First a short description of value
The one important application to remember about these processes is how human value is recognized or not recognized.
When people are degraded we are excluding contexts that they intrinsically have. When we are depressed we can not see the properties that we have when we are not depressed. It is the same selective process. Thus value is found by identifying and including more contexts intrinsic to human nature. As we lose those recognitions and capacities through excluding them, we narrow the context of humans. This has been going on since the early origins of human beings. We began with wider, more inclusive and more general understandings of relating. We have been selectively reducing them. The scientific method is about finding more contexts for understanding. Sometimes the applications of those understandings get used in selective ways. They also get applied in terms of selective interventions that exclude properties that have been identified. This makes the selections look intentionally harmful. I tihink mostly it is due to the inability to consider wider and greater contexts. That has been the essence of human folly.
Idealism operates out a very narrow, isolationist, conterfactual representation of value. We often just call this Platonic to keep the conversation in a more secular tone. Platonic notions of value correspond with the way all his ideas, explanations, metaphors are rendered. Idealistic or Platonic models are also called top down. A presentation of an "Ideal Form" as Plato called them. This is an idea that is developed to explain things that has no emprical basis. That is, it has no evidence. It is decidedly "perfect" before any kind of application. Then it is applied. Everything then conforms to the "ideal form. The perfect idea of something. In this case of top down modeling everything then is explained in terms of the ideal idea. Nothing can prove otherwise because it is said to be perfect. Everything seen in this way proves the ideal form. This is also known as corroboration. Like saying that seeing one more white swan proves that all swans are white. Of course this doesn't prove anything people continue to operate in this way. Except in more analytical sciences. You can see the video and material on problem solving for more clarity.
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/7562396168653700830/7931383516755453871
You Tube contextual expansion. I will start this exploration with a reflection on polarity from occurrences around Professor and Mrs. Einstein’s visit to America in 1912. A polarity immediately arose between the more “uptown” Jews and their interests which clashed with the “downtown” Jews. This is also referenced as the difference between the Brandeis camp and the Weizmann camp. The Einsteins’ chose Weizmann as their companion and representative for the tour. Weizmann was of the older European Jewish community. Brandeis represented the assimilated, aristocratic and more politicized interests of modernized Jews in America.
The uptown interests were particular about installing efficient managers they called “safeguards” to modulate the interests of more eastern European Jews. This pertained especially to interests of “Zionism” and building the community of Jews that included a Jewish University in Jerusalem which was still Palestine at the time. The British later took over and controlled Jerusalem until May 14,1948, when the state declared itself a sovereign nation; Israel.
These different Jewish interests look like the legendary power struggles constituting the history of human development. Which at times produced small groups that seem to make efforts at improvement for a while. These different Jewish interests include other more regional and nationalistic conflicts and reactions between the more assimilated and the less assimilated Jews. Einstein tried his best and I think succeeded in his relations with all his “fellow tribesman” as he warmly thought of them. Although the tensions and conflicts between the groups continued, and were heightened as the possibility of a Jewish Jerusalem arose. Alberts’ visit to America was of rock star proportions and truly resembles the kinds of rock star controversies that we see in the media today. Divisions caused by what a few words might mean, and the interests involved. Though todays high profile media profiles hardly contain the kinds of ideas, changes and meaingins that Alberts tour involved.
Issues around notable persons typical to previous times differed in a number of ways. One similarity to Alberts speaking engagements was in the oppositional groups interest in where he might speak, how much the engagement should earn financially and where that money should go. These were highly contended and politicized like any good public figure. However, the differences in topics, international concerns, social representation could not be more separate from todays popularized media events. These focus on the issues of todays media driven interests and are far less relevant to the distinguished persons intrinsic nature and their achievements in those domains. The stories of todays media are mostly told removed from such human domains.
This social influence may have been a factor that hindered Albert from being able to bridge the human interest diversity of the special interest groups, though he brought great advances to more universal properties through math. I have not read on the particulars of the theories of relativity. I can say that it is now obvious to some or many in the field that we are going to need a lot more formula’s. We are going to need to develop a lot more diversity of understanding than that for human relations that turn out to be a bit more complex than celestial bodies. Since humans are regressing a bit currently in our development it has enticing to try to find a few simple formulas or ideas that can be adapted to maximum exploitation and control, no matter what the group is. The tensions were also promoted by the more individualistic or personality characteristics of the people involved. Some, more assimilated, educated, sometimes called “cultured” Jews clashed with the older civilization based Jewish heritage in Europe. These American had adopted the American version of oppositional, specialized interests rapidly spreading since the development of America. Einstein clearly favored the concern for the community of Jews over any economic and political concerns. He tried his best to see past some of this and include all his fellow Jews as he thought of them, but that was not enough for the environment at the time. This brings up a number of ways some polarities and interests can play out across our social fabrics.
