Children are an important part of the community - they become us. I mean that in the sense that, many years from now, they will be the driving force, the adults in power, & take our place in the community. I also mean that they will become like us - they will take their guidance from what they see us do. If we are mean-spirited, then they will be. If we are generous, then they will learn from that.
The children of different cultures grow up to be different adults as a result of this. Those who were brought up to respect their elders expect that respect out of their children. Those who were brought up secluded from the world will keep their naivety & transfer it to their children. In some cases, this is the promulgation of social norms, in others it is a deviation in one family that singles them out & their future generations. This is a form of social genetics - small mutations in each generation make the whole of society evolve.
We, as intelligent humans, do get the opportunity to change the social genetics if we act consciously, as opposed pre-destined genes. If we have the vision to see what is happening around us, we can determine what we prefer our society to be, &, hopefully, take some responsibility for changing it.
Our choice is the first step - taking responsibility.
I look on children as inspirational. If I see a few toddlers running around in circles giggling, it makes me laugh. I have no idea what they find funny, but they have such joy in their lives. If a stranger sees me smiling in public at such children, there is the risk that I get seen as a pedophile. The worst part is that the person who thinks that will probably not do anything about it - they will just move on with the thought in their mind. They will take no responsibility for that thought they had. It's a worst-possible-scenario case that they allow to fester in their own mind. After all, it's not their children.
If the average person sees two young teenagers in a fight, they will avoid it - turn away, walk quickly past, keep clear - because they don't want to get involved. Not their children. It's the modern way.
My wife, on the other hand, comes from one of those backward countries where children are a part of the community. You can be guaranteed that someone will recognise one of the children, the two will be broken apart, & each will be cuffed around the ear. Not only that, but the parents of both children will be informed - & both boys know it! - so they can look forward to another cuffing when they each get home.
The children of that community know how they should behave, & are reminded of it. They are appropriately admonished by society as well as their family. That is a very healthy community.
If I go back to the Australian scenario, there is always a little old lady up the street who notices the boys' fighting. She's the only one who might go to the parents with the tale. If she tried to break up the fight - the only one who would try - then she'd be knocked over by one of the boys. When she gets to the boy's home, the mother is shocked that her son would be fighting "Not my little Johnny - he's never been in a fight!" When Johnny comes home, he is asked about the incident. He feigns innocence. His mother is justified in her opinion. The boy escapes justice - & then plots his revenge on the nosy old lady up the street.
Who has been punished? Who has learned a lesson here?
We, as intelligent humans, get the opportunity to change our society.
It just takes a first step - taking responsibility.
06 June 2013
28 May 2013
Political Voodoo
With an election looming, the blame game has started & is now in full swing - politicians on both sides are telling us what the other side is going to do if they get into power, or how what the other side has done has foiled their grand schemes. Scapegoats are sought & appropriately sacrificed to the media bonfire. The government, of course, has been doing this for some time. We call them "scandals" because "incompetence" has too many syllables for prime time, & "blame" sounds too dull.
In fact, that's all we're really doing - finding someone to blame for a failure in the system somewhere, rather than finding out what really went wrong & fixing that - that would be too hard, require time & resources, & wouldn't make the prime time news. Once upon a time, you had to be quick enough to make the morning edition of the paper, but with twenty-four hour news, there's the trickle of newsworthy stuff to keep the media hungry, & then the big release each day to prove that the politicians are indeed awake.
When it comes to blaming someone for something so that we don't look too deeply into the problem, politics is becoming masterful. Many a minister of questionable background has been foisted into a portfolio for which they are unsuited or have no interest, only to be blamed when something within that realm - over which they had no control - falls apart at the seams due to a fundamental policy problem brought down from above, or else an incompetence in the implementation of a perfectly good policy carried out at the lowest levels.
