Yesterday's serial episode involved some innovative thinking on the nature of weapons. The weapons are beyond the point of this discussion (as they usually are here), but the idea of innovation is not. The short version is that in the midst of thinking of parts, the innovative idea of 3D printing came up.
Innovation.
Among my many complaints about Our Political And Social Betters (OPASB) is the fact that for almost anything anymore, there is one solution: theirs. There is no negotiation, for example, on ways to address powering civilization (on which, as another FOTB John Wilder has often pointed out, the entire edifice stands): it can only be solar or wind. There are no other solutions and therefore, no need to discuss. The same has been extended to virtually every area of human endeavor: arts, religion, technology, human interactions, food, practices of all kinds. There is only one solution, that of the OPASB.
Even I buy into this more than I should.
The difficulty for the OPASB - which I propose will become more and more evident every day - is that their solutions are not the end-all/be-all to the problem. Solar and wind, for example, can be useful - until they are not. Highly scientific and robotic farming works - as long as the chemicals flow and the finely tuned equipment works. Defining what is art and entertainment works - until people simply no longer go to it. Raising wages increases employee benefit - until labor becomes a cost which has to be reduced and the employee has no job at all.
The serial that ERJ wrote (above) is concerning solving for a particular problem. What comes out of the discussion is a solution which had not been thought of before. An innovative solution.
It is here that the non-OPASB has the advantage. Because they - we, really - can be innovative, flexible, and nimble.
Innovation is not easy of course. And innovation should never be completely identified with progress, because in many cases current innovation looks a lot like traditional methods, methodology, and craftsmanship.
The best part about innovation is it keeps mentally sharp. Just trying to think of a solution is itself a useful exercise, even if the initial solution does not solve the problem. Suddenly the world becomes a massive series of inputs to problems, just waiting to be used to resolve themselves.
The OPASB cannot and will not do such things. They have too much invested - not just money, but pride - in doing things in their solution way. To question the solution of the OPASB is to question the OPASB and, like almost all other authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, the OPASB will happily consume any doubters or heretics in its ranks.
Fight the power - quietly, silently. Be innovative.
Nimble thinking, creativity, vision are things we can "husband". Reading books like "507 Mechanical Movements" will help jump start the process. Using YT to study how others approach issues is valuable too. And reading ERJ is paramount. He strings together the most amazing things from disparate sources. I've never read anyone like him. A VERY fertile mind. I wonder how his family manages to endure his creativity.
ReplyDeleteWhen the ex left, and after I recovered a bit from the head injury, my creativity exploded. It was surprising. My sister said, "I see the old you is back." I guess I'd been like that as a youngster, but the stress of the ex ate the creative energy.
There was one thing though.... The ex had a hard time in fall and spring. Some kind of trauma anniversary. I made those two times a surprise vacation time. It became anticipated, welcomed time, not a time for depression. That little bit of creativity did manage to present itself before the end.
STxAR, gaining knowledge of any and all kinds is critical (mine is books of course, but others find it in videos or hands on activities). Anything and everything can lead to different ways of doing things.
DeleteI am not surprised that your creativity rebounded - sometimes changing a situation results in a tearing away of impediments that bound us, sometimes for years. And good on you for planning ahead to make those difficult times moments of joy.
And yes, reading ERJ is paramount.
Thank-you for the very kind words! I have to admit I was surprised when I read your post this morning.
ReplyDeleteThe powers that be attempt to dictate the future because they have sunk-costs that they are attempting to protect. At the level of individual humans, there is the issue of "face". It is almost impossible to admit you were wrong and still retain your power within an organization.
As you pointed out in your post, individuals have the option of being much more nimble. Recent trends increase that mobility. Owning a house is out of reach for many young families so they don't have a mortgage holding them down. Traditional pensions are gone except for people working in government so there is little holding a person in a specific job.
If the distributions of future outcomes are roughly bell-shaped then the powers MUST pick the center of the assumed distribution. Individuals can invest most of their tokens on the more likely outcomes but have the freedom to "buy lottery tickets" by planting fruit and nut trees, learning a new language or a musical instrument or by forming relationships with people in foreign countries....or by taking up any one of a number of interesting and potentially-productive "hobbies" or second jobs.
I believe that we were made in the image of our Creator. And He created "stuff". So we are our best-selves when we also create things. It is how we are wired as a species.
Totalitarian governments work perfectly in theory but will fail until they breed humans who will be happy as virgin, worker-bees totally lacking free-agency.
You are welcome ERJ - and the words are totally enjoyed.
DeleteThe sunk cost is something that rears its head everywhere, and the more sunk the costs the more difficult it is to change a thing. And to your point, it quite often becomes a matter of individuals investing their entire reputations into a solution; they would rather crash the ship upon the rocks than change direction, because admitting the change in direction would be to admit personal failure. The more public the solution, the more public the failure.
I like your idea of individuals "investing their tokens" in a way the larger whole cannot, and especially that they can invest them in ways that allow experimentation and if necessary, quick course corrections (If you are going to fail, fail fast).
The question of a home is an interesting one, something I am walking through now simply with the change in location and at least the short term change in living quarters. The real question is not just the expense but all the stuff in the house, which cannot all come here. To use your parlance, is it time to cash those chits in for something else, something that reflects the change in circumstances? As an individual I can do that almost immediately.
God does like to create, and most people I know seem happy when they are creating something, be it a physical item or food or art.
Totalitarian governments have complete track record of ultimate failure, yet remain the constant experiment people are willing to try again.
Sigh. "Merited". The words are entirely merited. I need to stop changing living locations for a bit...
