Russian people under socialism encapsulated their position with.
"They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work"
A Chinese under post Mao "socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics". might say
"They direct a play, "The Market", we pretend to act within it"
Mao spawned great things. One is the New China. Can it evolve without revolution.
The more I know China the more I love and understand Mao Tse Tung thought and the mistakes he was drawn into in its practice. Mao was a truly great thinker. He had a gargantuan task, to overthrow the restrictive excesses of 5000+ years of a Chinese way of being.
"A Dream of Red Mansions" chart the terminal throws of its cycle we call it in the UK "clogs to clogs in three generation". This is the essence of Pearl Buck's "The Good Earth". This charts a family's decline, an other's rise in this cycle lasting 5000+ years.
Mao, with Chou, struggled to end it. The forces driving it run very very deep in the Chinese psyche. New age Gong Zhang Dang's inherit this. Mao's Autumn being their Spring.
Ba Jin (巴金) in "Family (家)", "Spring(春)", and "Autumn (秋)" charted the process that led to China's long hard Winter on the way to the New China. Mao ended this winter in 1949. His inheritors with the one child policy can exorcise the crushing influence of family on Chinese development.
Hope exists. A generation can be born in an unending summer freed by Maoist thought and "market socialism with Chinese characteristics" from the forces of frozen familial futures.
Let tomorrows children be players not actors in the global game unfolding on The Way(道)
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
A Letter to the Phillippines
Joseph
Princess Venture Enterprises
Manila
Together you and I are on the Way(道). In the current era this can bring an end to conflict, revolution and hegemony. It is this end we symbolize. My life was in NATO working against enemies, now gone, yours on the Pacific Rim struggling to end a hegemony now gone. Where now is the Way(道)?
We in the end game of our lives seek evolutionary harmony, he (和), in now uncontested spheres of influence of West on East and East on West, discarded segments of what is one sphere, our planet. In this conscious systemic evolutionary harmony, he (和), is now the essence of mans survival on the Way(道). Not the irony (同一个世界同一个梦想) of one world one dream (vain hope) of the Chinese Olympics but 同一个世界同一个做梦 but one world having one dream of the Martin Luther King variety as manifest in Obama.
There is a category error in human reasoning. Categories are helpful. They aid understanding but danger lurks in seeing “yin” (阴) and “yang” (阳) as alternatives systems instead of distinct part of ONE process. Profound Chinese philosophy sees this, people see structure not the processes their mind’s eye can create.
With this error ones talks of sub-systems un-systemically as systems when there is only one. Lao Tse called it "the way"(道). Newton called it the heavens. Einstein called it the universe. A correct understanding of its processes leads as Mao rightly conceived, to a need for continuous revolution. Evolutionary harmony requires these to be many and small.
The USA attempts this dominance of yang(阳) over yin(阴) and fails. Fecund errors propagate easily in such free environments producing systemic crisis, 1926, 2009. Flow in any undefined uniformity, a river delta, creates a need for a continuous flow of new flexible channels to guide it.
Such understanding leads to, the “Yi Ching” (易经), focused on the process, “evolution”, not the forms, local to time and place, it creates to enable it to stay on “the way” (道) it cannot leave.
Yin (阴) and yang(阳) are not alternatives but part of the one Way(道) Smooth Evolution requires balance between them. Without this sudden change, revolution, is inevitable to repair “the way” (道) This will happen with or without conscious human intervention. Chinese philosophy recognizes that socially true “he” (和) can avoid such revolution but the neo-Confucian thought of Zu Chi (朱熹) as captured by emperors and farmers was used to sustain their way at the expense of the way competitive technology can modulate business. This domination of yin(阴) over yang(阳) made Ci Xi (慈禧) and the Chinese revolutions that followed inevitable. For balance “The Way” (道) required Western yang(阳) to dominate for a time.
Our job is to find true he (和) as a balance between the processes of the East, with 阳dominant, and West with 阴dominant. Victory of one over the other as seen above is disastrous. Creative dynamic harmony between man and nature requires inclusivity not just of East and West but of Islam and the Spanish speaking world the Philippines encapsulates. For “one world to have one dream” the Philippines must flourish in more than its people.
