I have a few activist friends. I thought of activism my self at one point - "I want to help the world and make it a better place" I used to think as a child. But before that a much more important question - "Does the world need any help?".
We are taught to think of the standard images of poverty, hunger, disease, war: so much for the fortunate in the West to do. So much to add to our lives to make them more worthwhile. But isn't that a little onesides - as opponents to the war in Iraq point out, wouldn't that money be better spent at home - as if we don't have our own problems.
"Problematising" is the problem here I am beginning to think! People in need of a life's purpose, in need of something to do in a Western world so swamped with wealth that there are almost no more jobs to do.
Are there any real problems? Is there anything really to do?
We know there is difficulty in life and in a sense there are things to do to attend to that difficulty, but such things are quite normal and natural. They do not need a task force or any great revolution to attend to.
Sometimes there are disasters, sudden changes of equilibrium, which require a sudden change in peoples attitudes. Here would be an example of difficulties that require some organised mobilisation.
What I am questioning is not these sudden changes. I am challenging the idea that within the established organic world there are "hidden" illnesses that suddenly today need to be solved.
The news that 80% of the world lives on less than a dollar amongst a host of "moral panic" statistics regarding a world that we otherwise live in without comment.
People are always trying to distinguish the world between acceptable and problematic, and then allign themselves against the problematic, when actually they only need to align because they decided that something was problematic.
The War in Iraq the cause celebre of such people, and the chaos that has followed an illustration of the non-existence of problems until you engineer them, and then make them worse by responding to them as problems.
There are simple things that make us human: care and love being the most important. That people need to engineer organisations who professionally "care and love" is rather overlooking the already existing nature of the human world. That humans can hate and neglect is also part of the human outlook. The belief that organisations will contain qualities other than these is rather overlooking the commonality which humans have, and just propagating the greatest feature of humans: the ability to segregate and divide one another.
A search for happiness in poverty. Happiness with personal loss, and a challenge to the wisdom of economic growth and environmental exploitation.
Friday, 17 November 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"The Jewish Fallacy" OR "The Inauthenticity of the West"
I initially thought to start up a discussion to formalise what I was going to name the "Jewish Fallacy" and I'm sure there is ...
-
The classic antimony is between : (1) action that is chosen freely and (2) action that comes about through physical causation. To date no ...
-
Well that was quite interesting ChatGPT can't really "think" of anything to detract from the argument that Jews have no clai...
-
There are few people in England I meet these days who do not think we are being ruled by an non-democratic elite. The question is just who t...
1 comment:
The system was simple and incorporated a general pattern-matching algorithm applied to a 2D array in memory. The algorithm comprised 3 routines for testing whether a given "shape" was moved, rotated or enlarged. Using the routines in trial and error the computer could reduce a complex array of data into a combination of operations on a few very simple "seed" patterns. Strings of operations and seeds created an collection of proposed theories "explaining" the data, and then the shortest was chosen and databased for future use. This follows a hunch that brain processing and cognition is primarily the process of representing large amounts of data in the simplest form. This also solved the "new term" problem, that is the question of finding an algorithm to create more general categories for data than that which is currently explaining the data. For example an algorithm to create the simple syntax for a line (y = m*x + c) from a large series of points held in the lower form of (x,y) syntax.
try this:-
http://genomics.princeton.edu/hopfield/Publications.html
107. Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities. PNAS 79,
2554, 1982. 1982.
Post a Comment