DeleteERB, this comment of yours scares me a bit SNIP " Totalitarian governments work perfectly in theory but will fail until they breed humans who will be happy as virgin, worker-bees totally lacking free-agency."
ReplyDeleteMaybe you think to kindly of our "Betters" intentions for you and I?
Have you given thought that perhaps the Powers that be like a lot of sociopaths like to "telegraph" their intentions? Some subtle pleasure in "warning" their victims I understand.
The World Economic Forum is quite open and public about their "You'll own Nothing and Be Happy" plans for us. Same with 10-minute smart cities that sound like a high-tech version of a Gulag but with better paint and landscaping.
Ever wonder what happens to an old sheep after their wool isn't needed or up to "Standards"? Like old horses they seldom go to an old homes pasture to live out their lives. They go to the slaughterhouse to become dog food and various food and glue processes.
The WEF is quite open in their public documents that the "Population of the world is in excess and must be reduced". Count me cynical, but I suspect that Canada's WEF supported MAID (Medical Assistance in Dying) program SAYS Something dark and grim about that "reduction".
I "Hear" the lyrics of Mike and the Mechanics "Silent Running" right now. Do you know the lyrics? Just a thought.
Michael, I don't read ERJ's comments as endorsing totalitarian governments. I read them as a statement: Totalitarian governments are a construct which work when presented in theory or practice, but are not suited to the actual workings of humans as they exist. In that model to work, they would theoretically need drones that ask no questions and expect nothing but basic inputs.
DeleteBut even then (if we are discussing it), would that make the such a system work? A national or super-national state is not just a government, it is a collection of services and economies. Worker units, be they ants or bees (perhaps a useful example) know exactly what they need to do. Humans are not like that; we require incentive to truly engage. You can get a level of work from folks with minimum expectations, but our best examples in the last century, The USSR, Eastern Europe, and Maoist China, demonstrate that no reward yields little effort.
Do I think the OPASB would love to live the society described by the 15 minute City and "You Will Own Nothing"? I really believe they do. But they make these proposals from a place where (more or less) there is still a functioning system to uphold their mental experiments. Betting the farm on it will work out very differently - especially for many of them, who will simply be pushed out by their Societal Betters (Thanks Ed) when they are no longer useful to the cause.
Friend, I'm pretty sure I read in my German Grandmothers diary how they were quite sure those brown shirted thugs would never gain authority. Old German is a tad different than current version and she often wrote in an oblique manner.
DeleteIn a manner she would have been correct, as the "Night of the Long Knives" did reduce the Brown Shirts threat level to Hitler's 3rd Reich. The USEFUL IDIOTS were used up and destroyed when dangerous to the Nazi's.
I recall the Bolsheviks did much the same in the Russian revolution.
Some things never change. Those who crave POWER seek to use and deceive others until they don't feel they have too.
The WEF folks seem pretty sure they CAN make the changes they seek. Looking around the world it's hard to disagree.
Thus, my concerns of the deception that they are Not that Evil as to reduce "useless eaters". MAID in Canada isn't supporting that IMHO.
But perhaps this old man is seeing ghosts of history playing out in the western world again. Forgive me for bothering you about them.
In some ways I get why OPASB only pitch one solution to any problem. I think the average voter that elects them to their position doesn't have the mental capacity or time to do much reasoning on their own and so just want to be pitched the "best" idea. More than likely, it goes one step further back to the political influencers of the world (are they the societal betters?) who just pitch one idea to the politicians who usually don't have more than just a basic grasp on most subjects they vote on.
ReplyDeleteMaybe, Ed - Although it completely undermines the plurality society that they proudly proclaim. As to the voters - maybe, although the old saw about if you treat people like fools long enough they become them comes to mind (if that is what the truly think of the voters, then we are little better than cattle that appear biennially to vote).
DeleteTheir Societal Betters (I like that)? Likely they are pitching a single idea which somehow benefits them. And whether through laziness or influence, the politicians are taking it.
Mind you, that still does not mean they are the best solution.
Power and control TB. Totalitarian governments seem to be repeating themselves with "THIS time WE'LL do it RIGHT!"
ReplyDeleteNylon12, that seems to be the correct answer. It has everything to do with control, and the power to command.
DeleteEvery totalitarian government, throughout time, has believed that this time, they would get it right. The strain of Utopianism, of the want of a better world, is not wrong - just unachievable outside of divine guidance.
From my perspective, totalitarian societies invariably fail because they cannot accommodate human nature. As other commenters have observed, we are not drones, we are sentient beings with individuality, and that is both the downfall of totalitarian societies and the survival advantage of pluralistic societies. Totalitarian societies are tied into a single or very limited individuals ideas and behaviours, all of which are invested in perpetuating the status quo. They cannot respond to external changes in the ways that a more pluralistic society can. We've seen this with the failures of the Soviet 5 year plans, and currently the failure of the Net Zero obsession to accommodate physics realities
ReplyDeleteWill, we are indeed sentient creatures. The New Zero failure is a great example of wishing something to be not being able to be fit into the way the world actually is.
DeleteThat said, it is just as certain they will keep trying to do such things until they are sharply checked by the opinion and (peaceful) actions of those they consider their inferiors.
I figure it's just like the gang of bullies in the schoolyard. They're going to make everybody else holler "uncle," just to show they have the power to do so.
ReplyDeleteLeigh, there are multiple quotes that suggest the one group of people one should not give power to are those that want power. And that group seems to be overly represented anymore.
DeleteHonestly, I am never able to understand the attraction. Making people do what I want (instead of something else) does nothing for me. And having been on the other side, I know what it ends up doing: it breeds a smoldering discontent and unhappiness. Why would I do that?