjectivity since this is the only way to make sense of the world, this is the way we acquire meaning of the world. If we relinquish that right there will be a discrepancy in our actions. We will not be able to function in a way that is meaningful to us. Our functions will be compromised. Our functions are compromised. We will not be doing a service to ourselves as well as to other individuals. To individuals close to us as well as individuals that our actions has an influence on them. They are connected. We owe to ourselves, to our consciousness, to make meaning of the world and to use that meaning to guide our problem solving/decision making part of our consciousness.

Without it our lives will be meaningless, the societies we built meaningless, our existence meaningless. We should not relish our subjectivity to anyone for anything, we should not aim to subdue anyone's subjectivity to ours, we should not aim towards submitting the subjectivity of others to ours. We should not expect others to submit to our subjectivity in whatever way, may that be force, language, persuasion.

There is no common sense. There is nothing common, in whatever way it can be expressed or interpreted, in the way we view the world. Each individual views the world, in a deeply private and personal standpoint and any attempt to use or enforce such averaged out notions, to such deeply felt issues is suspicious and alien to human nature.

We should listen before we talk.

Wednesday, 13 October 2010

The persistent endeavour of the human individual towards its goal to be happier. The brain hurts.

The persistent endeavour of the human individual towards its goal to be happier. Overriding and all-consuming in every aspect of all actions and reactions in one's lifetime. Learning to be happy? An organised approach? Certainly yes, it is a matter that should not be left to mere chance.

Ms Gretchen Rubin and the reach personal teases out provide a framework within which such an approach should be elaborated in.

It is mentioned in the website

"It is an account of the year she spent test-driving

... the wisdom of the ages,
... the current scientific studies, and ..
... the lessons from popular culture

about how to be happier.

The key-words account, ..test-driving, ..wisdom, ..scientific studies, ..popular culture .. all-inclusive.., each individual creating an account based upon the wisdom accumulated over the ages, the incisive cutting-edge clarity afforded by scientific study, concepts involved drilled down to their most basic ingredients revealed to their full potential, no stone left unturned.

Further, ..

"We have asked Ms. Rubin to follow-up with what she

... learned about happiness,
... social engagement, and ...
... her personal brand ...

in the process of writing the book.

Learned happiness, and by learning constantly assimilating what is learned in achieving a happier state, assisted via effective social engagement, culminated into a personality conducive to such goal, are all worthwhile pursuits.

However, Ms Rubin published a book called 'Power Money Fame Sex: A User's Guide is biting social criticism in the form of a user's manual.' This combination alters matters, as when these four dimensions are combined together provide a mixture that is explosive, undermining the goal proclaimed. Their goal a happiness that lacks the main ingredient .. happiness itself. What is pursued is never reached. What is sought after is never achieved or if you like would never be achieved.

Marred by the unyielding combination of money with the other three genuine traits of the human individual, her framework collapses to a reject which needs to be addressed, revised despite that can be regarded as acceptable, that it is not wander such an inclusion would pervade in the framework, as it is a product of the current age and trend where money still dominates society and the minds of people, and though there are people and in all people at a certain time that the thought had entered into, that money do not fit with the pursuit of happiness itself.

But unable to think out alternatives the mere thought of living without money causing pain and discomfort, and that starts with the brain architecture itself for anything that a change is paramount, forced upon an unprepared brain structure, the whole gamut of thoughts we produce, create is out of the mass of neurons tightly woven by synapses, re-arrangement of these synapses the re-alignment needed to accommodate a change is an enormous task, a change that requires a complete overhaul, a change in central deep neuron architecture is bound to have an enormous impact upon the well-being of an individual giving one a headache a migraine. The brain hurts. Such an enormous task should be undertaken in steps, bit-by-bit one step at a time ..

Tweeter rant ..

Power Money Fame Sex ... fuck !!! .. the inclusion of money .. the illusion of money .. how does that affect .. the other three? .. power .. fame .. sex .. distort .. the other three .. warp ..

power .. money, the crutch .. the colt-45 .. that makes individuals equal .. not with what nature has endowed them with .. and the wit to outdo nature ..
fame .. bought and sold .. by money ..
sex .. likewise .. by money ..

.. how does that affect .. reaching each other ..out ..

money .. the cane to poke with .. what one wants to poke out .. what the other is reluctant to poke out what is poked for ..

.. finally forced to poke out .. against one's own will .. what is poked for .. succumbing to the poking .. money avails ..

.. a veil hiding what one wants to share with the other .. perverting nature and wit ..

.. happiness? .. surrounded .. expressed .. by money .. what kind of happiness .. is this? .. over-the-counter happiness .. shelves have plenty of it ..

brain architecture abhors change .. is not conducive to change .. our brains our enemies .. brains hate change ..

Friday, 8 October 2010

Economy fails humanity.

The world must be freed from the current version of economy. The model doesn't work. Human individuals are not destined as minions in the hands of the privileged, that economy creates. Economy's role is to sort out the affairs of all individuals, in a manner that takes away from their hands the tasks of survival and self-preservation, deep-seated within each individual and such a goal is not served with the current economic model.

There is no survival success value of the survival of the fittest that passes through at the expense of the survival of the rest of human individuals. It is a pure disgrace the state of the world now-a-days, people struggling to survive amidst the opulence of the few at the current age and stage of humanity.

Their survival still at stake, humanity its hands tied by the false principles permeating the economic theories pursued.