Hide the Hidden Variables

I came across a study, one about, human nature with a goal in mind. An effort to 'find out what human nature consists of as viewed from an objective, scientific, third-person point of view'. The aim was 'to find out how to live well'; and I think nothing can be more holistic than this. It further makes certain assertions about human nature and what we need to do in order to experience the fulfillment of functioning well. And its main findings can be summarized as the following. 

1. We have a much greater intelligence than other animals. 

2. We can be far more loving, powerful, cooperative and enthusiastic about life. 

3. These traits, along with intelligence itself, are diminished by emotional distress, but we have the capacity to recover from such distress through the innate healing mechanism of emotional discharge. The more we do so, the better we function. 

4. We are good for each other, or rather, we are indispensable for each other. 

5. We have an innate sense of morality and religion. Even atheists find satisfaction in aligning themselves with a purpose greater than themselves.

Can we call this as human nature? Isn't this, the nature of all that has life? In each and every form of life, all of this appears, perhaps with differing intensity, varying contexts and relevance. What then differentiates human from all the others? 

The difference, I find is this. Whenever human is to engage in any form of transaction, unseen dimensions crop up, and gather some attention, if not dictating its essence and spirit in full. Whereas, all the other forms of life shall be carrying out the current engagement with single-minded dedication and complete involvement. Since we have been living in this manner for many a generation, now we have in our kitty, quite a few dimensions to whatever can elicit a reaction from us. All such dimensions, or at least whatever struck our imagination, kept getting added to a kitty, and got cemented as the natural features of the human. And it continues. This phenomenon gives rise to very many attributes, transactions, and responses, and is collectively identified as our cultural wealth. And at any time, many, we celebrate, and a few, we despise. 

Now it is clear. Till we acquired an ambience in our character that kept looking for the unseen, human would have been just another one of the animal kingdom. Which brings up another significant question to answer. How did we acquire the propensity to look for unseen dimensions in all that we see? I think we acquired it en route. We also started our journey like all other living forms, but, certain events would have been significant enough to spark such a variation.

If so, won’t a glance at our past should show those sparks? Yes, and I think, it will. Also, these may be of a major upheaval of the physical world, an explosion in the cultural sphere, an enigma of the psychological domain, or another factor with deep influence on our lives. Now, if we examine the way human species did grow over the years, I think, the first time the whole world felt a severe jolt that left a permanent scar, would have been when the geocentric universe collapsed.

Remember, geocentric universe is an intuitive idea, and it fits well with whatever we see. Here, naturally occurring thoughts and other logical elements are sufficient to manipulate or predict the parameters of interest. But, when the heliocentric systems took the center stage, things would have gone for a toss. The intuitive became instantly unreliable, paving the way for the altruistic to rule over the realistic. Abstract calculations of the surreal genre, ever-present danger from hidden variables, and the perpetual presence of unseen elements, are some parts of the mystic edifice that changed the way we approach issues.

Consequently, we humans have had a haphazard past. Not that they did not progress, but progress did not happen in an optimum manner. Or, the progress happened in spurts and bursts.                    

Take for example, the idea of heliocentric universe. Suppose this idea occurred to us well after we mastered the art of machine computing. We still would have been in our comfort zones of geocentric outlook, all the complexity of computations relegated to the rather invisible internals of relevant computers or other devices. Our ideas and notions would not have been imagination intensive, letting a large populace take active part in it. As a result, the whole society would have been remaining active in rather profitable ventures. In fact the very idea of learning would have been taking a route of unfettered enjoyment, and in close link with whatever challenges we face in life. This, needless to say, is more or less in line with how it is with all the other forms of life. Moreover, even the epoch changing issues and outcomes that will have a significant say on the future of the planet shall now on present a rather down-to-earth ambience. And the result: a more homogeneous populace and a bright future.

quixotic?

 Even an Oscar winner is going astray? 

Another feather

It seems, my prediction that the future is going to be more and more unbearable for the female folk is soon going to be true. The latest is from South Korea election for president, where an anti-feminist wins. One can always ignore this by calling it a backlash!

Worth Pondering?

 An Answer to all our Problems Lies in Economics

Economics is nothing but an analysis of wealth. Here we discuss issues like the creation (production), upkeep, and utilization, of wealth; how it benefits us, and how it can grow. We have made it into an art and a science that study things like the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, since we equate all of these with wealth. And each of these facets grew into rather independent and definable areas of expertise, which we have been cultivating as the central pedestal of our society. And these areas effectively sideline the abstract element of wealth, which should have been taking the attention of economics.

Also, the most important part, the one that actually turns wealth into something of value, is nothing but the transaction of wealth. What we take as wealth is actually something that enables, and many a time necessitates, a transaction. I think this fact does not get the attention it deserves.

And because of this reason, economics does not help us to make an objective analysis of wealth, and arrive at rather definite conclusions. I think this is the reason for the absolutely illogical state of the best of the species being the worst in looking after itself. Had we been keeping our tool, economics, well polished, just as we do everywhere else, an answer would have been in place.

Think of the early days. One can say, we were more successful in handling our physical sphere than the economic, or the social, ones. I find there are two reasons for this. The issues faced by the early ones were rather well-understood and reacted upon, as far physical surroundings go. Secondly, the available tools, implements or other expedients were logically sustainable, thereby enabling a structured response, as far as the physical sphere go. To compound this, the sphere of life in general, and especially that of health, boasted of a mixture of traditional practice and rather obscure wisdom. And in all other areas, like wealth, health, or well-being, no logical connection could be established.