A truly global University, as we at Nottingham aspires to be, can perhaps assist this.
Dr Brian Hilton, 岵屯来恩(博士)
Associate Professor of International Business,
Nottingham University Business School, NINGBO, China
Princess Venture Enterprises
Manila
Together you and I are on the Way(道). In the current era this can bring an end to conflict, revolution and hegemony. It is this end we symbolize. My life was in NATO working against enemies, now gone, yours on the Pacific Rim struggling to end a hegemony now gone. Where now is the Way(道)?
We in the end game of our lives seek evolutionary harmony, he (和), in now uncontested spheres of influence of West on East and East on West, discarded segments of what is one sphere, our planet. In this conscious systemic evolutionary harmony, he (和), is now the essence of mans survival on the Way(道). Not the irony (同一个世界同一个梦想) of one world one dream (vain hope) of the Chinese Olympics but 同一个世界同一个做梦 but one world having one dream of the Martin Luther King variety as manifest in Obama.
There is a category error in human reasoning. Categories are helpful. They aid understanding but danger lurks in seeing “yin” (阴) and “yang” (阳) as alternatives systems instead of distinct part of ONE process. Profound Chinese philosophy sees this, people see structure not the processes their mind’s eye can create.
With this error ones talks of sub-systems un-systemically as systems when there is only one. Lao Tse called it "the way"(道). Newton called it the heavens. Einstein called it the universe. A correct understanding of its processes leads as Mao rightly conceived, to a need for continuous revolution. Evolutionary harmony requires these to be many and small.
The USA attempts this dominance of yang(阳) over yin(阴) and fails. Fecund errors propagate easily in such free environments producing systemic crisis, 1926, 2009. Flow in any undefined uniformity, a river delta, creates a need for a continuous flow of new flexible channels to guide it.
Such understanding leads to, the “Yi Ching” (易经), focused on the process, “evolution”, not the forms, local to time and place, it creates to enable it to stay on “the way” (道) it cannot leave.
Yin (阴) and yang(阳) are not alternatives but part of the one Way(道) Smooth Evolution requires balance between them. Without this sudden change, revolution, is inevitable to repair “the way” (道) This will happen with or without conscious human intervention. Chinese philosophy recognizes that socially true “he” (和) can avoid such revolution but the neo-Confucian thought of Zu Chi (朱熹) as captured by emperors and farmers was used to sustain their way at the expense of the way competitive technology can modulate business. This domination of yin(阴) over yang(阳) made Ci Xi (慈禧) and the Chinese revolutions that followed inevitable. For balance “The Way” (道) required Western yang(阳) to dominate for a time.
Our job is to find true he (和) as a balance between the processes of the East, with 阳dominant, and West with 阴dominant. Victory of one over the other as seen above is disastrous. Creative dynamic harmony between man and nature requires inclusivity not just of East and West but of Islam and the Spanish speaking world the Philippines encapsulates. For “one world to have one dream” the Philippines must flourish in more than its people.
A truly global University, as we at Nottingham aspires to be, can perhaps assist this.
Dr Brian Hilton, 岵屯来恩(博士)
Associate Professor of International Business,
Nottingham University Business School, NINGBO, China
Saturday, September 26, 2009
I am BACK
just a signal that i have not given up and am on the search for new material. i will blog properly again within the week and maybe even later today
岵屯来恩
岵(hu)屯(tun)来 (lai)恩(en
in Chinese "hu" is a wooded hill and "tun" is a place where soldiers are stationed, a very small administrative unit of living perhaps like a village maybe a small town and lai means "comes" and en means "kindness" a name I share with Chou En Lai a man and a sentiment that was his life and i hope is now mine.
Brian Hilton
岵屯来恩
岵(hu)屯(tun)来 (lai)恩(en
in Chinese "hu" is a wooded hill and "tun" is a place where soldiers are stationed, a very small administrative unit of living perhaps like a village maybe a small town and lai means "comes" and en means "kindness" a name I share with Chou En Lai a man and a sentiment that was his life and i hope is now mine.