I look with dismay at the political career of Peter Garrett - someone not well suited to the Labour Party, but who got them a lot of votes because he appealed to them. Within Labour, as an outsider, it was easier to treat him with disrespect. He had the credentials as Environment Minister, but was shunted into lesser roles when policies were mishandled. His fault? I doubt if he had the administrative background to oversee the implementation - that's for the public service. He did, however, know how to talk to environmentalists about the issues. He had real opinions. He was muffled, however, & his fellow politicians could not allow him to deviate from the party line.
From the perspective of a voter (or the media), when a policy fails, then someone must pay the price for the failure. We choose to pick on the Minister because they are a face. We use them as a voodoo doll & stick pins in them in the hope that causing them pain will somehow make our lives better. This is, of course, particularly silly. We should take responsibility for the actions of ourselves & our society, rather than looking for a puppet to hurt. When questionable insulation installers roamed the streets "taking advantage" of the "windfall" in the industry, where were the industry representatives who did not certify these people? Where was the community that allowed such people into the homes of their neighbours who knew no better?
Ah, but there was a Minister to blame. Problem solved. That'll learn 'em. Those dodgy installers won't do that again!
In fact, that's all we're really doing - finding someone to blame for a failure in the system somewhere, rather than finding out what really went wrong & fixing that - that would be too hard, require time & resources, & wouldn't make the prime time news. Once upon a time, you had to be quick enough to make the morning edition of the paper, but with twenty-four hour news, there's the trickle of newsworthy stuff to keep the media hungry, & then the big release each day to prove that the politicians are indeed awake.
When it comes to blaming someone for something so that we don't look too deeply into the problem, politics is becoming masterful. Many a minister of questionable background has been foisted into a portfolio for which they are unsuited or have no interest, only to be blamed when something within that realm - over which they had no control - falls apart at the seams due to a fundamental policy problem brought down from above, or else an incompetence in the implementation of a perfectly good policy carried out at the lowest levels.
I look with dismay at the political career of Peter Garrett - someone not well suited to the Labour Party, but who got them a lot of votes because he appealed to them. Within Labour, as an outsider, it was easier to treat him with disrespect. He had the credentials as Environment Minister, but was shunted into lesser roles when policies were mishandled. His fault? I doubt if he had the administrative background to oversee the implementation - that's for the public service. He did, however, know how to talk to environmentalists about the issues. He had real opinions. He was muffled, however, & his fellow politicians could not allow him to deviate from the party line.
From the perspective of a voter (or the media), when a policy fails, then someone must pay the price for the failure. We choose to pick on the Minister because they are a face. We use them as a voodoo doll & stick pins in them in the hope that causing them pain will somehow make our lives better. This is, of course, particularly silly. We should take responsibility for the actions of ourselves & our society, rather than looking for a puppet to hurt. When questionable insulation installers roamed the streets "taking advantage" of the "windfall" in the industry, where were the industry representatives who did not certify these people? Where was the community that allowed such people into the homes of their neighbours who knew no better?
Ah, but there was a Minister to blame. Problem solved. That'll learn 'em. Those dodgy installers won't do that again!
02 April 2013
Progressive Politics
The more I look at politics in this & many other western democracies, the more the looking is tinged with dismay. The media often portrays the childishness of "he said/she said/they said" statements as so much throw-away sound-biting. When you look closer, it appears that that encompasses the whole substance of what political parties represent - mutual opposition.
That childishness reminds me of children playing in the sand - where there's only one shovel & one bucket. One child may have the majority (both implements), & they build while the other child fumes. If there is a sharing of power, then the two children will work at cross-purposes. When one child loses power, the other child will demolish all that they have built & start again, re-creating their vision from the last time they had power.
Both children are subject to the child & the support (& approval) of adult supervision, but they seem to ignore both, intent on their idea of how to build a castle in the sand.
Let's step back into reality. The two most important factors in government are, the general feel of the electorate - which can be affected through good leadership, & the climate of the times - (often external) factors not immediately under the control of the government. These are the adult supervision & the changing tide mentioned above. Many politicians think that the adults are a changing tide, & ignore it accordingly, as if there is no influence. This is inherently not just defeatist, but ignorant.