IT MUST BE NOTED THAT THE INTERESTS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL DOES NOT REPRESENT THE VALUES OF ALL JEWS, BUT ONLY THOSE OF THE POWER BACKED, POLITCALLY INSTALLED, EXPLOITATIVE ROLE DICTATED BY OTHER WESTERN INTERSTS.
I see all politics today as jockeys vying for positions of power and control, most people today call that value. You can see how limited peoples understanding of value is. (see videos that include the topic of value for more indepth ivestgation and inquiry into value. The ones in charge of making decisions at higher levels of societies organizational structure are the more valuable characters. It a position mostly of economics. While there are many interested in widening the scope of these polarities, very little has changed. There has been change in both directions. Here it is to be noted that the more assimilated Jews were interested in power positions in the new Jerusalem. To be the ones representing a Jewish Jerusalem. A new economic and exploitation machine of oppression was born, Isreal. It was born of economic interests, due to the interests of those who came into power. It used that power to exploit religious beliefs, as all power based institutions do as their civilization decline. We find another very old schism, the schism of religion and power. Power was slowly wrestled from religion and wielded a more powerful, more singular god; money. Capable of being all powerful and all knowing. (Money will make people just as irrational as religion.) We will be exploring these dynamics from a variety of disciplines and human experiences.
I am going to present another view, closely related, from a Polish artist who was commissioned by the Polish government to make public arts representing the Polish people and their heritage, pre WW2. Stanislav Szukalski was a man of great sculptural talent from a young age. He was perfect for illustrating the wild, enduring strength and intelligence of the Polish people. He was religious, as per the times, and an eccentric affirmation of Polish greatness, which was contradictory to what he saw in his visits to America, which has always succeeded in its interests by degrading and mis-appropriating the value and form of others, the hallmarks of exploitation. He supported Jews before the outbreak of world war two and was a friend of Ben Hecht, a well recognized writer and Jewish sympathizer concerned with the history and now increasingly acute abuses of the Jewish people before WW2.
The Nazis, before they invaded Poland, asked Stanislav to create a great sculpture of Hitler. Stanislav replied with drawings of Adolf dressed in ballerina outfits. They replied with a simple statement of “We can not use your ideas”. When they invaded, Stanislav’s enormous government-provided studio/warehouse was one of the prime targets of the invasion. He spent two days digging himself out of the rubble. Almost all his works from his entire life were destroyed including giant statues outside the building. These statues were remarkable on all accounts. One being a gigantic presence of the first King of Poland, incredibly portrayed. The method of destroying a culture by destroying its arts and humanities is a well recognized and successful approach.
Before all that he made the statement that “ Economic interests and community interests are opposed.” Stanislav had no problem stating his views with conviction. It’s an awesome observation by an astute, dedicated, scholar of the human experience.
The most basic infrastructure of life is communication, whether by chemical signaling or neurologically based on more sensory networks. The two types of human communication infrastructures here are revealed in the types of “community interests” and “economic interest.” Community interest of communication infrastructure here are a grass roots type development of human relations and behaviors. These are a direct, immediate product of functionality based in developmental features and ongoing adaptability essential to communities.
These patterns of polarized interests, behavior, feeling and thought will be further presented in terms of biology, neurology, math, art and design. These polarities are at once obvious and confounding at the same time. They look more obvious when put into some social dialogue, and less obvious the more personally we try to identify their dynamics in our own lives. Could this be the same as the opposition of operations to finance? That is, the concerns of operations being the infrastructure and functionality of communications and human contributions and workability that is the heart of any business. The economic concern being of the relatively narrow, scant scope of the small margins of consideration dictated by a bottom line cost analysis. That leaves out most all human operational concerns. This little battle is at the heart of every boardroom's chief operations officer, COO and the chief financial officer, CFO. Might the superseding economic interests be encouraging exploitation in a fundamental behavioral way of an addiction process that has been proposed but not been well recognized in terms of the many ways it operates? We will look at some parallels in neurology for this schema in the biology, neurology chapters.
