How changes in societies are effected?
It is not the change that happens at the top that matters, but the changes that take place at the bottom, the foundations of a system, the agents of a system, the human individuals in societies.
Any change in the perspective, the outlook, the viewpoint, the behaviour, the rules of conduct of the human individual, or whatever other term is used to express what drives the acts performed or undertaken by agents in the system society, every activity that unfolds in all societies, the world over.
Changes that are effected on the ideas, no matter how little or big, human individuals carry. Big or little ideas that explain all acts individuals undertake, what is behind of everything that move societies back and forth at any given moment, but always forth when looked at from the perspective of longer time intervals.
Social systems, with a variety of institutions devised amidst them, tend to preserve what is gained, assumed to be the cornerstone, the pinnacle, the panacea of all societal structures tried and tested so far. Their actions are directed towards all the ideas held by human individuals. Their attempts aim at moulding the changes ideas can undergo. What changes are allowed and what are not. At the end, they become reactionary, subversive, they hold back the proliferation of ideas, stifle progress.
But the kind of changes, ideas undergo, can not be directed by the narrow boundaries institutions prescribe, especially when it is taken into account that these institutions are heavily influenced by factors alien to the nature of the human individual, and driven by the most primitive of principles, of the domination of groups of individuals by any other group of individuals for whatever reason or other arbitrary viewpoint possible.
Human history is a treasure, sort to speak, of a large cohort of examples where groups, based on race, colour, religion, nationality, birth, gender, birthplace, or whatever other attribute, trivial or not that divides humanity into groups.
All these divisions, one by one have been tried and tested, and eventually overthrown and abandoned and all started as changes in the ideas carried in the minds of individuals and subsequently as changes in the structure of societies built.
The last bastion, the domination by groups of individuals based on the possession of money is underway, and eventually to come into its liberating conclusion.
Once this is accomplished, then the most miraculous journey for humanity begins. The unhindered by alien, external influences, discovery of nature itself and the nature of the human individual.
Sunday, 15 February 2009
Saturday, 17 January 2009
Mundane approaches and paradigm shifts in societies
In the post "Paradigm Shift: Changing the Human Experience", of the Rain City Guide website, in Comment 66 from ARDELL it mentions
"For the most part, tipping points do come from the mundane approach, as it takes masses of people to shift, in order for the behavior to “tip” in a new direction."
There is something, the word profound comes into my mind, hidden in this excerpt. I would feed it in my chaotic mind and see what it will come up with.
Talking about paradigm shifts, in social norms, modes of behaviour, ways of dealing with stuff. The problems individuals face in life. Problems that seek a solution. In seek for solutions.
Certainly, a solution, an alternative way to deal with problems, might already be there. It exists. It has been discovered. But to no avail.
'mundane'
Why it sticks into my mind? There should be something there. Mundane, as something that is already there, and it is repeated on and on. Routines that have been adopted and followed, even faithfully for that matter. It hardly provides any room for change. It is not a fertile ground for changes. Certainly, does not excite individuals involved, that are participating in such an approach, as they undertake the tasks involved. I would even say that the individuals are trapped, within narrow boundaries. Limiting in a manner, their expression.
Still, 'mundane' is powerful as by itself, in right or wrong ways, is what holds societies compact. All the processes involved, adhered steadfastly by individuals, give the necessary momentum, provide the 'body' that despite where the processes lead to, to useful or useless goals or something in between, nevertheless build solid structures.
Solid structures, the necessary fiber, the glue that holds societies intact as the time goes by. Mundane processes incorporating the dynamics necessary to preserve continuity through time.
And the 'tipping points', changes introduced while maintaining the structures, the 'body' being kept intact, need to be adopted individually out of informed approaches, countless acts of assessing, weighing, trying, testing and re-testing
as 'it takes masses of people to shift', so the final(?) 'tip' would come, I would say, effortlessly, as if by itself, without major upheavals
Revolution at the level of the single individual, small 'revolutions' introduced within the wider context of societies, the essence of chaos. The minute changes in an individual effects changes on the initial conditions of the systems 'societies', and by sensitive dependence 'tips' societal behaviour in a new direction.
Today's societies enormous. Minute changes. The change adopted at the level of a single individual 'tips' the behaviour of society in a new direction
The paradigm shift effected.
Up to the point that everything that what was held steadfastly in the past is abandoned, forgotten and thrown overboard,
The society never looks back.
How a change in the single individual takes place? In the same way that it takes place in the context of the system society. The individual with its very own initial conditions assessed, effects the small changes, and by sensitive dependence is carried through at the level of its overall behaviour, broadly based on chaos self-similarity principle.
What represents its behaviour, a net daunting in its complexity on its own merit, within the system, the very own individual is. And the individual, a fundamental sub-system of the system society, the foundations of any system or several systems that all together make up the system society. Each system that exists, with its very own set of mundane procedures. But, as well with its initial conditions, the sensitive dependence and chaos.
"For the most part, tipping points do come from the mundane approach, as it takes masses of people to shift, in order for the behavior to “tip” in a new direction."
There is something, the word profound comes into my mind, hidden in this excerpt. I would feed it in my chaotic mind and see what it will come up with.
