Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Tuesday, August 09, 2011

No, the world hasn't gone mad...

...just angry!

earlier this year, i posted the latest developments and there, i already assumed that by the end of this year, the face of our world wont be the same as in January.

Well, the developments the months since then, just proofed this thesis.
Greek announced bankruptcy, the financial situation in the western europe states Spain and Portugal is everything but calm as well, in the british capital London, the yout is rioting and looting since days, the USA stood very closely before a bankruptcy too, the Euro is going to get weaker on a daily base.

As if this would not be enough, some far right idiots are starting terror. because they blame the Norway government for killing the population of Norway with their immigration laws. And the chinese still get more and more affraid.

Egypt is at the brink of yet another revolution since the first revolution only resulted in Hosni Mubaraks resignation, else, nothing has changed.

And in all this, our conventional media is taking a whole other place than they used to have. Thanks to the internet, they are evrything but acual. They are merely summing up the events of the last 24 hours, but if you want to get real time informations, you better turn to facebook, twitter, etc.
In times of the internet, the conventional media gets an obsolete byproduct, because 24 hours just isnt fast enough anymore!

They say, 2012 is marking the beginning of a new era, not the end of the world or other "Doomsday-scenarios" the media often paints. The mayan calendar only says that, due to the constellation of the stars, a new era for mankind, a new system begins.

But looking at the latest developements, this is only a logic conclusion, the traditional system is flawed, those flaws got exploited over and over again. And instead of curing the root of those infections, politicians always try to cure the symptoms.

It is just like a doctor, who always prescribes different kinds of painkillers, if the stomach is hurting, instead of curing what is causing those pains. Somewhere, there is a point, those painkillers proof effectless, because of the plain overdosage, or the body getting immune. Then this doctor either lets the patiend die, or suffer for the rest of his life, or he tries a completely different approach, than medication.

The point, when the painkillers stopped to work, has been reached in my opinion, in egypt.
As i already said in another post:
getting more and more clear each passing day: By the end of this year, our world wont be the same.I think this year, we will have to undergo some HUGE changes.

The closer we get there, the more i believe that.

Lets just hope it will be for good!

Saturday, May 21, 2011

Actio et Reactio

If a force acts upon a body, then an equal and opposite force must act upon the body that exerts the force.
 This is the third of Newtons laws of motion of classical mechanics. So broadly said:
To every action there is an equal reaction.
True, Newton meant this in a physical way and tried to explain how bodies interact with each other, but this also applies to almost everything. Physics, Biology, Economy, Medicine, and in the end, it applies to human behaviour as well.
Every action is the reasult of another action (so it is a reaction), which is the base for another reaction.

This principle is also known as causality (It is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first.[Wikipedia])

There is a reason for everything. Every action, every decission, simply everything is caused by some action prior to that. No matter if its conscious or not, and even no reaction, most of the times, it is a reaction as well.
Analog to Paul Watzlawick's quote "One cannot not communicate" (Every behaviour is a kind of communication. Because behaviour does not have a counterpart (there is no anti-behaviour), it is not possible not to communicate.) It is the same with reactions.

The same principle is transmittable on a global and actual Situation. Take the egyptian uprising for example. Back at the beginning of the year, the tunisians just freed themselves in a peaceful revolution. And the egypt population was upset already. They have been going more and more upset on a daily base due to corruption, heavy limitations on free speech, demographic changes (the youth of the time when Mubarak got his power is no more, and the youth of today had different values), and of course the dead and mourning over Khaled Said, answered again with police brutality (action). On the course of the people protesting, and this protests being answered in a violent way, they got more and more upset on a potential level (reaction). The result of all this, we can see today, just by looking at egypt today. 

Those two revolts with a lucky ending, were the very foundation of the Lybian uprising. But since the actions and reactions of both (Gadaffi and Protesters) were slightly different, the outcome differed as well, and of course there is always the component of chance playing a role in that.

I think this principle is valid for many more scenarios. It just seems that this principle just is not valid for politics. If politicians would take this as one of the basic principles of their act, some things might have not happened as they did, some laws, such as immigration laws, laws which are using force of security forces, and even wars would not exist.

And unless the circle of violence is not be broken, nothing will change, only more violence will be produced, producing more violence. In Gaza, the arab states, southern africa, colombia, violenc against immigrants and almost everywhere. Someone has to make a first step. 

Why this someone is not you and your neighboours? 

But to break it down in the end, one can say: 

Violence induces violence,
Compassion induces compassion,
Love induces love,
and all the rest of it.

Friday, May 20, 2011

Allegory of the cave

Imagine a cave inhabited by prisoners who have been chained and held immobile since childhood and their arms and legs are held in place as well as their heads are fixed so they are compelled to gaze at a wall in front of them.
Behind those people is a wall, and behind this wall, is a gigantic fire, being the only source of light for those people. day in and day out. Between the fire and the wall is a walkway, where people are coming by, carrying things on their head, "including figures of men and animals made of wood, stone and other materials". The wall is just high enough to show those objects, but no head or anything else 

The prisoners watch the shadows cast by the men, not knowing they are shadows. There are also echoes off the wall from the noise produced from the walkway. Since the prisoners haven't seen anything else their whole life, they will take those shadows and the sounds of the echoes as the reality, and couldnt imagine the relity being any different than what they have been seeing all their lifes.

