Is it possible to cut your ties to the past and start over in celebration and not despair? It has to be, people do it often. It would seem that it is done to escape. Escape the weight of what has come before. But, rebuilding is hardest with the support of the past.
The old is familiar and comforting. You can always look back and reminisce about what was. You also have to see what wasn't. There is also the process of building connections so as you can transcend your individual limitations. If you destroy that, then you are back to fighting alone with no allies.
All of humanity should be your ally. That seems to imply that humans should only live for themselves, which is wrong.
This is all trying to hearken back to why tradition needs to be explored and, possibly, destroyed. Why not just overall all the outdated ways of thinking? If useful, then old traditions will be re-adopted. The wasteful traditions will be abandoned for the betterment of all.
The problem of individual rebirth still remains.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Sorry
I have been working out some bugs on my new computer, so I have failed to post recently. New posts to come soon.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Complexity
Recently finished reading "The Collapse of Complex Societies" by Joseph Tainter. It is a great book that I highly recommend. I won't summarize here. Why I want to bring it up is because his thesis revolves around increasing costs of complexity. Why must things constantly, or consistently, become more complex?
As a child, parents usually cover for the excessive complexity of the life we are born into. Growing up, the responsibilities of life take are taken upon one's shoulders and life's complexity attempts to bury us. That is melodramatic, but not untrue. Shouldn't we be able to turn the tide against complexity?
The goal of many religions is to keep life simple; those religions that aren't built upon complex rules . Not being a student of world religion, I can't classify them with any specificity. So, I will focus on Buddhism, mainly Zen. Its goal is to eliminate these complexities. There are an endless number of distractions and relations that prevent people from fully living. Worries and suffering bind us to this form of existence. If we break those chains, then we realize the transient nature of life and are free to embrace existence and non-existence. Consequently, we can achieve greatness without the burden of worry.
That was a horrible explanation. But, Zen became popular with samurai for this reason. What reason: My bad explanation or life without worrying? When one isn't worried about death, you can fight truer. You neither embrace life or death, you just move. This is good for simplifying your thoughts, but not life in general.
The necessity of making money and protecting money is the driver behind complexity. We are all fighting for less and less resources. It is a struggle to undermine the next guy and enrich yourself. Governments are constantly fighting loopholes to protect their revenues and "even the playing field" (well, protect the rich). With a constantly increasing population, there is no choice.
In the end, things are too complex and too costly. Is the key in computing technology? An expensive infrastructure is necessary to support computing technology. Is there a point where the infrastructure is advanced enough that it reduces costs? That is the goal with the increases in web applications and online only transactions. This works on a small scale, but I doubt there are enough resources to do it globally.
If population growth can get under control, the world could be reshaped. I could imagine nations being low-tech and high-tech, or higher-tech. In a full world, the daily battle of all nations to advance and consume is silly. Why not have a country that limits its infrastructure development to minimize electricity use and focuses on the basics of quality of life. There wouldn't be sacrifices in health care and related fields, but the economy would be more designed to not overburden the environment.
I imagine this in areas of Africa. Some places are ill-suited for development, the costs are too high. In the new world order (not related to other images of NWO), the people would have more freedom to move, but areas would be development ordered. To put it better, there would be a development hierarchy among nations.
Yes, this is unrealistic. People won't give up the power they have: politicians and businessmen. People would feel discriminated if their homeland isn't allowed to develop. They don't want to leave their homeland just to get material wealth. The wealth should be allowed to come to them. People's propensity for crime and avarice would also remain as a major problem.
I would like to explore this more later.
As a child, parents usually cover for the excessive complexity of the life we are born into. Growing up, the responsibilities of life take are taken upon one's shoulders and life's complexity attempts to bury us. That is melodramatic, but not untrue. Shouldn't we be able to turn the tide against complexity?
The goal of many religions is to keep life simple; those religions that aren't built upon complex rules . Not being a student of world religion, I can't classify them with any specificity. So, I will focus on Buddhism, mainly Zen. Its goal is to eliminate these complexities. There are an endless number of distractions and relations that prevent people from fully living. Worries and suffering bind us to this form of existence. If we break those chains, then we realize the transient nature of life and are free to embrace existence and non-existence. Consequently, we can achieve greatness without the burden of worry.
