Survival of the Adaptable and the Well-Prioritized

A society derives its characteristics from the collective behavior, attitudes, desires, hopes, dreams, wishes, and aspirations of every individual who lives within it.  Every society has a different way or logic about how they go about their business in government and in society, just as every person has their own strategy to achieve their own desired goals and outcomes. Sometimes they’re in alignment with the universal laws of humanity and of human society.  Sometimes they’re optimal, or more optimal than others.  Sometimes, they’re less optimal or less helpful than others.  Sometimes, it’s just a question of luck that they succeed or fail, with no control over what went wrong or what went well for them.  The trick then is to work out what is significant for the general public’s well-being (which is also the leading powers’ well-being), and what isn’t.  We can only ethically encourage governments and leading societal figures to change what is significant for their own benefit at the very least (for the public’s well-being at the very most).  We must then work to accept those things that are insignificant for the public’s overall well-being.  We must either respect the diversity of the societies of the universe, or we will forever be miserable and dragged into conflict, bitterness, and hatred trying to change that which will not forcibly be changed as well as that which is insignificant, irrelevant, and maybe damaging for a society to experience in their turn.  I hate to use this buzzword, but there must be synergy across cultures, societies, and peoples, if we are to achieve better social, economic, and technological conditions for our own selves, at the very least, for all others, at the very most.  The constant goal needs to be health, well-being, sustainability, and adaptability for ourselves and for the peoples of the world collectively.  Otherwise, we will kill ourselves seeking out the irrelevant, the non-existent, and the self-destructive.  The societies who are best able to pursue these goals while maintaining and adaptive and defensive edge over others will undoubtedly be the longest surviving societies with the most enduring social, cultural, political, and economic institutions.  May the best societies succeed.  May all others revert backwards or become extinct in their present or desired form.

See on Scoop.itIt Comes Undone-Think About It

Hammurabi’s Code of Law

“When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak, so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.” – Prologue, Code of Hammurabi.

These are the principles for which I stand.  Like Hammurabi, I submit myself to the conditions and workings of the universe (read, God) as discovered by scientific investigation and analysis, not by revelation and opinion.  I am just a human.  I am not likely to do much in this world for the sake of others, nor will I likely be successful at communicating these concepts to the leading classes of the world and to the working underclasses whom the upper classes have such scorn and disregard for.  I will always, however, be throwing myself in calculated and adaptive manners at the wall isolating humanity’s conscientiousness, for the sake of humanity.  We should never rely on written laws for constitutions for our guidance, but only on the discovered truths of the universe in which we live and must make our living.  There are an infinite number of possibilities for actions we can take, limited by practicality and feasibility.  These remaining practical and feasible options are then limited by what is actually healthful for us, which is then limited by what is optimally healthful for us.  The trick now is to experiment with methods of organization and political games, such that we can fine tune our society’s politics, such that the needs of the general public becomes the central focus of our political leaders, not the perceived needs and interests of a particular population or group of populations.  This is how you’re best able to maintain a system; this is how you’re best able to preserve your office, your institutions, your legacies, and, perhaps, even leave a positive memory amongst the people once you inevitably depart from this lifetime.  If you don’t truly want to be happy, healthy, successful, and able to be in office or have a lasting, sustainable, and perpetual institutional basis for society, how then can you expect to survive in office or ensure your own health and well-being, let alone, the health and well-being of others?  If you truly want to be happy, healthy, successful, and able to be in office and have a lasting, sustainable, and perpetual institutional basis for society, then why would you take actions which actually leads to the destruction and degradation of your office and institutions for any reason whatsoever?

I therefore testify to the world that there is a common reality which has natural features to it with unwritten, yet at least partially discoverable rules of cause and effect to them which we can partially manipulate for our overall improvement or our overall detriment as a collective and individual species.  The trick to staying in office is to follow, learn about, and abide by these natural laws, and then apply them for the general well-being of the public through adaptive, dynamic changes in policy, programs, at the absolute expense of the particular interests for the sake of the absolute and relative interests of the general whole.  There is no need to rely on the lawyers or merely eloquent arguers of opinion who don’t, and likely won’t, accept the natural laws and conditions of society.  The trick to dialogue and debate is to discover truth, in its most subtle, complicated, and simple terms.  That is how you preserve a society.  That is how you preserve institutions of society, formal and informal.  That is how you, as a policy-maker and decision-maker keep your seat and make it easier on yourself to justify your positions and get re-elected in the short term, which then condenses into the long term.  I for one have no more use or interest for the incorrect and unfounded opinions of others.  I think that, given a comprehension of the bad, while allowed to have tastes of the good, will help guide society as a whole to the same general conclusion in the long term, which then collapses into the short term all too soon.