You modify the opinion of the electorate through how your actions are interpreted - this is party through performing the right actions, & partly through manipulation of how those actions are represented (through the media, for example). Does this sound obvious? This means that approval of castle building can be manipulated, to some extent.
You cannot change the tides, but you can monitor, anticipate, & harness their energy & impact. If you continue to ignore them, then it's at your peril - your sand castle will be washed away, in the same way that a child can be told by its parent that it's time to give up the bucket & spade.
Criticism is all well & good, but progressive politics needs a solution. Building castles that last comes about when there is co-operation in the sand castle building. Asking the other children to watch the tide or offer advice on how to deal with it, delegating the power of the shovel or bucket, building on others' successes & learning from their mistakes (rather than forgetting or ignoring both), are all things that lead to better sand castles. These are also things lacking in modern politics.
The "I am right, you are wrong" (or "I am right, you are left") way of looking at government assumes that the tide is irrelevant (never changes) & the approval is fickle. Going forward, progressive politics must take both into consideration & deal with them appropriately.
Embrace change. Embrace the future. Create good government. Go forward.
That childishness reminds me of children playing in the sand - where there's only one shovel & one bucket. One child may have the majority (both implements), & they build while the other child fumes. If there is a sharing of power, then the two children will work at cross-purposes. When one child loses power, the other child will demolish all that they have built & start again, re-creating their vision from the last time they had power.
Both children are subject to the child & the support (& approval) of adult supervision, but they seem to ignore both, intent on their idea of how to build a castle in the sand.
Let's step back into reality. The two most important factors in government are, the general feel of the electorate - which can be affected through good leadership, & the climate of the times - (often external) factors not immediately under the control of the government. These are the adult supervision & the changing tide mentioned above. Many politicians think that the adults are a changing tide, & ignore it accordingly, as if there is no influence. This is inherently not just defeatist, but ignorant.
You modify the opinion of the electorate through how your actions are interpreted - this is party through performing the right actions, & partly through manipulation of how those actions are represented (through the media, for example). Does this sound obvious? This means that approval of castle building can be manipulated, to some extent.
You cannot change the tides, but you can monitor, anticipate, & harness their energy & impact. If you continue to ignore them, then it's at your peril - your sand castle will be washed away, in the same way that a child can be told by its parent that it's time to give up the bucket & spade.
Criticism is all well & good, but progressive politics needs a solution. Building castles that last comes about when there is co-operation in the sand castle building. Asking the other children to watch the tide or offer advice on how to deal with it, delegating the power of the shovel or bucket, building on others' successes & learning from their mistakes (rather than forgetting or ignoring both), are all things that lead to better sand castles. These are also things lacking in modern politics.
The "I am right, you are wrong" (or "I am right, you are left") way of looking at government assumes that the tide is irrelevant (never changes) & the approval is fickle. Going forward, progressive politics must take both into consideration & deal with them appropriately.
Embrace change. Embrace the future. Create good government. Go forward.
15 March 2013
The Man Elected King
In an old Don Henley song, commentary on the status of the US President is somewhat at variance to their actual power - however, & this is the important part, the perception of the voters is that they are electing someone with some sort of absolute power to make decisions in their name, & can thereafter be held responsible for not fulfilling their dreams.
Do we so need someone to blame? Or are we so tribal that we need someone to be seen as the leader of the rabble?
Democracy is supposed to be a system whereby a monarch is not necessary - government is through the people's representatives. It makes no sense for there to still be monarch from amongst these. It makes no sense for two reasons:
We still think of nationhood as being embodied in a leader - someone who represents "us" on the world stage. Surely, this should have nothing to do with electing local representatives into a body for setting policies & laws. It just makes no sense.
Similarly, that person should not be expected to represent or talk to the whole populace, because, by definition, they only have the support of half of those who vote - sometimes even less in a two-party-preferred system. This doesn't make them any more likely to represent the non-voters.
