One topic that really stimulates my logo-ethical frame is the debating of the Western ideals and means of managing society --> and consequently how that's affected the rest of the world by producing imitations of western culture.
One thing that deeply disturbs me is the level of extent to which right-judgment is discouraged from, and not developed in, western culture. Especially in the workplace we're told we don't have the right to use personal judgment (but instead told to use bureaucracy and regulations) unless we are doctors, or at the top of the corporate ladder. Everyone else is meant only to fill their cubicle or role in a whole that is void of personal judgment --- and this absence of personal 'sense' makes it possible for structures and markets/corporations as enormous as they now exist, to thrive, where before we had thousands more individual businesses and each exercised their own intelligence.
It seems a self-fulfilling prophecy that politicians and business-men say people can't be trusted to make the important decisions about their life, when they're never encouraged to exercise and develop that judgment - outside of very general and predictable decisions. The process of globalization has taken judgment out of the equation in order to facilitate uniformity - where personal judgment would be a direct conflict to that individualism.
"Indifference to a substantive concern for the general good" "If something can be discovered and developed, it should be discovered and developed." "If something can be sold, then it should be sold" "And the problem for bureaucracy is the tendency to put the rationality of rules above the rationality of end"
Why is it that there seems to be a liberty to take advantage of humans economically without consideration of their well-being, and that avenue of abuse is not only ignored by bureaucracy but given more liberty by it?
Suing/Retaliation: ...in the western culture, even the mentality of retaliation is geared toward an economic favor: namely suing. You're asked to sign for everything, and corporations are so paranoid of suing that they go through lengthy procedures to avoid the legal repercussions of it. Doctors' malpractice insurance is an enormous factor in what drives medical costs up the roof. Why is it that a monetary reward is the compensation for being wronged? If someone slips and falls at Wal-mart due to some spill that some other person made but which walmart didn't clean up or notice in time, they can sue Wal-mart for up to $50,000.
There seems a general immaturity in the western mindset to not take accountability for one's own actions and mistakes in the world. It is a culture where the right to decide or think for oneself is taken away, and consequently also one is not considered responsible for anything - but the blame is reverted to the ones who have power of decision. It is the condition in which a child exists in. The culture of the west is essentially one where citizens are encouraged to exist in a fiction, in denial about the complexity of life and the necessity for developing wisdom, for the embracing of an easy fix solution.
The citizens then participate in the game of the corporate elite by granting them say over their lives for the benefit of the easier lifestyle they provide - even though they are being taken advantage of and become servants to it - they are generally numbed to that reality by being given shiny stuff. And so they generally live a happy life, even though they don't realize they never had full control over their life. And it is this compromise that makes western culture flourish; the philosophy that:
"Why not? If we're making people's lives more enjoyable, then why does it matter if we've taken most of the control in the matter? To my defense, if control was given to them they wouldn't know to manage their life toward happiness. And as repayment for me fixing their problems, I get a cut out of the deal, it's only fair."
It is indeed a valid approach to the problem, and one used in the past; where more liberty is sacrificed for security. If things were tilted the other direction, more liberty would result in less security - because more people would have individual judgments which can be hostile or antagonistic to one's own judgment. But still part of me fundamentally rejects the former and would prefer the latter...
I think the biggest issue here is that people have themselves brainwashed into thinking that this is the only way the world could work. Or closer to the truth is that they are actively brainwashed into thinking such things. And distracted by the many mindless entertainments you can find on tv. People have become so apathetic to the whole situation because we are so encouraged not to think for ourselves that people don't even vote. Not that voting will really helps matters the voting is just another part of the fallacy, it distracts you from a bigger question of whether this monetary value system we have going for us even works. Most people no longer lend themselves the imagination necessary to think of how things could be. Or the mind-blowing thought that even ownership is a thought construct and not a part of physical reality. like the first nations aboriginals thought you can not own the land or the rocks, the sea nor the sky. No matter how much you think the people selling you things actually own them, yes they legally do in our system of society, but do they really? Is there any actual true observable difference between an object owned or not owned? How about the owner? No the fact is that we share this little world in a vast universe with little hope from external assistance. And considering that we share the world in that sense (not that we have a choice) and yet don't really truly share anything on it without a price. as seen by our startling levels of inequality it is just barbaric. (you could argue we don't have a choice here either given that it is taken for granted by so many)
as far as the suing is concerned i suppose when you live in a dog eat dog world built on capitalism it is expected that you will do whatever you can for a leg up. when everything, literally everything can be bought by money and we are conditioned from a young age to want it, then required as an adult to need it, there becomes nothing of greater value. it is in essence the carrot on a stick that it is believed people need. if you fall in line you get the carrot, you fall out of it and you get the stick. businesses themselves cant afford to be accountable otherwise though, it runs counter to growth so you see for the greater good bad things must happen because if growth cant continue than the economy collapses.
i think the elites tend to think us too stupid for anything else to work although maybe not. i suppose our lack luster education, our inability to think for ourselves at work and our rather tedious and ineffective ability to directly effect politics. could suggest they think us too stupid for more, or perhaps just smart enough to stop them if properly educated and given the freedoms that are our right.
