The ability to see things that can't be seen
yet
and may never be
(20070617) answer to the question "What does creativity mean to you?"
Saturday
Friday
On poverty and violence
20070611
(answer to the question "Poverty generates violence: true or false?")
I always distinguish poverty from despair. Poverty can be measured, and some people manage to live happily with only a few things. Despair is what people actually feel. More than poverty, despair and injustice lead to violence, and moreover, violence generates violence. The initial violence can be either physical or psychological, and great injustice is a kind of violence.
Hopelessness makes people do extreme things. You cannot repair injustice but have some impact, make yourself be heard. With the help of often cynical manipulators, you can be turned into a suicide bomber : your suffering stops, you make other people suffer, you have an impact and you make yourself be heard in a final kaboom.
(answer to the question "Poverty generates violence: true or false?")
I always distinguish poverty from despair. Poverty can be measured, and some people manage to live happily with only a few things. Despair is what people actually feel. More than poverty, despair and injustice lead to violence, and moreover, violence generates violence. The initial violence can be either physical or psychological, and great injustice is a kind of violence.
Hopelessness makes people do extreme things. You cannot repair injustice but have some impact, make yourself be heard. With the help of often cynical manipulators, you can be turned into a suicide bomber : your suffering stops, you make other people suffer, you have an impact and you make yourself be heard in a final kaboom.
On truth
20070613
(answer to the question "how can we be sure of what is "true"?")
Our digital world relies on series of 0 and 1, and for every single digit you can truly tell whether you have a 1 or a 0. Beyond that, there is no guarantee whatsoever regarding what you make of these series. You may not speak the same language nor share the same culture, you can at least use some common tools.
Our world basically works on compromises, truthes that any logician could destroy in a blink. Truth is a subjective label. It wholly depends on the referential and the context. This car is blue ? True, but wrong to the eyes of a color blind people or to a vast number of animal species. The plant you see green reflects the only color it doesn't need.
Truth is about certainty, psychological comfort. People need certainties, some landmarks. You are a farmer, feeling comfortable when standing with your feet down on the ground, but do you realize this earth is cruising space at an amazing speed ?
The quest for truth is universal, but if you are looking for truth, you are bound to end up either disapointed or manipulated. Truth is the ultimate Weapon of Mass Disinformation for propagandists, who offer comfort and certainties for free. No one can claim a belief to be true.
To me, truth is boring. I don't enjoy contemplating series of 0 and 1 for long. I need to feel the sting of doubt, the beauty of life blooming beyond the tracks. Which doesn't mean I enjoy staying in the dark, in the cave described by Plato. I don't believe progress will bring answers to all questions but I enjoy research all the same. It is just that I don't expect to find truthes.
A scientist who always talks about truth is likely to be a fake scientist, generally acting in the name of a caricature of religion (see Intelligent Design, the Discovery Institute, almost every sect...).”
(answer to the question "how can we be sure of what is "true"?")
Our digital world relies on series of 0 and 1, and for every single digit you can truly tell whether you have a 1 or a 0. Beyond that, there is no guarantee whatsoever regarding what you make of these series. You may not speak the same language nor share the same culture, you can at least use some common tools.
Our world basically works on compromises, truthes that any logician could destroy in a blink. Truth is a subjective label. It wholly depends on the referential and the context. This car is blue ? True, but wrong to the eyes of a color blind people or to a vast number of animal species. The plant you see green reflects the only color it doesn't need.
Truth is about certainty, psychological comfort. People need certainties, some landmarks. You are a farmer, feeling comfortable when standing with your feet down on the ground, but do you realize this earth is cruising space at an amazing speed ?
The quest for truth is universal, but if you are looking for truth, you are bound to end up either disapointed or manipulated. Truth is the ultimate Weapon of Mass Disinformation for propagandists, who offer comfort and certainties for free. No one can claim a belief to be true.
To me, truth is boring. I don't enjoy contemplating series of 0 and 1 for long. I need to feel the sting of doubt, the beauty of life blooming beyond the tracks. Which doesn't mean I enjoy staying in the dark, in the cave described by Plato. I don't believe progress will bring answers to all questions but I enjoy research all the same. It is just that I don't expect to find truthes.
A scientist who always talks about truth is likely to be a fake scientist, generally acting in the name of a caricature of religion (see Intelligent Design, the Discovery Institute, almost every sect...).”
On the future of globalization
20070613
(answer to the question "What is the future of globalization?")
We have come to the point time and space cannot be shrunk any more significantly. Our instant societies allow people to seize opportunities at the other end of the planet in a blink. Reaching the cutting edge requires tools that are now almost commoditized. Differenciation becomes difficult.
To me, the financial system is on the verge of a turning point, things will have to change. A consensus on the diagnostic should emerge as surely as it did on our environment. I'm not sure transitions will be smooth. Globalization demands a global approach, a comprehensive approach. People fear for their identities, their culture, their independence, but they also feel things have to change.
Alter-globalization is not very mature nowadays, mostly reactionary or conservative in a sense it proposes XIXth century alternatives, as radical as the ones it condemns.
(answer to the question "What is the future of globalization?")
We have come to the point time and space cannot be shrunk any more significantly. Our instant societies allow people to seize opportunities at the other end of the planet in a blink. Reaching the cutting edge requires tools that are now almost commoditized. Differenciation becomes difficult.
To me, the financial system is on the verge of a turning point, things will have to change. A consensus on the diagnostic should emerge as surely as it did on our environment. I'm not sure transitions will be smooth. Globalization demands a global approach, a comprehensive approach. People fear for their identities, their culture, their independence, but they also feel things have to change.
Alter-globalization is not very mature nowadays, mostly reactionary or conservative in a sense it proposes XIXth century alternatives, as radical as the ones it condemns.