I will stand for these principles and these facts from now, until the time that I physically die in this form, and throughout all time and space, for my own absolute improvement, or my own absolute detriment in this lifetime and beyond.  I stake my life, liberty, and happiness on this being actually the truth.  Let all challengers come to knock it down.  I will continue to stand by it honorably until it is actually and conclusively knocked down by someone more adept at perceiving the world as a whole than I am.  I will then, at that point, humbly alter my opinion to bring it in alignment with the new understanding of common reality and cease to support it.  That is how science works and I am only human.

See on Scoop.itIt Comes Undone-Think About It

Why I’m Close-minded

I know that I’m closed to some things.  But it’s just silly to be open to everything.  Honestly, why should we take the opinion that the Earth is the center of the universe seriously, or that 1+1 can equal anything other than 2?  The same principles apply in our social, political, economic, environmental, and government worlds.  You make one configuration in government, in policy, and in funding, you get a series of possible outcomes, depending upon all the other conditions that the government does not and cannot control for.  But, if you make a different configuration in government, policy, and funding, you get a different set of probable outcomes which may or may not actually be better for all of our social units and the entirety of the universe.  Utility is a subjective thing, that is true.  But, as far as human beings go relative to all other life in the universe, there seem to me to be some things that are universal, objective, or both for life as we know it and for human life relative to all other life in the universe.  Water, H2O, is one of those things that I can think of.  The presence of one thing that fills this criteria proves that there may be other things which also fit this criteria.  It doesn’t matter what your brain believes or what your brain thinks should be done.

It is possible to look at objective truths differently.  You can look at the sum of two integers equaling 9 in many different ways (9+0, 1+8, 2+7, 3+6, 4+5, or the reverse for each of these values).  But these are the only whole numbers which can sum to 9 and in those specific combinations.

Thus, I’m left with the image of a universe wherein our brains and neurological systems are in charge of sensing, interpreting, perceiving, and working with reality first (before you make any choices that will change that reality for one way or another).  Our brains may or may not be healthy and functional relative to common reality, and to ourselves relative to common reality.  Some brains and neurological systems may be pathological to the world (for example, people who persist and refuse to acknowledge common reality and choose instead to invent or produce their own mental image of reality based on their personal motivations and preferences).  The root of all human activity should, normatively, be directed at trying to understand reality, accepting that which holds up to scientific testing and falsification, and rejecting that which actually does not hold up to scientific testing and falsification.  If there is no evidence that is provable for something, why should we simply accept that personal version of reality over our common reality?

Now, there are many ways to see reality that are accurate, just as there are many ways to add whole number integers to equal 9.  If you want to get even more complex, there are an infinite number of ways to sum partial numbers to equal 9.  But even then, there only the appropriate combinations of these partial numbers will equal to exactly 9.  The first number determines what the second number is going to be, and vice versa, such that you’re again, not able or technically free to add whatever combination of partial numbers that you’d like and try to get 9.  You can’t add 4.5 and 3.32 to get 9.  That’s just an axiomatic fact.  Therefore, while a plurality of perspectives is likely the desirable conditional set, it must be recognized that there are some opinions, beliefs, and perspectives which simply don’t match with common reality.  The template is reality; the authority is the universe itself.  No human may abridge, alter, or influence the discovered laws of the universe, as far as we can tell at present.  Furthermore, if we do end up being able to affect common reality through the altering and shifting of natural laws (as per natural laws that are subtler and deeper than the laws we’re working with), we must be extremely careful not to alter those laws in such a way that our very existence becomes untenable or self-destructive as a result of our tampering with them.  We could, in such a hypothetical situation, wipe out all of existence in our present form if we were to tamper with certain laws in certain ways, just as we may wipe ourselves off by killing off certain species in our ecosystems or altering the conditional state of our ecosystems in such a way that our own existence may be put in jeopardy.

