Is Learning, a Problem?

Learning, a staple component of all forms of life, is being made into a matter of challenge, as far as humans go, if the proliferation of tuition centers can be taken as an indication. An analysis of this issue leads to interesting results.

Co-operate, or else?

Though we are advancing,

The whole world is crying.

When days are brightening,

And when new year ringing.

How is it, I wonder,

People, but surrender.

Taking fright of terror,

Also bemoan horror.

Side by side of atoms,

Entertain old notions.

Super sonic motions,

Tomorrow and to abyss.

May be the rich moiety,

Hold their future shiny,

Hell for all and sundry,

Of course, with no pity.

Little though they pick up,

Future will not letup.

Then the whole world put up,

The mighty and the pent up.

What is in this to learn,

What is there to unlearn,

The mighty and the rundown,

Await alike portion.

Another Thought!

I can't understand this.

Whatever man attempts to do, unless he is careful enough to take necessary precautions and have constant monitoring, the end will never be a success. Whereas, whatever other forms of life attempts, unless some calamity occurs, will end in success and that too with hardly any need for precautions or supervision. Isn't this the main difference between humans and other forms of life?

Take eating habits. Unless one takes care to find out, one can never know that there is a need to examine what is there to eat. And only on examination will be known whether it is fit for eating. More than that, unless one eats food chosen in a particular manner, one may land up with health problems and deficiencies.

In short, humans have no natural ability even to feed one well.

If we examine further, it can be easily seen that we have no natural ability to mate well or to think well. It should be clear from the above that, in earlier days we have been giving vent to whatever natural talents we have, in thoughts and actions, resulting in skirmishes, wars and pestilence. Only by invoking certain other aspects of our thinking, like spiritual initiatives, that we are able to channel our thoughts in a rather meaningful direction.

My doubt is, what are we naturally good at?

Is it art? Which is closely connected with beauty, which, philosophers say is but an excuse for making something desirable, overlooking its lack of utility.

If it isn't, what else?

I think our forefathers knew the answer. Or at least, they had the inkling that humans are not the ones at the top. For the old religions and cultures, you see, all the super natural beings and other entities of worship are animals and beasts. Isn’t it possible that the early humans installed as deities whatever they found magnificent, terrific or awesome? Or, wouldn’t they have put them up as good examples, for people to learn from?

Book Review: THE GROWTH OF RELIGION

‘THE GROWTH OF RELIGION: A STUDY OF ITS ORIGIN DEVELOPMENT’ by JOSEPH MCCABE is a rather rational view of religion, and how, each of these historic religions, including Christianity, evolved from the nebula of primitive religion.

’The much favored theory that man begins with a vague awe of nature, passes to a belief that there is a great impersonal power pervading it, and finally shapes this power into personal spirits, does not seem to correspond to the facts’, the author specifies at the outset itself. Something religious like exists only in areas connected with actual entities: the dead man, living enemies, or wild animals. Even in these things, what is seen is personification of a few real objects in nature rather than a belief in a general diffused force. But the author has found that the primitive people have been entertaining the belief that men survive death and continue to be useful or malevolent to their fellows, becoming perhaps, the foundations of religion.

But the author also gives us a subtle warning, ‘we are in fact trying to superimpose the language of the twentieth century on to the ideas of the man of a hundred thousand years ago and fit into those mental boxes or categories, the wonderful experience we have built in our minds’. For example, one needs to realize that we are applying such words as “religion and spirit,” or even “magic,” to the hazy images or feelings of one of these primitive creatures. One has to be at guard!

Observing that social life did not properly begin until the Cave Period, during the Glacial Epoch, the author expresses surprise that religion seems to have been largely developed before the Cave Period.  

Exploring the remnants of tribal lifestyle in Africa, the book notes that only one or two African tribes put their chief spirit in the sun or moon. ‘Even in these cases the spirit is simply lodged there. Most of the African tribes put personal spirits in trees or waters, but it is only a few of the higher tribes who reach the idea of a general earth- spirit, a goddess of fecundity. The phallic spirit is equally late. Nor can we say that fear made the gods. Most Of the chief deities of the Africans are not feared. They are drowsy, lazy, good-natured, very big black fellows; prosperous and eupeptic chiefs. The gods or semi-gods of the Africans seem, on the whole, to be magnified dead men.’