On Boeing and Airbus
20070613
(answer to the question "Boeing & Airbus what are the similarity & differences ? Where are they heading actually ?")
Airbus' hubris mirrors that of Boeing in the 90s. Both are heading for big disapointments if they keep believing they live in a duopoly.
It won't take long for China to come rockin' and rollin'. And the beauty of it is that China offers yet another kind of public subsidies : neither the US DoD model, nor guarantee from national governments, but the massive demand of private companies controlled by the board of China Inc.
(answer to the question "Boeing & Airbus what are the similarity & differences ? Where are they heading actually ?")
Airbus' hubris mirrors that of Boeing in the 90s. Both are heading for big disapointments if they keep believing they live in a duopoly.
It won't take long for China to come rockin' and rollin'. And the beauty of it is that China offers yet another kind of public subsidies : neither the US DoD model, nor guarantee from national governments, but the massive demand of private companies controlled by the board of China Inc.
On DC and Marvel
20070610
(answer to the question are you "DC or Marvel?")
Marvel, definitely. At least at the turn of the 70s-80s, when I would read them. I can hardly tell the difference between a Superman from the 30s and a clone from the 80s. When I re-read the Marvel comics from the 60s to the early 80s, I see the cultural changes in the US society.
DC heroes were never-doubting, monolithic superheroes and supervilains meant for a good vs evil era. Each of Stan Lee's characters had more subtle weaknesses than an aversion for green meteorites. Good old Big Apple replaced Gotham and Metropolis, and the younger generation could eventually read about poverty, drugs, racism, sects, religious fundamentalism, social and political unrests...
But Marvel pushed too far the marketing, launched too many products, and turned into some kind of a boring sitcom factory during the eighties (except a few masterpieces by Chris Claremont, Frank Miller...).
DC top execs eventually did the right thing : they fired Superman and hired Marvel's Frank Miller to get at last something exciting out of Batman.
Precisions added :
- Beyond DC/Marvel, the ultimate masterpiece came from the UK (Alan Moore's "Watchmen").
- Come to think of it : DC could make something out of Batman because he was the most human character (no superpowers). And I liked the mention of MLB : I'm both Marvel and NL, the Yanks do have something of a DC league of superheroes, and I feel closer to more human losers (Peter Parker, Paul Auster, the Mets).
(answer to the question are you "DC or Marvel?")
Marvel, definitely. At least at the turn of the 70s-80s, when I would read them. I can hardly tell the difference between a Superman from the 30s and a clone from the 80s. When I re-read the Marvel comics from the 60s to the early 80s, I see the cultural changes in the US society.
DC heroes were never-doubting, monolithic superheroes and supervilains meant for a good vs evil era. Each of Stan Lee's characters had more subtle weaknesses than an aversion for green meteorites. Good old Big Apple replaced Gotham and Metropolis, and the younger generation could eventually read about poverty, drugs, racism, sects, religious fundamentalism, social and political unrests...
But Marvel pushed too far the marketing, launched too many products, and turned into some kind of a boring sitcom factory during the eighties (except a few masterpieces by Chris Claremont, Frank Miller...).
DC top execs eventually did the right thing : they fired Superman and hired Marvel's Frank Miller to get at last something exciting out of Batman.
Precisions added :
- Beyond DC/Marvel, the ultimate masterpiece came from the UK (Alan Moore's "Watchmen").
- Come to think of it : DC could make something out of Batman because he was the most human character (no superpowers). And I liked the mention of MLB : I'm both Marvel and NL, the Yanks do have something of a DC league of superheroes, and I feel closer to more human losers (Peter Parker, Paul Auster, the Mets).
On the lottery of democracy
20070609
(answer to the question "Can lottery replace/complement democracy?")
Your concept sounds close to Athenian democracy, but it would be much more complex nowadays. A parliament is made of lawmakers and lawmakers are coping with a very complex system of laws, impacts, lobbies... The people need to know their MPs better than they would know candidates in a reality TV show. Not all politicians are crooked or evil, and democracies work because of the expertise of great lawmakers. Besides, I don't want the future of my country to be sponsored by Ladbrokes or betwin.com. As a parallel reality show to contribute to the education of the masses maybe, but not as the main dish, and even that show could turn into a dangerous joke, making people less interested in actual politics, more boring and less demagogical.
In the Middle Age, some cities used to treat a fool as their king or their bishop for one day, but the joke was on him ("Fete des fous" or "Fools Fete / Party", not to be confused with April Fools' Day).
During the French elections, Segolene Royal, the Socialist candidate, suggested to have a group of voters randomly selected to keep an eye on their MPs, mayors... which any citizen has already a right if not a duty to do in a democracy. So the joke was on "Demagolene".
(answer to the question "Can lottery replace/complement democracy?")
Your concept sounds close to Athenian democracy, but it would be much more complex nowadays. A parliament is made of lawmakers and lawmakers are coping with a very complex system of laws, impacts, lobbies... The people need to know their MPs better than they would know candidates in a reality TV show. Not all politicians are crooked or evil, and democracies work because of the expertise of great lawmakers. Besides, I don't want the future of my country to be sponsored by Ladbrokes or betwin.com. As a parallel reality show to contribute to the education of the masses maybe, but not as the main dish, and even that show could turn into a dangerous joke, making people less interested in actual politics, more boring and less demagogical.
In the Middle Age, some cities used to treat a fool as their king or their bishop for one day, but the joke was on him ("Fete des fous" or "Fools Fete / Party", not to be confused with April Fools' Day).
During the French elections, Segolene Royal, the Socialist candidate, suggested to have a group of voters randomly selected to keep an eye on their MPs, mayors... which any citizen has already a right if not a duty to do in a democracy. So the joke was on "Demagolene".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Search through my personal portal :