Call me a monarchist, if you like, but at least a monarch is someone you can do nothing about, & is therefore not worth complaining about - they simply represent the monarchy, not a political party or an agenda; they have no need to be popular or seek re-election or bombard people with propaganda. You could say that there are far more advantages to disadvantages.
To be honest, all historical disadvantages of the system have become irrelevant, mostly through the maturity of the population, combined with advances in information & communications. I think it's also been proven many times over that democracy does not work in many parts of the world explicitly because people think it guarantees that their king rules the people in their name (their tribe, the one they voted for, beats the other tribe). This to me implies that party politics should not be foisted on anyone who wants to become socially mature.
Good monarchy - with a few simple safe-guards - is a far more effective form of government. Leadership should take advice from the people's representatives (as an executive), & act on that advice without fear of repurcussions to their own position. In this case, by safe-guards, I do not mean that there should be a group of people who can depose the monarch if they disagree. That way leads to the same systems we currently call "democracy". The only safe-guards are around the actual fitness of the leader to make decisions, & ensurance that enough information is available to them. Of course, you always have that little problem of who is watching the watchers ...
Do we so need someone to blame? Or are we so tribal that we need someone to be seen as the leader of the rabble?
Democracy is supposed to be a system whereby a monarch is not necessary - government is through the people's representatives. It makes no sense for there to still be monarch from amongst these. It makes no sense for two reasons:
- it gives the impression that the leader is elected for that purpose (not for being a representative)
- it assumes that one of the elected representatives must be the leader
We still think of nationhood as being embodied in a leader - someone who represents "us" on the world stage. Surely, this should have nothing to do with electing local representatives into a body for setting policies & laws. It just makes no sense.
Similarly, that person should not be expected to represent or talk to the whole populace, because, by definition, they only have the support of half of those who vote - sometimes even less in a two-party-preferred system. This doesn't make them any more likely to represent the non-voters.
Call me a monarchist, if you like, but at least a monarch is someone you can do nothing about, & is therefore not worth complaining about - they simply represent the monarchy, not a political party or an agenda; they have no need to be popular or seek re-election or bombard people with propaganda. You could say that there are far more advantages to disadvantages.
To be honest, all historical disadvantages of the system have become irrelevant, mostly through the maturity of the population, combined with advances in information & communications. I think it's also been proven many times over that democracy does not work in many parts of the world explicitly because people think it guarantees that their king rules the people in their name (their tribe, the one they voted for, beats the other tribe). This to me implies that party politics should not be foisted on anyone who wants to become socially mature.
Good monarchy - with a few simple safe-guards - is a far more effective form of government. Leadership should take advice from the people's representatives (as an executive), & act on that advice without fear of repurcussions to their own position. In this case, by safe-guards, I do not mean that there should be a group of people who can depose the monarch if they disagree. That way leads to the same systems we currently call "democracy". The only safe-guards are around the actual fitness of the leader to make decisions, & ensurance that enough information is available to them. Of course, you always have that little problem of who is watching the watchers ...
13 March 2013
Put a Label on it
I do not consider myself "radical", & yet much of my thinking definitely is. I juts don't like the label; more specifically, I do not like the negative connotations that people associate with that label. De Bono long ago pointed out how the words that we use gather meaning in certain contexts that make them thereafter unusable. He pointed out otherwise harmless words like "superficial", which has now been associated with terms like "slipshod", implying that no real effort was applied - just scratching the surface of a problem. From his medical background, a superficial wound, for example, is a relatively good thing, though.
Similarly, radical. There was a political movement in England in the 1800s that tried to be independent of the two major parties. They still have that problem there, & we in Australia have it now. The two major parties try to paint themselves as diametrically opposed, yet both trying to cover the middle ground of the "undecided" voter. The reality is that the middle ground is the silent majority who have no possible allegiance to either of the major alternatives, but are trapped in a political system that simplifies government into politics, & politics into two-party-preferred. In the US, the system is geared even more towards the two major alternatives, to the point where it is very difficult for an "independent" (anyone else) to be even recognised. In Fiji, I asked locals what differentiated the major parties, & was told that one was conservative & the other socialist. Asking deeper questions revealed that the division was actually racial - one was Indian-dominated & the other Native-dominated. It's just in the label.