The book then examines the early religions of America, and Asia. On analyzing the path followed by ancient civilizations, the book observes that all of them should go through a period of skepticism, one of weariness, perplexity, sexual license and rigorous austerity, social disorder and social aspiration, civil war, melancholy, and confusion. It is a stage through which all civilizations pass, and that is the stage in which we are today.

The book ends with a long discourse on the future prospects of religion. Just as we discovered that reliance on supernatural help was injurious, just as magic and religion took center stage, will people realize that the resources of their own moral strength have been insufficiently exploited. The book ends with a note that such is the likely future.

The author, I think like all people who examined religion, god, or observances seems to think as natural for man to have such an elaborate structure with no metabolic contribution. Why should man desire for such a thing? What need is being met by this? I think these questions, if asked, would have taken the book to a different end. (I have tried to address this, see, http://hubpages.com/politics/evolutionofreligion)

What Distinguishes Humans from Other Forms of Life?

We have already decided that human being is more than what we see. And we imagine of certain faculties present in us, like thought. Then we assume that such faculties are absent in all other forms of life. And we list all these presumptions as the ultimate differences between human and other forms of life. 

Is it in order to consider this as a scientific view?
Published a 'hub' about this.

Book Review: Ergonocracy

‘ERGONOCRACY: A new ideology for a Human Adapted 21st Century Regime’, by JORGE ALVES, is about a new ideology for a Human Adapted 21st Century Regime that boasts of a few sublime tenets like, “Power  is  a  necessary  evil  and  must  be  shared  by  all community members”, or, “The people's destiny is too important to be left on the hands of politicians”.

The beginning chapter of this book gives an overview of the proposed system and specifies that promoting a system where there is an effective reduction of centralized power with the help of information technology, is the ultimate result. Citizens are provided with the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process, leading to a horde of benefits. The next chapter analyses the real characteristics of contemporary human beings, making clear how those traits are addressed by the proposed system. While investigating into human relations in general, the book identifies the present family arrangement as unsuitable to human nature and mentions that the proposed social model should take this into consideration and give everyone the opportunity to maintain the type of relationship best suited in each case. The book in fact suggests an overhaul of the present family structure.

Next chapter examines ‘ergonocracy’ in its political sphere. Making a good observation that most citizens demonstrate no fondness for ideologies and find it increasingly difficult to situate their logical viewpoints within the traditional right or left on the political scale, it analyses various facets of political power, like transparency, equality, financial control, justice, and redressal of grievances. The next chapter is about the ‘ergonocratic’ society, how the local communities shall flourish, and what model of governance will they follow. The economic model of such a system is studied next.  Placing strong emphasis on the professional development of working individuals in terms of their continued learning and training, the book advances alternate directives for managing individual and collective wealth and efforts to strengthen team spirit, to make a more interesting and “playful” workplace and, maximize motivation and dedication. The principles of administration of justice and its delivery, is analyzed in the next chapter. The book here proposes some sweeping changes in the way we look at crime and justice. And in the next chapter, impact of driverless transportation systems and its effect on mobility of good and services in the proposed system is presented.

Finally, transition to ergonocracy from the present setup is examined. Mentioning that the aims of Ergonocracy is to provide all citizens with equal political intervention power and to create one single class of workers who are simultaneously company owners, the book proposes a three stage strategy. The final phase of ergonocracy occurs on the day when there is only one army in the world, and as the book says, ‘this army can bury its weapons, because as far as we know, aliens pose no military risk to humans.’

Though the description of the system is sound and logical, one cannot but feel inadequacy of practical suggestions. Though the book mentions humans as ‘good or bad, according to that characteristic that better contributes to ensure his survival’, no suggestions are given as how these are to be incorporated into the framework of ergonocracy. Also, another of the perennial problems faced by democracy, the multitude of identities one can wear any time for ones convenience, and the disruptions that can cause to the society at large, has not been covered sufficiently.