Brian Hilton
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Reflections from a Day in Beijing
Today was and will remain significant to me. It was a wake-up call to arms in my own war to develop intellectually stimulating relevant ideas.
I hope the price of my learning was not excessively high.
I was confronted in Beijing with a pessimistic if realistic world view. This was important to me. It underlines my view that most human activity is driven by belief not reality. The current world crisis like all crisis of a similar "financial" nature is one of human beings confidence in their own beliefs. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any underlying change in human needs, wants and capabilities. The real economy today is no different now than it was a year ago though our confidence in it has been significantly undermined. The consequence is that without belief in it, it does not work.
The recent G20 suggests we humanity are learning how to organize collectively to constructively prevent our lack of confidence in our self belief being undermined for an inconveniently long period. Hopefully this will work on this occasion. It can perhaps, as did Bretton Woods, provide a means of sustaining significant self belief over time without resort to religion.
China's current strength, as was Britain's in the 19th Century, an irrational but sustained confidence in its capacity and will to prevail over all tribulations put in its path. You just have to see the "irrational" public buildings put up in the 19th Century in Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, Leeds etc to see this and compare them with the irrational "unrealistic" building going on in Beijing yesterday. The Beijing Olympics personified this as does the fact that over 25% of the residential property constructed here remains empty on completion - I have a researcher working on this phenomena as I write.
The Chinese have now built the longest bridge in the world, plan the tallest building, and the longest high altitude railway etc, the superlatives go on. They do this for similar reasons to those prevailing in 19th Century Britain. These beliefs were so powerful that they even managed to echo downwards into my education and lifetime in Great Britain in terms of us Brits being able to "punch above our weight". Of course this conceptually sells the pass. It does did however keep us in a game despite the "reality" that we are now largely irrelevant players.
It is in feelings of irrelevance, perceived or potentially perceivable, that danger lies. If one's life has no prospect of meaning except through belief then in death for that belief your life has meaning. Persecution for such beliefs heightens the value of such a death. Aggressive police action to suppress the holders of such beliefs is thus perversely the best way to spread their power.
Action providing hope of personal redemption through another route to meaning can succeed. My own take on Northern Ireland is that by finding a way of helping provide such belief for the growing Catholic majority we the Brits succeeded in assisting peace to begin to evolve there. Peace did not proceed out of the 1st World War. It ended with the victors depriving the Germans of all hope of economic or social redemption. World War IIs aftermath was different. Marshall Aid, Bretton Woods and the generosity of the US to its two main defeated enemies changed the game fundamentally.
I believe we need to give Islam and Israel a route to such redemption. I believe this is possible but as it is not yet in place. It cannot be constructed quickly. In the meantime we can at best deploy the kind of life skills you personally have developed to a work to meliorate the consequences. Unfortunately as you know, as did Pontecorvo, most people involved in the “engranage”, that can be your business, in Israel, the US, China, Iran and China do not see it that way. They can and do act in a manner that spreads, rather than dissipates, the consequences of the anomie that leads onto “engranage”. Your personal approach I know and see acts to attenuate the consequences of some people's lack of confidence in their own capacity to provide meaning for their lives except through death, their own and that of others.
Some seem heavily engaged at the tactical level in this battle. They like Shang and the other Chinese legalists are for destroying the enemy as they present. This is their way to meaning and social harmony – it worked in Japan and for a time in China under the Chin.
Others are deeply engaged at the operational level. They arguably have had lives with no mean level of success, with a number of key parts of the game, in Northern Ireland, Sierra Leone, Grenada and the Balkans.
On the other hand I have chosen to stand on the sidelines of our planet’s part in this great universal game. I choose to think and write about it.
Hopefully, in the end this may assist, the "evolutionary development" of a strategy humanity might use to continue to survive in it. My meaning is found in a small hope that this might be so and humanity can thus survive to continue to play a constructive part in the resolution of our segment of the great universal game existence presents to us. We of course are playing an unbelievably irrelevant small part but we humanity have the capacity to maintain a huge "hubritic" perception of our significance to the process.