Therefore, in my mind, we get a view of the universe that is highly complicated, complex, and interconnected discretely and across boundaries.  We are bound in this universe, as such, that we technically and normatively should not tamper, alter, or destroy certain aspects of the universe.  We are never, as it were, free from altering the universe or ourselves in the universe without consequence.  The same rules apply on the physical and quantum levels of the universe, so too does it apply in our social, economic, environmental, and political levels.  You are, to begin with, not able to conceive of everything that you can do (thus limiting what you can or may do).  You are not physically or mentally capable of doing everything and anything in the universe that is beyond your abilities to handle, even if you are able to imagine or conceive of those things.  Finally, even if you are technically, physically, and/or mentally able to do some things in this universe, there is a wide range of things that you should not do, from the perspective of preserving your own health, safety, and well-being on the individual and relative levels.  There are right and wrong answers in this universe; better or worse solutions to complex problems.  There are correct, better, and worse assessments of problems and situations, just as there are correct, better, and worse solutions to those actual problems in our universe and for our actual well-being.  There are criteria for our utility, health, and well-being on the individual and social levels which are relevant and some that are not, in actuality, relevant at all.

Now, I’m never going to say that I have all the answers to all of these problems or the solutions to every problem that we are experiencing or can possibly experience.  No human can be 100% correct 100% of the time.  All that I’m asserting is that these points are correct 100% of the time in our universe, and that we can experiment with them ourselves to prove that they’re actually true.  What I am proposing and advocating for, is that we switch over to a sustained, systematic review and exploration of our social, economic, political, environmental, cosmological, and integrated reality, such that we can make better individual and collective choices for ourselves in the universe relative to all other things.  Those opinions and desires which aren’t right and/or are unhealthful should be treated as such.  The real sin isn’t having an incorrect belief, but persisting in that belief when it’s been conclusively proven to be likely or definitively incorrect or unhealthful.  That’s all that I’m saying, that’s all that I’m advocating for, and I’m 99.99999999999999999% sure that this is axiomatic for the entire universe as we are able to know and comprehend.  Ignorance is what should be wiped out, and those who won’t or can’t come to grips with reality are the ones we should be labeling as those possessing pathologically formed neural systems.  The solution for these people is optional rehabilitation, if they’re not posing an immediate threat to themselves or others, and care.  I could be wrong too, very easily.  But I’m not going to persist in a belief just because I think or feel it to be right, if it is demonstrably the case that my opinion and belief is actually incorrect or mostly incorrect.  Again, the real sin is persisting in ignorance when it is revealed, not being ignorant in and of itself.  Some people are more able to be correct than others; some people are less able.  It’s only a bad thing if you continue in an incorrect view.

Such is my view of reality.  Such is the reason why I am closed to certain beliefs, opinions, and people.  I hope this clarifies my logic and ways of thinking for you all.  Thank you.

See on Scoop.itIt Comes Undone-Think About It

Making an International Sense of Community

We will not have an global governmental system of any sorts until we first recognize the communal nature of all human societies and respect the sovereign right of all peoples to self-determine and make their decisions on a national, regional, and global level.  There can be no central leader, no cabal of powerful nations or people to rule over all.  Such a model is impractical and infeasible, and will likely be undermined in time by the many smaller nations, or else, fall prey to its own stupidity and purity of thought and reasoning.  The first practical step to creating a global civil society that has legitimacy on the bottom levels of human society would be to eliminate the veto power of the 5 Permanent UN Security Council Members.  The effect of this would be that all nations would have a say in whether to intervene in a given area, with defacto power and influence being turned over to the regional, national, or intra-national  levels, such that the locals can have ultimate control and say over what happens to them in their own territory.  We all have a stake on this planet to mediate disputes in such a way that they that it works for the people who are in conflict and to resolve common problems for all of humanity, such as resource consumption and environmental impact.  You cannot have a centralized, singular, and conscientiously homogenous body in charge of the diverse planet.  Rather, the world must be regarded as a community of peoples, not unlike neighborhoods within a city or clusters of people in an apartment building, with reasoned respect given for all person’s privacy with collective action being taken only in instances of severe violations of common human dignity and well-being.  Corporate private interests must be subsumed for the sake of the collective well-being and, in that check to personal ambition and prowess, the individual is better able to survive and be well on this planet.