Might we all use more specialized interests and skills in our everyday approach to our lives, and all our relations. Might these represent the smaller aspect of our human existence that is “mine” as supported by my selective environment? Could these interests also be further losing sight of broader human interests? Are political interests mostly disguised as human interests to push their own agendas? Is this reflected in other kinds of divisions of interests? It is far easier to see the mis-representations of others than in ourselves.
How about political interests redefining, hi-jacking and abbreviating human interests for their own power seeking agendas of special interests that are mal-contextualized. These repackagings of human functionality are easily bought by innocent, unsuspecting party members who are unable to differentiate one issue from another. The repacking tells them they are buying one thing when they are actually buying another agenda that has nothing to do with what they think they have just purchased. They think they are getting a good deal on something when they are being looted in other ways. A good example is the debate on family values and other family issues. This disguises what some people call “family values” to hide other power seeking agendas. Is this creating a greater schism between families and communities? Contributing to the current development of individual to individual opposition that is the next step of our contemporary group oppositions. Ken Wilburs developmental theory of civilizations does not include family values. It starts from a level up in development and begins with small tribes, small communities, not families.
One of the effects on families being usurped by economic interests is that the individuals in the family will be dominated by economic interest rather than family relational processes. Thus families are more easily split up. This can take the form of individuals leaving the family for work and or education. The larger network of relations and learned processes of relating and integration of a diverse, extended family network will be reduced to a significantly smaller network of relations and relational skills.
The schism mentioned above regarding economics and a society have a variety of other co occurring variables. The individual interest versus the social interest. Another variation in the socio-economic cycles is the roles individuals play. The individuals understandings become less representative of the social. Some individuals will represent a more assimilated, social adapted and some will present as recognizing their own needs as more important and different from the socially agreed upon behaviors, feeling, thoughts.
The greater schism also makes anonymity more acute as society becomes more homophylic, and individuals have needs further removed from the more general social needs. These behaviors stemming from anonymity have long been said to become easily anti social, and family outcasts as well.
My point in all this is that some considerations of economics work well for some types of examinations and descriptions of societal behavior while other areas require other kinds of understandings to represent them well. Understanding in community interests are going to leave out important understanding for economic areas. And the understanding in those areas are going to leave out important operations for communities.
Most important to consider is that; Societies have always and will always choose the worst possible indicators and contexts for what they want to know. Economics is a good, and not to confronting, context to look at. Economics has always displaced human intrest. Reducing human interest to contexts that leave out the essential nature of life. That is a wider concern than human interst. Or human ideas. Are human ideas sufficient for undestanding humans? No, obviously. This gets a little more confronting. Consider that we never considered econimcs to be secondary to; how much times people spent outside, how many people outside of ones culture were interacted with on a daily basis, and what would we consider as indicators of interaction, likes and dislikes, yes. We always choose the worst possible indicator. That is obvious. Applied chemistry as medicine is one the worst examples of selective attention and resulting effects of exploitation on the planet today. I know people that work two jobs to pay 800$ a month for medications that are making them more sick than their jobs.
Did we ever choose how much time kids spent with their parents as an indication of a societies GNP? How about how much free time people have? How about how they are able to modulate triggers and repsonces? How about how much time people spent outside, or touching the earth, in a garden, or time researching subjects for their own interests, or how engaged they are with each other, or how much their companions mean to them, or how much they rely on internal landscapes for their understanding, or how much they explore new ideas, new languages, new cultures. Literally, any human activity would be a better indicator of well being of a society than an individual as an economic unit of production. Does any of that make sense? Or would you rather continue being exploited by condtions that you do not understand. For if you understood them you would be taking a greater interest in a wider scope of understanding. Good Luck. It takes enormous dedication. Far more than participating in the convenience that is known as society today. A convenient and comfortable death,
I also like to include the different kinds of responsibility that these interests represent. One, a more privileged position of interest should represent a greater responsibility that is more widely considerate and inclusive of others not less. These smaller self interested views and behavior represent interests and processes that undermine better relations better, and better understands of the wider domains of human potential. Community interests should be more concerned with the “grass roots” development of relationships and functions within the immediate community and less representative of the centralized, control protocols of a centralized authority.
No comments:
Post a Comment