Belief is in the end is everything. This can be good.
I hope the price of my learning was not excessively high.
I was confronted in Beijing with a pessimistic if realistic world view. This was important to me. It underlines my view that most human activity is driven by belief not reality. The current world crisis like all crisis of a similar "financial" nature is one of human beings confidence in their own beliefs. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any underlying change in human needs, wants and capabilities. The real economy today is no different now than it was a year ago though our confidence in it has been significantly undermined. The consequence is that without belief in it, it does not work.
The recent G20 suggests we humanity are learning how to organize collectively to constructively prevent our lack of confidence in our self belief being undermined for an inconveniently long period. Hopefully this will work on this occasion. It can perhaps, as did Bretton Woods, provide a means of sustaining significant self belief over time without resort to religion.
China's current strength, as was Britain's in the 19th Century, an irrational but sustained confidence in its capacity and will to prevail over all tribulations put in its path. You just have to see the "irrational" public buildings put up in the 19th Century in Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, Leeds etc to see this and compare them with the irrational "unrealistic" building going on in Beijing yesterday. The Beijing Olympics personified this as does the fact that over 25% of the residential property constructed here remains empty on completion - I have a researcher working on this phenomena as I write.
The Chinese have now built the longest bridge in the world, plan the tallest building, and the longest high altitude railway etc, the superlatives go on. They do this for similar reasons to those prevailing in 19th Century Britain. These beliefs were so powerful that they even managed to echo downwards into my education and lifetime in Great Britain in terms of us Brits being able to "punch above our weight". Of course this conceptually sells the pass. It does did however keep us in a game despite the "reality" that we are now largely irrelevant players.
It is in feelings of irrelevance, perceived or potentially perceivable, that danger lies. If one's life has no prospect of meaning except through belief then in death for that belief your life has meaning. Persecution for such beliefs heightens the value of such a death. Aggressive police action to suppress the holders of such beliefs is thus perversely the best way to spread their power.
Action providing hope of personal redemption through another route to meaning can succeed. My own take on Northern Ireland is that by finding a way of helping provide such belief for the growing Catholic majority we the Brits succeeded in assisting peace to begin to evolve there. Peace did not proceed out of the 1st World War. It ended with the victors depriving the Germans of all hope of economic or social redemption. World War IIs aftermath was different. Marshall Aid, Bretton Woods and the generosity of the US to its two main defeated enemies changed the game fundamentally.
I believe we need to give Islam and Israel a route to such redemption. I believe this is possible but as it is not yet in place. It cannot be constructed quickly. In the meantime we can at best deploy the kind of life skills you personally have developed to a work to meliorate the consequences. Unfortunately as you know, as did Pontecorvo, most people involved in the “engranage”, that can be your business, in Israel, the US, China, Iran and China do not see it that way. They can and do act in a manner that spreads, rather than dissipates, the consequences of the anomie that leads onto “engranage”. Your personal approach I know and see acts to attenuate the consequences of some people's lack of confidence in their own capacity to provide meaning for their lives except through death, their own and that of others.
Some seem heavily engaged at the tactical level in this battle. They like Shang and the other Chinese legalists are for destroying the enemy as they present. This is their way to meaning and social harmony – it worked in Japan and for a time in China under the Chin.
Others are deeply engaged at the operational level. They arguably have had lives with no mean level of success, with a number of key parts of the game, in Northern Ireland, Sierra Leone, Grenada and the Balkans.
On the other hand I have chosen to stand on the sidelines of our planet’s part in this great universal game. I choose to think and write about it.
Hopefully, in the end this may assist, the "evolutionary development" of a strategy humanity might use to continue to survive in it. My meaning is found in a small hope that this might be so and humanity can thus survive to continue to play a constructive part in the resolution of our segment of the great universal game existence presents to us. We of course are playing an unbelievably irrelevant small part but we humanity have the capacity to maintain a huge "hubritic" perception of our significance to the process.
Belief is in the end is everything. This can be good.