Schematics of the Cave describes by Socrates.

So far the starting scenario of the "allegory of the cave", a story (or allegory) told by Socrates, described by Plato in his "Republica". He was using this scenario in many of his debates with Plato's older brother Glaucon.
For Socrates, it was a base to describe "our nature in its education and want of education".

Those prisoners werent able to move since their limbs are chained, and since they only see the shadows, nothing but the shadows exist for them. Since there is a fire burning all the time, and since it never extinguishes, they wont even have an idea of even simple constructs as light and darkness. 

Socrates' scholar Plato added a new dimension to this allegory. He supposed, that somehow one of the prisoners is able to get free. And once he sees the original objects, who cast those shadows, he wouldnt recognize them, also he couldnt name them, since the only reality he knows, are the shadows he has seen all his life.
"Suppose further," Socrates says, "that the man was compelled to look at the fire: wouldn't he be struck blind and try to turn his gaze back toward the shadows, as toward what he can see clearly and hold to be real? What if someone forcibly dragged such a man upward, out of the cave: wouldn't the man be angry at the one doing this to him? And if dragged all the way out into the sunlight, wouldn't he be distressed and unable to see "even one of the things now said to be true," viz. the shadows on the wall" [1]
Well something like this, you may find often with people who try to close their eyes, when being confronted with ideologies other than their own. Complete denial, anger, sometimes distress.
"Socrates next asks Glaucon to consider the condition of this man. "Wouldn't he remember his first home, what passed for wisdom there, and his fellow prisoners, and consider himself happy and them pitiable? And wouldn't he disdain whatever honors, praises, and prizes were awarded there to the ones who guessed best which shadows followed which? Moreover, were he to return there, wouldn't he be rather bad at their game, no longer being accustomed to the darkness? Wouldn't it be said of him that he went up and came back with his eyes corrupted, and that it's not even worth trying to go up? And if they were somehow able to get their hands on and kill the man who attempts to release and lead up, wouldn't they kill him?"[2] 
This last, rather drastic ending of the killing, was added by Plato. But considering his devotion for his "teacher" Socrates, and the trial and imprisonment, resulting in Socrates' suicide, it is at least comprehensible, that many of Platos story have a drastic and extreme ending.

Although, older than the stories of the bible, at least 2050 years, this story has yet so many truth in it. you still can relate many  situations nowadays to this allegory, many reactions of people, many situations.
For example when i heard first of this story, some years ago, i was not picturing a "society in a cave" bout  more or less families in front of the TV, watching what the stations are broadcasting as the truth, and finally believing it. But as i found out, the TV is not the truth, nor is anything presented to someone as the truth. But who  is never willing to open his eyes, to go out of the cave and make his own experiences, instead of believing what is presented to him, will always believe what is told to him by others. 

By the way: this story is also the basic thought, which inspired Rosa Luxemburg to her (in certain antifascist/anarchist circles) famous aphorism: "Who is not moving, does not notice his chains" (Loosely translated from "Wer sich nicht bewegt, spürt seine Fesseln nicht!")

 [1], [2]: Watt, Stephen (1997), "Introduction: The Theory of Forms (Books 5–7)", Plato: Republic

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Academic Freedom and the Corporatization of Universities

Today a lection of Mr Chomsky about Academic Freedom and the Corporatization of Universities.

Here, it has finally been said:  The problems of university, and as well schools, healthcare and every other public fund institution is egoism. Especially in the US (not just there, all over Europe as well), people start to think that they dont have children, why should they pay for the education of other people? They are not sick, why should they pay for other peoples sickness? 

Of course this is the very problem. Most people live on their own, not caring about the people, or what is happening all around them (just look at ideas to save our enviroment, just ask why there hasnt been any efford put into finding an alternate energy source, far from oil). 
"Social security is based on a very dangerous Idea: It's based on the Idea, that you care about other people, that you care whether the disabled widow across the street has food. [...] What do i care? [...] The public attack on the public schools is based on the same principle 
So i dont have kids in school. So according to the principle, i should say: i dont have kids in school, why so why should i pay taxes? So that the kid over there could go to school? [...] So if you go down to the debts of savagery, we just dont care about anything but yourself. Thats the right attitude. 
Social security and public schools challenge that attitude, so they have to be dismantled. Kind of hard to proof this, nobody says it, but i think it is pretty clear"

This exactly what i think aboutall those debates about SOCIAL security (else it would be called asocial security), the very root of the problem is egoism!
People should really start to care about what is happening around them, and others, not only themselves 

P.S.: I know i have been lazy lately but there will be more to come soon. I Promise