That was a horrible explanation. But, Zen became popular with samurai for this reason. What reason: My bad explanation or life without worrying? When one isn't worried about death, you can fight truer. You neither embrace life or death, you just move. This is good for simplifying your thoughts, but not life in general.
The necessity of making money and protecting money is the driver behind complexity. We are all fighting for less and less resources. It is a struggle to undermine the next guy and enrich yourself. Governments are constantly fighting loopholes to protect their revenues and "even the playing field" (well, protect the rich). With a constantly increasing population, there is no choice.
In the end, things are too complex and too costly. Is the key in computing technology? An expensive infrastructure is necessary to support computing technology. Is there a point where the infrastructure is advanced enough that it reduces costs? That is the goal with the increases in web applications and online only transactions. This works on a small scale, but I doubt there are enough resources to do it globally.
If population growth can get under control, the world could be reshaped. I could imagine nations being low-tech and high-tech, or higher-tech. In a full world, the daily battle of all nations to advance and consume is silly. Why not have a country that limits its infrastructure development to minimize electricity use and focuses on the basics of quality of life. There wouldn't be sacrifices in health care and related fields, but the economy would be more designed to not overburden the environment.
I imagine this in areas of Africa. Some places are ill-suited for development, the costs are too high. In the new world order (not related to other images of NWO), the people would have more freedom to move, but areas would be development ordered. To put it better, there would be a development hierarchy among nations.
Yes, this is unrealistic. People won't give up the power they have: politicians and businessmen. People would feel discriminated if their homeland isn't allowed to develop. They don't want to leave their homeland just to get material wealth. The wealth should be allowed to come to them. People's propensity for crime and avarice would also remain as a major problem.
I would like to explore this more later.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Trade-off
I have recently been reading about how man has lost his way from nature and togetherness. That kind of makes it sound less than what it is...kind of...well, completely. It harkens back to the hunter-gatherer age. People relied on nature, did not worry about the future, and lived more harmoniously with each other. The Earth was plentiful and man enjoyed it without depleting it. This is presented in contrast the rise of farmers and concentrated populations.
Have we lost something by gaining an individuality and utilizing ever increasing technologies that deplete the planet more and more? I find it a tough call to make. The visual journey from hunter-gatherer to the present involves countless atrocities committed against nature and man. It drove me to depression. How amazing would things be if even the last 2 centuries of human development hadn't happened. So much has died and we are having to more and more adapt to a relatively barren planet. There is no shame, no lament, for what happens everyday in the name of development. What is the benefit?
The ascent of the individual identity is truly unique and interesting if taken for a planetary perspective. No other species is as individualized as man and contemplates existence as we do. There is a beauty to it. If you just think about this, you have accomplished something that no other living thing on this planet can do. Yet, we spend more time thinking about things and consumption that this beauty is lost. We can rebuild our common heritage by simply recognizing it. Life does not have to be a war.
This technology is killing us. The more we reach for, the more we produce, the less we will be able to build, or rebuild, in the future. I am loathe to say "critical point" where we can't go back. But, if it is not approaching now, then when? There must be a way to revalue all that is. The past is dead, it does not exist to be worshipped. Yet, we need to stop worshipping ourselves, and start appreciating all that is around us and all that we can connect to.
Salvation comes in destroying the trade-off between technology and communality.
Have we lost something by gaining an individuality and utilizing ever increasing technologies that deplete the planet more and more? I find it a tough call to make. The visual journey from hunter-gatherer to the present involves countless atrocities committed against nature and man. It drove me to depression. How amazing would things be if even the last 2 centuries of human development hadn't happened. So much has died and we are having to more and more adapt to a relatively barren planet. There is no shame, no lament, for what happens everyday in the name of development. What is the benefit?
The ascent of the individual identity is truly unique and interesting if taken for a planetary perspective. No other species is as individualized as man and contemplates existence as we do. There is a beauty to it. If you just think about this, you have accomplished something that no other living thing on this planet can do. Yet, we spend more time thinking about things and consumption that this beauty is lost. We can rebuild our common heritage by simply recognizing it. Life does not have to be a war.