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Neo-classicists and the Neocons are not Economists but Phsyicist and Mathematicians Lost in the Maze of the Real Economy
I am an economist and a mathematician turned business studies lecturer because my subject was invaded by failed physicists and mathematicians who new and understood nothing about the economy, economics or its traditions. For a well crafted detailed indictment of what they have done and why they were always wrong and why they have all failed now read Mirkowski's "More Heat than Light".
All these so called economist from Debreu on, Nobel for his 'The Theory of Value', knew nothing whatsoever about the economy or economics. Debreu himself said on many occasions that he was not an economist. His Nobel prize winning work is a well crafted piece of differential topology, an existence theorem, to prove a solution exists to Walras' hypothesis, of a hundred years previously that prices could adjust by a process of trial and error, 'tattonement', to converge to a General Equilibrium - a set of prices such that that all markets cleared, i.e. supply equaled demand in every market.
His work is a beautiful demonstration of the wrongness not the rightness of General Equilibrium Theory and the Neo-Classical Economics that has now so catastrophically failed us. It is in fact a proof of what utter nonsense this perspective is. He shows that for General Equilibrium to be possible. There needs to be a set of markets defined over a complete, differentiable measure space defined over all time from the day of Genesis, the Big Bang, to the Present for all goods each of which must exist at all points of continuous time and between all points of time for this result to hold. His mathematics is beautiful but what arrant nonsense as economics.
For General Equilibrium to Exist even as an aspiration the universe has to be in stasis for eternity. Beautiful math that proves that economics based on the idea of tattonement leading in the limit to General Equilibrium is complete and utter nonsense. Instead his success with his Nobel acclamation charted a route that other followed in the Journal of Economic Theory, etc.
Marshal, the First Professor of Economics at Cambridge and Lord Keynes a successor were both excellent mathematicians, Keynes wrote a well respected treatise on probability theory but math never ever appeared in their published works in economics although it is clear they used it to discipline their thinking about the real economy, that especially Keynes practically knew so well. Keynes became very rich as did his College from his understanding of the stock market. Note that David Ricardo the second great economist, after Adam Smith, became very rich too from playing the markets in the early 19th Century - his father threw him out at 26 because he married a gentile. He retired to write around ten years later on what he made trading bonds on the London market.
Keynes summed it up in his General Theory to paraphrase "it is impossible to keep all necessary partial differentials you are holding constant at the back of your head when solving an economics problem" The relatively stable environment it is possible to create in physics both as a thought experiment and in the laboratory is simply non-existent in economics. Politics, society, human psychology and the natural environment co-evolve in a complex way with economic change such that it is impossible to truly keep track of where we are using mathematical formalism. The tradition of economics was to except the impossibility of uselessly formalizing the formalism you might choose to discipline your thinking in the background but which Debreu proves and Keynes recently vindicated "General Theory" demonstrates tend to obfuscate the economics.
Economics was a great discipline but we have now got to accept it has been wrong headed in its driving mentality for the last half century and seek other ways to pursue the study of the economy consonant with the traditions that died with Hicks Pigou and Schumpter and has not yet died in the person of Paul Samuelson whose beautifully crafted piece on Economic Analysis makes two things very clear. One if you cannot explain it to a wife uneducated in economics it is definitely bad economics and if anyway comparative static analysis which the General Equilibrium people revel in is only a tiny tiny part of the economics discipline which needs to embrace dynamics,in smooth, stochastic and historic spaces where completeness, differentiability and ceteris parabus writs do not run.
All these so called economist from Debreu on, Nobel for his 'The Theory of Value', knew nothing whatsoever about the economy or economics. Debreu himself said on many occasions that he was not an economist. His Nobel prize winning work is a well crafted piece of differential topology, an existence theorem, to prove a solution exists to Walras' hypothesis, of a hundred years previously that prices could adjust by a process of trial and error, 'tattonement', to converge to a General Equilibrium - a set of prices such that that all markets cleared, i.e. supply equaled demand in every market.