Talking about paradigm shifts, in social norms, modes of behaviour, ways of dealing with stuff. The problems individuals face in life. Problems that seek a solution. In seek for solutions.
Certainly, a solution, an alternative way to deal with problems, might already be there. It exists. It has been discovered. But to no avail.
'mundane'
Why it sticks into my mind? There should be something there. Mundane, as something that is already there, and it is repeated on and on. Routines that have been adopted and followed, even faithfully for that matter. It hardly provides any room for change. It is not a fertile ground for changes. Certainly, does not excite individuals involved, that are participating in such an approach, as they undertake the tasks involved. I would even say that the individuals are trapped, within narrow boundaries. Limiting in a manner, their expression.
Still, 'mundane' is powerful as by itself, in right or wrong ways, is what holds societies compact. All the processes involved, adhered steadfastly by individuals, give the necessary momentum, provide the 'body' that despite where the processes lead to, to useful or useless goals or something in between, nevertheless build solid structures.
Solid structures, the necessary fiber, the glue that holds societies intact as the time goes by. Mundane processes incorporating the dynamics necessary to preserve continuity through time.
And the 'tipping points', changes introduced while maintaining the structures, the 'body' being kept intact, need to be adopted individually out of informed approaches, countless acts of assessing, weighing, trying, testing and re-testing
as 'it takes masses of people to shift', so the final(?) 'tip' would come, I would say, effortlessly, as if by itself, without major upheavals
Revolution at the level of the single individual, small 'revolutions' introduced within the wider context of societies, the essence of chaos. The minute changes in an individual effects changes on the initial conditions of the systems 'societies', and by sensitive dependence 'tips' societal behaviour in a new direction.
Today's societies enormous. Minute changes. The change adopted at the level of a single individual 'tips' the behaviour of society in a new direction
The paradigm shift effected.
Up to the point that everything that what was held steadfastly in the past is abandoned, forgotten and thrown overboard,
The society never looks back.
How a change in the single individual takes place? In the same way that it takes place in the context of the system society. The individual with its very own initial conditions assessed, effects the small changes, and by sensitive dependence is carried through at the level of its overall behaviour, broadly based on chaos self-similarity principle.
What represents its behaviour, a net daunting in its complexity on its own merit, within the system, the very own individual is. And the individual, a fundamental sub-system of the system society, the foundations of any system or several systems that all together make up the system society. Each system that exists, with its very own set of mundane procedures. But, as well with its initial conditions, the sensitive dependence and chaos.
Friday, 26 December 2008
Chaos is mayhem and destruction? No.
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.
"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.
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.
Sunday, 30 November 2008
"Economically viable", a phrase which should be eradicated from the minds of the people.
"Economically viable", a phrase which should be eradicated from the minds of the people, along with whatever it symbolizes, whatever notions, ideas, practices or even concepts is associated with. It opens up wider routes to think about, what the role of states and governments is. Gives a wider perspective what the states and governments supposed to do.
It is directly connected with the most revered tenets of chaos embodied in the phrase 'butterfly's wing flap', the tiny change that should be effected in societies, at the level of the single individual, which will radically re-structure the societal complexities current, and adjust the social fibre to only amenable to states, emergent for that matter, where the human individual is at its core.
Its goal to proliferate human values, values for which any association with monetisation, any attempt to be looked at with economic criteria would be regarded, as is, an insult in the minds of the people and therefore scornfully rejected.
There is no need to appeal to the good will of any individual regardless its position or its clout, planetarch, read currently Barack Obama, presidents, prime ministers, ministers, governments and state officials as the authorities structures already in place, fought hard and gained by the struggle of innumerable individuals, our forefathers in countless generations before us, taken and not given, will assure that any change, minuscule by the matters of societies scales, in the minds of people, is sufficient to effect the re-structuring, societies should undergo.
It is directly connected with the most revered tenets of chaos embodied in the phrase 'butterfly's wing flap', the tiny change that should be effected in societies, at the level of the single individual, which will radically re-structure the societal complexities current, and adjust the social fibre to only amenable to states, emergent for that matter, where the human individual is at its core.
Its goal to proliferate human values, values for which any association with monetisation, any attempt to be looked at with economic criteria would be regarded, as is, an insult in the minds of the people and therefore scornfully rejected.
There is no need to appeal to the good will of any individual regardless its position or its clout, planetarch, read currently Barack Obama, presidents, prime ministers, ministers, governments and state officials as the authorities structures already in place, fought hard and gained by the struggle of innumerable individuals, our forefathers in countless generations before us, taken and not given, will assure that any change, minuscule by the matters of societies scales, in the minds of people, is sufficient to effect the re-structuring, societies should undergo.
Thursday, 27 November 2008
The source of evil
It comes out from within an individual, a natural tendency to destroy what individuals find themselves unable to comprehend. What they see as it should be destroyed includes ideas, thoughts intangible objects, abstract as well as any tangible object which they do not comprehend its significance.
This urgency to destroy is not only directed towards objects but the subjects, meaning the individuals responsible for existant structures and processes that they do not comprehend, as well.
This urgency to destroy is not only directed towards objects but the subjects, meaning the individuals responsible for existant structures and processes that they do not comprehend, as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)