This technology is killing us. The more we reach for, the more we produce, the less we will be able to build, or rebuild, in the future. I am loathe to say "critical point" where we can't go back. But, if it is not approaching now, then when? There must be a way to revalue all that is. The past is dead, it does not exist to be worshipped. Yet, we need to stop worshipping ourselves, and start appreciating all that is around us and all that we can connect to.
Salvation comes in destroying the trade-off between technology and communality.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Rejuvenated
I can't believe it has been almost a year since my last post. I felt that I ran out of material. Life was in a weird spot and I was unable to keep up my Buddhist studies. China was being its usual self, and, in general, I wasn't motivated. I had previously promised to start writing again, I hope to keep the promise this time.
What is the destiny of this world? To be anthropocentric, what is the destiny of humankind? What silly terminology that is. There is no destiny. Nothing is determined.
Where will we go? Is it worth being part of the trip?
Why should I stay alive? Unless I am solving a problem, I am just contributing to the wasting of the planet. No matter how much I want to minimize my "footprint", zero is most easily achieved through death.
I am not contemplating suicide. The "poison" of my Catholic upbringing makes me fearful of eternal damnation for such things. But, it is important to find a place. And yet, that is what damns people the most. Once a place can't be found, depression sets in and consumes the individual until they become what is the worst manifestation of current economics: The consumer.
I am wary to look at this from the same viewpoint as others who have been exploring it. Yet, what do I bring to the table?
We will see.
What is the destiny of this world? To be anthropocentric, what is the destiny of humankind? What silly terminology that is. There is no destiny. Nothing is determined.
Where will we go? Is it worth being part of the trip?
Why should I stay alive? Unless I am solving a problem, I am just contributing to the wasting of the planet. No matter how much I want to minimize my "footprint", zero is most easily achieved through death.
I am not contemplating suicide. The "poison" of my Catholic upbringing makes me fearful of eternal damnation for such things. But, it is important to find a place. And yet, that is what damns people the most. Once a place can't be found, depression sets in and consumes the individual until they become what is the worst manifestation of current economics: The consumer.
I am wary to look at this from the same viewpoint as others who have been exploring it. Yet, what do I bring to the table?
We will see.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Value life
The last blog ended with asking "what should we value?" How about a very flowery answer, value life. Life long into the future. This involves creating a sustainable system that does not revolve around endless growth. It involves ending the power struggle that exists in almost all aspects of our lives. This view does create too many happy images of people running around and enjoying free love. That would be ridiculous. Maybe we should just follow Jesus, Buddha, or Lao Tzu.
This is not trying to be religious, but most people need something to base their principles on. In addition, the knowledge these three passed on his a good base to learn from instead of developing through years of struggle. You need to start somewhere.
Picture the world. Can it possibility be taken in with one vision? Fly around and try to imagine every corner of the world, every person. The dimension is mind boggling. I consider this the greatest difficulty in changing people's world view. People in general (me included) are incapable of zooming out only so far before it makes no sense. There is a reason that world leaders have numerous advisers working under them, and numerous below them. They simplify and organize the data as needed. Yet, the leaders make decisions in their own little box. They have no power beyond what the people want and the people just want their lives. Change the definition of what that life is and you can change the world.
Wake up in the morning and say "I exist in a world of unfathomable suffering, what next?"
"I live within a species destined to kill itself, what next?"
Note: I will try this and see what happens. I just thought of it. The book I have been reading about "adaptive management in natural resources" has been a bust and my mind is shot.
This is not trying to be religious, but most people need something to base their principles on. In addition, the knowledge these three passed on his a good base to learn from instead of developing through years of struggle. You need to start somewhere.
Picture the world. Can it possibility be taken in with one vision? Fly around and try to imagine every corner of the world, every person. The dimension is mind boggling. I consider this the greatest difficulty in changing people's world view. People in general (me included) are incapable of zooming out only so far before it makes no sense. There is a reason that world leaders have numerous advisers working under them, and numerous below them. They simplify and organize the data as needed. Yet, the leaders make decisions in their own little box. They have no power beyond what the people want and the people just want their lives. Change the definition of what that life is and you can change the world.
Wake up in the morning and say "I exist in a world of unfathomable suffering, what next?"