So, my suggestion would be to eliminate the veto power of the Permanent UN Security Council Members and for the great nations of the world to scale back their meddling operations to recognize the sovereignty and dignity of each human being, at the absolute expense of corporate and financial interests, for the relative gains to having those supreme egos checked.  This is my conclusion based on my observations of history, human psychology, and sociology.  We cannot continue to afford to bully or act unitarily and capriciously against our own perceived threats, nor can we counter popular resistance in its home territory.  This is my general prescription for logic in International Relations, not firmly in any of the schools of thought.  This is a new synthesis based on the old schools and at least my own observations and interpretations of facts.  Test it, shape it, mold it.  In the end, it is always going to be power backed up by kindness and legitimacy that wins, rather than power backed up by pure force alone.  As it is on the personal level, so as it is on the collective.

Enjoy!

See on Scoop.itIt Comes Undone-Think About It

Principles of International Relations and Human Relations

If you’re going to govern over a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-religious, and multi-cultural territory, I think that you’re going to have to do one or more of three basic things.

The first, would be to make a common denominator that everyone shares; a singular touchstone of identity that everyone can feel apart.  This cannot be a top-down given thing, but requires communication amongst the whole population (meaning, all peoples from all populations) in order to arrive at that common denominator that cannot be determined in advance.  This is most similar to what the United States has done successfully over the years and least like what is happening in France or other Western European countries.  You need people to be one people.  Just because you may give up something as the host, doesn’t mean that you can’t preserve the essence of your society in a more general and less specific form.

The second is to include people into the political and economic systems, such that you don’t have people alienated, helpless, and potentially angry at whomever they have chosen to live with.  Just because new people have chosen to live in a given territory and are given a hard time within that territory by the native population, doesn’t mean that they’re necessarily likely to go back to wherever they came from.  Again, the American society has done this fairly well over the years relative to others, while we look at other societies with marked social divisions leading to economic divisions and political divisions.  These social, economic, and political divisions are toxic to maintaining health and happiness within a society, as we can plainly see when looking at societies, such as Nigeria or Iraq or Turkey, where exclusion or forced assimilation are the defacto policies of the society and the government.

The third option, is to part ways outright and to divide land with the recognition that violence only exacerbates negative economic, social, and political conditions for all sides.  It usually is more costly to fight and hold onto land that doesn’t have your people occupying it than it is to let the land break off and form its own sovereignty, for better or for worse, depending upon how all involved handle it. People tend to demand agency and, when that agency is denied, it tends to make things worse for all parties who are involved in the conflict.  We can look at cases, such as India and Pakistan and Bangladesh as ways to not divide territory and societies, while we can look at the Czech Republic and Slovakia as ways to divide territories.

These are the principles that seem to be generally at the heart of international relations, political science, sociology, and human psychology.  To neglect these concepts is to spark war, tension, and economic collapse between two or more collective consciences of humanity.  We see this in Ukraine at the present time, as well as in Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestine.  It boils down to two basic options.  The first is to welcome people into a society, develop a bottom-up approach to building a national consciousness while including people in the political and economic systems.  The second is to part ways, hopefully amicably, and let the two national consciences be apart with less territory.  You can’t force a people to be someone or something they’re not, anymore than you can force a single person to be someone or something they’re not.  It just doesn’t work out, and tends to increase net suffering while decreasing net well-being in the process.  This is based on personal observations from history, cultural geography, sociology, political science, and human psychology.  These have not been statistically tested in practice, nor do I think we can test them with the present data that’s available.  However, our consciousness of the past is growing all the time, and our awareness of world events can already happen at the speed of electricity.  We can either use the general information to guide us as best as we can while we collect and model data to make our conclusions more solid, or ignore the information that is already present from these different disciplines and from our world, and simply continue trying to fit the square peg in the round hole.  We can do a much much much better job at handling our public affairs with the knowledge and insights that we can have at present.  What in Hell are we waiting for?