capitalism has served it's purpose and although it has taken countless lives needlessly and spent many resources recklessly. it has gotten us to where we are today. but i dare say it has become obsolete and citizens are empowered more then ever before with the advent of the Internet. excepting NSA surveillance it does give us true freedom to exchange ideas. and learn things on our own despite the education we are given. like for example that for capitalism to work it requires infinite growth of the economy. now thats fine and dandy when you hear it like that of course growth must be good but when you look at our finite resources, infinite growth doesn't really stack up does it? especially considering infinite growth doesn't just need to use some resources it needs rapid consumption of said resources to work. so lets look at one way to solve for infinite growth. the company sees that it isn't selling enough product so the bottom line isn't high enough. oh! i know lets let go of some employees, we solve the problem by decreasing products made and make up the money for not selling as much, now we have a surplus and we cant help but sell it all next time. of course they miss the thought that the less people employed also means less consumers all around. so when many companies do this or other ways of coping say switching to foreign workers or mechanization as they will to keep competition going and thus make things cheaper for the consumer. they seem to miss out on the important connection that yes they are supporting growth by doing this, and yes they are making their products cheaper for consumers. but they are also taking away the consumers ability to afford them at all by removing jobs.
capitalism is essentially at the end of it's road between a rock and a hard place if it doesn't keep growing inflation and bankruptcy results, but if it does try to keep growing ironically the jobs will just keep disappearing and growth will just keep on the path to entropy it has been on.
I'm sure i sound terribly pessimistic but on the contrary i am extremely hopeful. the idea that ignorance is bliss is ridiculous and counter to hope. if you know the thing than it can be changed, and i would say that change is at the heart of hope.
PS. Sorry for the run-ons it takes me an insurmountable amount of discipline to even stick to this level of sentence structure. And quite frankly although this is my native language, i know none of the grammar rules for certain i get by with guess work. public education yeah!!! i also gave up on capitalizing my sentences half way through, do we have an easier way than doing all of them by hand? like an auto cap on first word of the sentence? anyway hopefully my thoughts came out intelligibly.
I love these RSA videos. I admit, that I had a hard time following the video (the first video. I took so long writing this post that it is almost irrelevant now. haha) and understanding what the main underlying idea really was. Usually the drawings help me stay focused, but my mind kept wandering tonight. So, I am perhaps off-topic. But, these are the thoughts that it spurred in my head regardless. This is as close to a soapbox as I get with this kind of stuff.
To comment on the last bit of the video about small groups that change the world.... I find it interesting the cycle that civilization follows. Right now what is being criticized as being outdated was once revolutionary. Whatever comes from this 21st century enlightenment will one day be the definition of security and eventually become stagnant (and smell just like something stagnant smells) and there will be another generation that will come to stir things up and keep things moving. You can see this on a smaller scale when you pay attention to the current trends in pop culture that come and go. Mom jeans used to be cool back in the day. lol. When I was young, no one would have been caught dead wearing straight-leg, boot-cut, or flared pants. Now skin tight jeans and peg-legging pants is coming back into style - yet the current generation adds its own special interpretation of it and makes it their own. The reality is that we are constantly building and destroying, but all of it is just the same stuff rearranged into a new order. Nothing on this earth is new. IMHO. It ends up feeling like you are a gerbil running on one of those wheels. I can see why the speaker is encouraging STOPPING and actually THINKING about why we do what we do, and why is it that we decide this.
In the early 1990's there was a big push for political correctness and, looking back, what I would call micro-managing of the sensitivities of the general public. It was well-intentioned and has resulted in some very good advances and good things that we now take for granted. But, I have noticed a negative side to it as well. One result, I feel is that in attempts to force people to treat others in a more sympathetic/empathic way through policies (which links into people's tendency to think money is somehow a decent compensation for being wronged), people have instead turned it inside out and the result is actually working against the original intent. One can easily and naturally place the focus on themselves and what THEY an get out of it, rather than WHY people thought these policies were right and good in the first place. (the intent being to promote awareness of others and the consequences of our actions in that respect) Instead, I see a culture of victims - myself included. These programs and policies are wonderful, but I think there is a point where their effectiveness has done more damage than is sometimes admitted. Regardless of effort, injustice still prevails. It has just taken on a new form, adapted to the new rules.
My 12 yo son struggled with being bullied for most of his school career. Physical - getting led off and beaten. Verbal - the usual name calling and belittling. He is quite disenchanted with the social aspect of school, and has little trust that the adults or the policies that the adult claim to uphold will make any difference whatsoever. A couple years ago they instituted an anti-bullying program throughout the school, which is basically a series of propaganda that spreads their message that bullying is wrong. A very noble intention. My son's perspective? He tells me that the bullying and the bullies are still there. They have just changed their strategies and methods to work around the system. Surface remedies are sometimes necessary, just like a band-aid can help prevent infection that hasn't happened yet. But, a band-aid that covers an existing infection (it looks good on the surface, out of sight/out of mind) - you can see how it is only part of the cure. So, again... a deep awareness is key. (Maybe??? even that could probably be taken to the extremes and turned inside out.)
Mistaking progress as a measure for our well-being... that is an interesting subject as well.
haha. so there it is. More of a rant than anything else. If this even remotely applies to the subject at hand, great! If not, feel free to ignore it.
Last Edit: Jun 30, 2013 20:36:54 GMT -5 by anagrams