His work is a beautiful demonstration of the wrongness not the rightness of General Equilibrium Theory and the Neo-Classical Economics that has now so catastrophically failed us. It is in fact a proof of what utter nonsense this perspective is. He shows that for General Equilibrium to be possible. There needs to be a set of markets defined over a complete, differentiable measure space defined over all time from the day of Genesis, the Big Bang, to the Present for all goods each of which must exist at all points of continuous time and between all points of time for this result to hold. His mathematics is beautiful but what arrant nonsense as economics.
For General Equilibrium to Exist even as an aspiration the universe has to be in stasis for eternity. Beautiful math that proves that economics based on the idea of tattonement leading in the limit to General Equilibrium is complete and utter nonsense. Instead his success with his Nobel acclamation charted a route that other followed in the Journal of Economic Theory, etc.
Marshal, the First Professor of Economics at Cambridge and Lord Keynes a successor were both excellent mathematicians, Keynes wrote a well respected treatise on probability theory but math never ever appeared in their published works in economics although it is clear they used it to discipline their thinking about the real economy, that especially Keynes practically knew so well. Keynes became very rich as did his College from his understanding of the stock market. Note that David Ricardo the second great economist, after Adam Smith, became very rich too from playing the markets in the early 19th Century - his father threw him out at 26 because he married a gentile. He retired to write around ten years later on what he made trading bonds on the London market.
Keynes summed it up in his General Theory to paraphrase "it is impossible to keep all necessary partial differentials you are holding constant at the back of your head when solving an economics problem" The relatively stable environment it is possible to create in physics both as a thought experiment and in the laboratory is simply non-existent in economics. Politics, society, human psychology and the natural environment co-evolve in a complex way with economic change such that it is impossible to truly keep track of where we are using mathematical formalism. The tradition of economics was to except the impossibility of uselessly formalizing the formalism you might choose to discipline your thinking in the background but which Debreu proves and Keynes recently vindicated "General Theory" demonstrates tend to obfuscate the economics.
Economics was a great discipline but we have now got to accept it has been wrong headed in its driving mentality for the last half century and seek other ways to pursue the study of the economy consonant with the traditions that died with Hicks Pigou and Schumpter and has not yet died in the person of Paul Samuelson whose beautifully crafted piece on Economic Analysis makes two things very clear. One if you cannot explain it to a wife uneducated in economics it is definitely bad economics and if anyway comparative static analysis which the General Equilibrium people revel in is only a tiny tiny part of the economics discipline which needs to embrace dynamics,in smooth, stochastic and historic spaces where completeness, differentiability and ceteris parabus writs do not run.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
The Evolutionary Development of Mutuality in Hubris of Fundamentalist Christian Creationist & Naive Darwinian Evolutionary Dice Players
I feel obliged to write. I have already blogged about the consistency of evolutionary theory and intelligent design. In my view they are totally compatible with each other despite the rabid positions taken on this debate by both sides.
That the universe was created complete in "six days" can hardly be a reason for dispute. The "big bang" people probably think that 6 days is too long but as a day had no meaning before their was an earth to go round the sun and spin on its axis that is hardly a big issue.
It was indeed seen as "Good". All the evidence is that the system that came into being in this very short space of time came with the complete blueprint for stars, galaxies, the milkyway, the solar system and all "goods" creatures including the, rose, horse and man as well as that slowly manifesting being Gaia of which we are a small but integral part. As Teilhard du Chardin, the great Belgium priest and scholar of divinity and philosophy maintained we are manifested in this universe as part of the goods "global consciousness"
Those who say the PROCESS that came into being at the creation of the universe as entirely random are mathematically and scientifically wrong headed, no evidence supporting their view is sustainable on the evidence. The very short timescales observable for speciation are far too short for their theories of randomness to be sustainable. Anyway it is well documented that randomness is a manifestation of our perceptual ignorance not some universal truth about reality. It is true we are unable to identify the patterns in the 'good'. Generallywe try to see it on time scales where the unfolding blueprint of the 'good' is not immediately manifest in observable outcomes.
Those who take the design position choose at one level to ignore the 'good's' PROCESS and see it as complete at its point of manifestation. In doing so they inconsistently chose to ignore the history of the ongoing PROCESS so integral to their beliefs.