See on Scoop.itIt Comes Undone-Think About It

Strike Me Down, and I Shall Become More Powerful Than (Conservatives) Can Possibly Imagine

What progressives and liberals need to recognize, is that they need to go down with their honor and dignity in tact.  The United States is, and always has been, an essentially progressive nation, where inclusion, equal opportunity, and human rights, the essentials of liberalism, are put on pedestals while monarchy, aristocracy, exclusion, and the corporate pretender wannabes, the essence of conservatism, are shunned and vilified in popular culture and sentiment.  We want leaders who are accountable, responsive, and genuinely concerned with the well-being of ourselves as leaders.  Why would we vote for anyone who doesn’t fulfill these things for us on a practical level?

The progressives in their present form need to pull back, reorganize, go underground if necessary, and cede to the conservatives and Libertarians all the power and influence that they want.  The leadership should be prepared to get out of the country and find safe haven overseas while maintaining lines of communication inside.  We need to prepare for war, make friends overseas, and prepare for combat if necessary against the conservative and Libertarian forces.  Let the people eat the dog shit provided by the wannabe corporate aristocrats, and they’ll more than likely grow weary of it.  They’ll long for a return to what their government was meant to be about.  This is the United States of America, not the play pen of some inbred pseudo-nobles.  I think that, if given enough rope, and provided that the progressives avoid being condemned as a group by the public, the conservatives will hang themselves or be forced to evolve on the terms and lines of the progressives.  Conservatism in government is little more than an abusive, unfeeling, and uncaring relationship with the public.  Only the public can make the ultimate cut with the conservatives.  The progressives, for their part, must get themselves ready to out campaign the conservatives on the grassroots level, and possibly fight a popular guerrilla war against the bankers, the corporate executives, and the establishment union leaders and entrenched interests.  It is time that our leadership should recognize their true interests relative to the public.

I call this the Obi Wan Maneuver.  “Strike me down, and I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.”

See on Scoop.itIt Comes Undone-Think About It

How Capitalism Leads to a Sovietesque System in America

In some respects, the United States is more like the Soviet Union because of the influence of Capitalism and Capitalists than anything else. We have a shadow group of wealthy people and interests calling the shots behind the scenes to both political parties who sit in our government. The Soviets had one political party calling the shots to their government behind the scenes via the Politbureau. Both groups of people and their ultimate philosophies and practices lead their societies to the same results and likely to the same conclusions.  Our Capitalist elites extract wealth and relative power from us, the Soviet elites did the same to their people.  Both of our governmental systems and staff neglected to listen to the signs of their social and environmental ecosystems.  The Soviet Union collapsed politically and fell apart into traditional ethnic territories.  The United States is also likely to fall apart if nothing significant substantially changes, albeit, it’ll likely be into ideological and cultural camps.

By my reckoning, the solution to at least the American problem is a commitment to democratic principles and a social logic for our economy. Workers should be paid according to their profitability and, when there aren’t enough jobs available in the private market, the government should buy up the extra labor and put people to work with living wages and provide job training and education while they otherwise mark time in between jobs and demand cycles. Living conditions could be improved where people live with surpluses produced by productivity, based on demonstrable needs and evidence based practices.  We could probably eliminate Medicare and Medicaid in favor of a universal healthcare and reduce medical costs as well through negotiation with the healthcare providers.  We could maybe even go as far as to nationalize health research (which has already effectively happened), giving profit for health problems that are solved rather than leaving health to the private markets for them to ignore public health in favor of profits. Same could be said for national defense.  Why should anyone be allowed to derive profit from war (which is an anathema to a healthy economy) or to have a substantial portion of our workforce tied up in pointless weapons manufacturing?

All the while, our governments can start to coordinate amongst themselves for the production and delivery of services.  Experiments with organizational practices to improve inter and intra governmental communication, as well as attention towards creating fora for dialogue with the public on local and party levels could also take place, such that our government officials can know what the public actually needs and wants.  The delivery, implementation, and interface of these functions can also be experimented with on the local and party levels in order to create a lasting link between governed and governing that can only be broken at both parties’ expense.