As time went by, our understanding and appreciation of health improved dramatically, the germ theory of disease paving the way. Something in similar lines is slowly taking place in many other areas, all leading us to new and path-breaking concepts and discoveries, like quantum theory. However, we are closely guarding at least a few age-old notions, like the difficulty to analyze or modulate our priorities. This is affecting our social living or wealth or both, but we are happily living with it. In short, wealth is causing the human societies to be in a state of war with each other. (In fact I fail to understand this. We humans respond rationally, only to things that are established as rational. For everything else, we pride in giving an irrational response!. Of course naming it as love, hatred, pity, etc.)

Rightfully, taking a cue from our successes, where a substantive deviation from the old or the existing can be seen to have sparked each such instance, we should have been going for an overhaul of the art and science of wealth. The principles of economics should have been re-written to account for the unpredictable human, to begin with. Instead, we nonchalantly attribute all that cannot be explained to what we call as the vagaries of human behavior. Moreover, we feel proud of the fact that it is not all there with any other form of life.

Now, what do we need to do? I think only this. Choose a lifestyle that accords value to transactions rather than things.

What is that lifestyle? Undoubtedly, a nomadic lifestyle fits here. 

Now, If we succeed in making that form of living, a default choice for the populace, it will a pleasant change. This is where, I think, economics will come to our help. A good measure in this regard can be ROI, which is definitely more attractive, as far as a nomadic lifestyle go. Think of the avenues, each one of us stand to get for exhibiting and relishing one’s talents, however meager that be. Think of the openings, all of us will have, where everything pent up stands to get released, howsoever big that be. This, and the added benefit of the freedom from contagious health issues of community living, will make this style, a much sought after one, one can be sure.  

 

My views, again

I recently came across a few interesting arguments. 

'Humankind was not congenitally-endowed with the ideal mental faculties for understanding the World, if mankind was in existence for millions of years, and have started to, say read and write, only recently.' Yes, it gels well with my proposal that man started to read and write in his efforts to find new ways and means to waste time.

'Also, for every truth, we are in fact coming up with many conclusions, which, even if are confusing and damaging, look grave enough for at least a few. Then, there will be quite a few to espouse each inference, however vague it turns out to be.' Would this happen, if people aren’t just dying for a new or different inference? Aren't they in search of new ways to engage oneself?

'We seem to be interested in knowing 'why things behave as they do’, but an answer as to 'how', puts and end to our quest. Whatever was brought out by the natural philosophers of ancient Greece, India, etc., seem to have quietened us.' Yes. We constantly come up with new answers to 'how'. In fact, we are laboriously rearranging the many answers to ‘how’, so that it falls in line with the original answer to ‘why’. Am I wrong, if I say, searching for the answers to ‘how’ keeps us engaged well. And we are scared. Will an answer to ‘why’, bring that good time to an immediate end? 

What I Know about Knowledge

What is knowledge, but a collection of our experiences, expectations, and our efforts to link the two. Since these are mutually interlinked, a change in any one of those invariably affecting the other two, it is always on a rise. Over time, while the human race grew in leaps and bounds, our experience would have been bursting in its seams and forcing it to branch into many. Together with our expectations and our perceived abilities, we started to classify those, making it possible for us to register and react to all the eventualities at our convenience.

Over time, that turned classification into a default activity, our first reaction to anything new. Where a basis for classification occurred to us intuitively, we added the results to a kitty, calling it faculties of knowledge. Appreciation and further manipulation of which became the most venerated activity, as far as humans go.

But, the cases where a basis for classification could not be to found easily, posed a challenge. Some of us who liked to reflect at depth could come up with explanations, which looked rather intuitive too. Thus was science born. But, since we were already accustomed to classification as a first step, and this being a rather trivial affair in comparison to all other activities to follow, like analysis or synthesis, we wouldn't let science flourish, unless it is divided to accommodate the very first results. And we started to see such divisions as unmistakable signs of growth, the appreciation of which, taking the lion's share of our time.

Consequently, the meaning of knowledge took a turn to the abstract. What was the major contribution of knowledge, namely, a better appreciation of our experiences, is taking a back seat. The process of adding new and imaginative divisions is taking the center stage. But, we do not find anything amiss, because of two reasons. The efforts towards carving out new groupings and fresh relationships continue to provide us with a sense of fulfillment. Also, such endearing results make every contribution that comes from the mankind look big and imaginative as well as singular, leading us to overlook the inputs coming from elsewhere.

Thus, all the while, human imagination has been having a free run. Whereas, the other attributes of significance, like integrity, or pragmatism, have been loaded heavily towards whatever is in vogue, or aligning with the leanings of those at the helm. Therefore one can say, 'Knowledge is more than a natural result of our curiosity, it is continuously molded by a flurry of constraints'.

In the light of the above, I think we need to take two steps.

One, re-evaluate our wealth of knowledge. See all of it from a different perspective. Take, for example, psychology. It came out of our efforts to collate, group and record all the biases present in our society. The biases that were endearing would have been the ones to be marked normal behavior. Those biased in other ways, as well as the ones who do not have any such prejudices or priorities, get noticed instantly. Isn't there room for a revision?

Two, formulate guidelines for sensing and acquiring fresh knowledge. Just like how we do in the case all activities of life, like walking, running or reading, we need to learn, how to learn, before we start to learn. My hub is an attempt in this direction.