Christ they argue was born and died to help us right the wrong of "original sin" and our casting out from access to the bounty naturally provided complete to us by the"good's" PROCESS on this planet - "look at the lilies of the field" etc.
The process of evolutionary development as set out in the Old Testament illustrate the dangers of humanity's huge capacity to indulge in hubris. We not only left the Garden of Eden we set out to systematically and ruthlessly destroy every manifestation of it with the ultimate hubris of the "peaceful" farmers who with their tools and weapons turned most of the "goods" plants into weeds to be eradicated, its creatures into vermin to be destroyed and our own kind into enemies to be killed. The Old Testament makes manifest the consequences of all this.
Christ in the New Testament provided a means for us to begin to undo "original" sin, seek the 'goods' forgiveness and forgive others their perceived transgressions against us, "judge not that ye be judged" Of course Christ did not dispel hubris he only gave as a means to seek the "goods" forgiveness for our wanton destruction of its bounty. In doing so our hubris took this as a license to start a new period of human evolution which is only to end with a Day of Judgment to be meted out by the good.
In this modern period our hubris knew no evident bounds. manifest to its worse degree in the deep, black and evil hypocrisy of so called 'believers' in the Good and Christ. They choose to use the Good and Christ's New Testament as grounds to destroy and or kill others sure in their belief that their actions will be forgiven by the Good at the Day of the Good's Judgement which we acknowledge will surely come but will it end in tears or joy and for whom?
Such unbound hubris produced the enlightenment and the modern age. In this we have not just been content to eliminate the good's living plants and creatures but in this modern age to systematically exhume the dead of the goods PROCESS and burn and consume its dead in such huge and unsustainable quantities that this is accelerating our approach to the Good's Day of Judgment.
We are just beginning to be able to see this reality. Some are truly preparing for that day. The only danger remaining comes from the hypocritical hubris of farmers and modernists, i. e. creationist believers and evolutionary dice playing non-believers. One can only hope that the good, with Christ's help, may still save us from the dangerous hubris of both. Their self indulgent sustained efforts at maintaining there respective manifest ignorance of the 'good's' creation may unfortunately result in us becoming redundant to the achievement of the evolutionary ends it created. Instead of being forgiven at the Day of Judgment we may instead be confined in Toto to the pit. Lets hope and pray not.
That the universe was created complete in "six days" can hardly be a reason for dispute. The "big bang" people probably think that 6 days is too long but as a day had no meaning before their was an earth to go round the sun and spin on its axis that is hardly a big issue.
It was indeed seen as "Good". All the evidence is that the system that came into being in this very short space of time came with the complete blueprint for stars, galaxies, the milkyway, the solar system and all "goods" creatures including the, rose, horse and man as well as that slowly manifesting being Gaia of which we are a small but integral part. As Teilhard du Chardin, the great Belgium priest and scholar of divinity and philosophy maintained we are manifested in this universe as part of the goods "global consciousness"
Those who say the PROCESS that came into being at the creation of the universe as entirely random are mathematically and scientifically wrong headed, no evidence supporting their view is sustainable on the evidence. The very short timescales observable for speciation are far too short for their theories of randomness to be sustainable. Anyway it is well documented that randomness is a manifestation of our perceptual ignorance not some universal truth about reality. It is true we are unable to identify the patterns in the 'good'. Generallywe try to see it on time scales where the unfolding blueprint of the 'good' is not immediately manifest in observable outcomes.
Those who take the design position choose at one level to ignore the 'good's' PROCESS and see it as complete at its point of manifestation. In doing so they inconsistently chose to ignore the history of the ongoing PROCESS so integral to their beliefs.
Christ they argue was born and died to help us right the wrong of "original sin" and our casting out from access to the bounty naturally provided complete to us by the"good's" PROCESS on this planet - "look at the lilies of the field" etc.
The process of evolutionary development as set out in the Old Testament illustrate the dangers of humanity's huge capacity to indulge in hubris. We not only left the Garden of Eden we set out to systematically and ruthlessly destroy every manifestation of it with the ultimate hubris of the "peaceful" farmers who with their tools and weapons turned most of the "goods" plants into weeds to be eradicated, its creatures into vermin to be destroyed and our own kind into enemies to be killed. The Old Testament makes manifest the consequences of all this.