"I live within a species destined to kill itself, what next?"
Note: I will try this and see what happens. I just thought of it. The book I have been reading about "adaptive management in natural resources" has been a bust and my mind is shot.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Value-New shift
Inspired by reading some works by Herman Daly, Robert Pirsig, and Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, among others, I have been inspired to try and organize the thoughts that have been circulating in my head. I would say "codify", but that is a little too ambitious. My goal is to develop, think about, what the next vision/plan for the world should look like. I approach it partly from an economic standpoint, but not exclusively, nor extensively.
Why start with value? "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" was about value. Value is also an important concept in economics. Because if these factors, that idea is demanding to be addressed, though it is debatable if it is the most important factor. Because the capitalist countries control the direction of the world, it is necessary to look at what drives them and what should drive them in the future. What is valued in this system? Stuff is valued. (I should apologize here for refusing to define terms in an encyclopedic manner. This is not an academic paper and the fluidity of the terms is best preserved by not defining them.) If GDP goes up (aka more stuff), then everyone is happy. This works in a world where there is an essentially limitless amount of stuff, space, and places to put trash. In the current world, we are no longer living with those conditions. This is the key point identified by Daly and Georgescu-Roegen.
In this "full" world, it is clear that we can't grow (economic growth) forever. Not when "growth" means "more stuff". Where is the quality of what is growing? It may be indirectly reflected in the price, but that is a poor measure. Yet, this is an immensely simple value system. Money is good, get money, that is where the value in life is. Is this the secret of the capitalist system? It can utterly ravage cultures because it allows you to turn off as many value systems as possible and just focus on money, and consequently wealth. There is more value placed on the outcome, money, than the process, what you do to get it. Of course, there are socially accepted (lawful) ways of acquiring money, but when the source of the money is unknown, the money's value itself outweighs other considerations.
Before this becomes a rant on wealth, I will get back on track. The value question will not be resolved today. There are too many factors involved. One of things that plagues the formulation of a new system is looking at what is valued when people are just trying to get clean water and something to eat. In the economic North, it is easy to rail against consumerism. What do you say to people living in a dirt shack who send their daughter to the city in order to assemble electronic goods? I don't want to live in dirt shack. There are things I could live without, and yet succumb to temptation and purchase. I don't know yet, but I'll look for it.
Final thoughts: What does the world system value? What do individuals value? What should be valued?
Why start with value? "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" was about value. Value is also an important concept in economics. Because if these factors, that idea is demanding to be addressed, though it is debatable if it is the most important factor. Because the capitalist countries control the direction of the world, it is necessary to look at what drives them and what should drive them in the future. What is valued in this system? Stuff is valued. (I should apologize here for refusing to define terms in an encyclopedic manner. This is not an academic paper and the fluidity of the terms is best preserved by not defining them.) If GDP goes up (aka more stuff), then everyone is happy. This works in a world where there is an essentially limitless amount of stuff, space, and places to put trash. In the current world, we are no longer living with those conditions. This is the key point identified by Daly and Georgescu-Roegen.
In this "full" world, it is clear that we can't grow (economic growth) forever. Not when "growth" means "more stuff". Where is the quality of what is growing? It may be indirectly reflected in the price, but that is a poor measure. Yet, this is an immensely simple value system. Money is good, get money, that is where the value in life is. Is this the secret of the capitalist system? It can utterly ravage cultures because it allows you to turn off as many value systems as possible and just focus on money, and consequently wealth. There is more value placed on the outcome, money, than the process, what you do to get it. Of course, there are socially accepted (lawful) ways of acquiring money, but when the source of the money is unknown, the money's value itself outweighs other considerations.
Before this becomes a rant on wealth, I will get back on track. The value question will not be resolved today. There are too many factors involved. One of things that plagues the formulation of a new system is looking at what is valued when people are just trying to get clean water and something to eat. In the economic North, it is easy to rail against consumerism. What do you say to people living in a dirt shack who send their daughter to the city in order to assemble electronic goods? I don't want to live in dirt shack. There are things I could live without, and yet succumb to temptation and purchase. I don't know yet, but I'll look for it.
Final thoughts: What does the world system value? What do individuals value? What should be valued?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)