In the end, the United States is exhibiting the same anti-democratic, anti-social, and anti-environmental symptoms under Capitalism that the Soviet system exhibited under their definition of Communism.  Our government officials and political parties don’t seem to truly care to put in an effort to create a two-way dialogue with the public and amongst their own levels and layers.  They also don’t seem to care to have in place the necessary tools, mechanisms, and practices to preserve their own legitimacy and authority or to increase their personal and institutional longevity.  Our legislators, administrators, chief executives, corporate shadow government officials and interests don’t seem to be thinking or feeling beyond the next election or the next quarterly report on profits.  It is myopic, stupid, idiotic, cruel, callous, and predictably destructive for themselves to continue on this present course of action without appropriate, significant, and substantial changes to the way they think, feel, and work with the larger world that is also them.  Meanwhile, you the citizen will pay either for your complacence in doing nothing appropriate to make momentum against these people happen or your ignorance in your tacit or outright support for them and their practices.  We live together or we die together.  Quite frankly, I think there are a lot of people out there, young and old, rich and poor, who are actually opting for death, as far as the impacts of their choices are in common reality.  The United States will rot from the inside out, due to chronic mismanagement by law and policy makers and practitioners.  We, as the whole American society will pay the price for our choices to be either apart of the solution in common reality or to be apart of the problem tacitly or overtly in common reality.  It all of our choices whether we succeed or fail.  I for one though am not seeing many positive signs amongst the citizenry or the elected and appointed officials who can actually do something for us though.  A perfectly preventable and predictable end for those who actually probably deserve it.  Oh well.

See on Scoop.itIt Comes Undone-Think About It

The Blueprint: A Manifesto for a New Age in Society

We need a group who will run for offices, will expect only the effort of votes and support, will use the science of psychology to get their messages across and will use the science of governing to lead and make choices for the public over the wants of the private.  We need a group who will play the long game, not taking into account just the next election cycle; who will stand for the truly American principles of inclusion, prosperity, pragmatic sense, and a basis in reality rather than hallucinations and beliefs.

If the conservatives wish to make other stabs at eliminating economic and social democracy, we should get organized into decentralized, organized bands and make ready to fight if necessary to get our governments to work for the American people.  I am not going to be willing to subsidize someone elses’ second luxury yacht if it comes at the expense of our schools, health, environment, technology, and overall prosperity.  We should not be robbed of the wealth that we produce through our labor, nor should we be denied the right to live as human beings and pursue happiness in according to our needs, tastes, and desires within the bounds of safety, sensibility, and others’ happiness.  I am sick of being told that my work isn’t valuable to an organization.  I am sick of someone far away telling me how I can non-destructively live my personal life.  And I can’t stand the amount of willful ignorance and logical contortions that the conservative opposition comes up with to continue to justify their poorly chosen stances and priorities.

It is time to govern with science and through facts and evidence as to how things are rather than how we think things are or want them to be.  I am done being nice to the conservatives and the ideologues.

See on Scoop.itIt Comes Undone-Think About It

The Preservation of Power

You don’t have to join a rebel movement in order to play an effective role in supporting it. Shelter can be provided, misinformation for the opposing troops, food, disguises, safe passage, etc, all can be provided by civilians. If the movement is popular enough, it will be impossible to get rid of it with this kind of support.  Force will only alienate the opposing army from the public, making their situation all the more untenable. People see through deception in time, and there will be no end of random volunteers and loosely organized forces to stand against what can be technically more advanced and numerous troops.  Never underestimate the power of narrative, being reasoned and reasonable in your positioning and dialogue, followed up by genuine action with sincere desire to do what’s right by everybody, sometimes, at your own absolute expense.

It’s called maintaining a good relationship with people.  I think it’s the only effective way to maintain power, consequence, position, and authority in any given human society.  It involves listening, caring, and sometimes putting the needs and desires of others above your own immediate or short term wants and hopes.  That is, from my experience and observations of the past, the best way for power to preserve and earn itself.

See on Scoop.itIt Comes Undone-Think About It

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 438 other followers