Christ in the New Testament provided a means for us to begin to undo "original" sin, seek the 'goods' forgiveness and forgive others their perceived transgressions against us, "judge not that ye be judged" Of course Christ did not dispel hubris he only gave as a means to seek the "goods" forgiveness for our wanton destruction of its bounty. In doing so our hubris took this as a license to start a new period of human evolution which is only to end with a Day of Judgment to be meted out by the good.
In this modern period our hubris knew no evident bounds. manifest to its worse degree in the deep, black and evil hypocrisy of so called 'believers' in the Good and Christ. They choose to use the Good and Christ's New Testament as grounds to destroy and or kill others sure in their belief that their actions will be forgiven by the Good at the Day of the Good's Judgement which we acknowledge will surely come but will it end in tears or joy and for whom?
Such unbound hubris produced the enlightenment and the modern age. In this we have not just been content to eliminate the good's living plants and creatures but in this modern age to systematically exhume the dead of the goods PROCESS and burn and consume its dead in such huge and unsustainable quantities that this is accelerating our approach to the Good's Day of Judgment.
We are just beginning to be able to see this reality. Some are truly preparing for that day. The only danger remaining comes from the hypocritical hubris of farmers and modernists, i. e. creationist believers and evolutionary dice playing non-believers. One can only hope that the good, with Christ's help, may still save us from the dangerous hubris of both. Their self indulgent sustained efforts at maintaining there respective manifest ignorance of the 'good's' creation may unfortunately result in us becoming redundant to the achievement of the evolutionary ends it created. Instead of being forgiven at the Day of Judgment we may instead be confined in Toto to the pit. Lets hope and pray not.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
The Falicy of Organizational Heirarchy: the Evolution of Self Organization
I think there is a fatal flaw in the argument that some make that organizational heirarchy is needed or that it even exists.
These arguments often start with a presumption that the human corpus is centrally controlled. This is simply inaccurate. Stafford Beer many years ago in “The Brain of the Firm” used the human brain as an analogy appropriate in considering the “managerial cybernetics”, the organization, of enterprise.
The whole point of his credo and his analysis is that the human or nay brain is very very far from being a centralized directive and controlling system. In a very real and practical sense 70% plus of its operations are entirely decentralized to autonomous systems that keep our heart beating, our lungs working, our food being digested or rejected and our bodies repaired with no reference whatsoever to any central authority.
Even at the level of the cerebral cortex and the other “higher levels” of our central nervous system’s behaviour decision making is NEVER centrally directed or controlled. It emerges as a consequence of a self organizing process. In it “good and evil” in a myriad shades of gray fight for dominance over every minute outcome we seek or need to achieve. Most of the activity involved is sublimible. It is located in our unconscious not our conscious mind - we are lazy, energetic, sexually aroused or positive about things not as a result of rationale logical decisive cetnrally directeed thought but as a result of stuff welling up from a heaving morass of unconscious neural activity guided by past experience and fearful of irrational expectatios as to possible outcomes unrelated to the immediate stimuluses we have constructed a belief that we are reacting to - behaviour is the result of learning and is not not enacted inthe moment.
To top all of this our central nervous system is emmersed in a chemical bath, our body and the things it senses which have a continuous but unseen impact on what we like to call our state of mind. This chemical matrix has a huge impact on our choices. Hormones determine huge ammounts of our behaviour as do other less evident factors such as the amount of oxygen and many other chemicals in our blood.
This is an organization it is true and organization that is necessary but it is anything but centrally directed or even really heiracrchical. It is a self organizing network of semi-autonomous but interconnected systems that embraces external social institutions and societies as wella s our bodies and none of which has any truly evident part in directing the actions of the whole.
Lao Tze in the Tao de Ching saw the best leaders as those we were not aware of because they empower as so effectively that we believe in our own capacity to act and decided effectively using our mind and the institutions and societies we can effect. The search for the myth of leadership and or the necessity for central direction is surely that a myth an other philosopher's stone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)