I am not a radical, & yet I believe that these things should change. The radicals of the past also believed that, which is what was so threatening to those diametrically opposed parties. It is interesting to note that those two parties have changed over time, even been replaced by other parties, but there are still two of them vying for the popular vote.
Those in power - & by this I do not mean those in government, but those in politics - do not like to give up their power. They somehow think that they have the right to be in government because they are very good at politics. I don't agree. To me, this disqualifies them, on the basis that they spend all of their time differentiating themselves from their opposition. If that's the chief aim of both parties, then they are effectively the same.
A valid political alternative is one that sets policies based on government, rather than opposition. A government needs to make decisions for the good of the people, not the re-election of the party. This cannot be done within the confines of the current system.
It is truly radical to believe that change is possible. It is even more radical to want to cause such change. Without change, we get stuck with the labels that are meaningless, misapplied, destructive, regressive & often dishonest.
To move forward, we have to divest ourselves of the labels. We have to think outside of the box we have been placed in. We have to be more than a little radical.
Similarly, radical. There was a political movement in England in the 1800s that tried to be independent of the two major parties. They still have that problem there, & we in Australia have it now. The two major parties try to paint themselves as diametrically opposed, yet both trying to cover the middle ground of the "undecided" voter. The reality is that the middle ground is the silent majority who have no possible allegiance to either of the major alternatives, but are trapped in a political system that simplifies government into politics, & politics into two-party-preferred. In the US, the system is geared even more towards the two major alternatives, to the point where it is very difficult for an "independent" (anyone else) to be even recognised. In Fiji, I asked locals what differentiated the major parties, & was told that one was conservative & the other socialist. Asking deeper questions revealed that the division was actually racial - one was Indian-dominated & the other Native-dominated. It's just in the label.
I am not a radical, & yet I believe that these things should change. The radicals of the past also believed that, which is what was so threatening to those diametrically opposed parties. It is interesting to note that those two parties have changed over time, even been replaced by other parties, but there are still two of them vying for the popular vote.
Those in power - & by this I do not mean those in government, but those in politics - do not like to give up their power. They somehow think that they have the right to be in government because they are very good at politics. I don't agree. To me, this disqualifies them, on the basis that they spend all of their time differentiating themselves from their opposition. If that's the chief aim of both parties, then they are effectively the same.
A valid political alternative is one that sets policies based on government, rather than opposition. A government needs to make decisions for the good of the people, not the re-election of the party. This cannot be done within the confines of the current system.
It is truly radical to believe that change is possible. It is even more radical to want to cause such change. Without change, we get stuck with the labels that are meaningless, misapplied, destructive, regressive & often dishonest.
To move forward, we have to divest ourselves of the labels. We have to think outside of the box we have been placed in. We have to be more than a little radical.
11 March 2013
Everything You Say
I'm struggling to start this post, because it works off the premise that everything you say - & the way you say it - has a layer of meaning provided by you (the author) & your reader/listener, based on your background, psychology, state of mind, ability to perceive, communicate, interpret, ... & you end up down the rabbit hole losing all sense of proportion & proper grammar.
Then I thought of the old Police song "Every step you take", & its meanings, relative to the name of the band & the lead singer.
I'll just start again, before my head explodes or crashes into the ceiling before I can find the "Eat me" cake.
What you say says more about you than it does the topic you are discussing, in general. Politics is a classic example. The larger the audience, the bigger the issue, the more strident the voice, the more likely that the communication is not in the words. I should say, the true meaning is not in the words. Politicians are not a special case, but they are a classic example of assuming an audience & treating it in a special way.
Politicians treat people like morons (who else would vote for them?), & everyone knows that the best way to communicate with a moron is to speak louder, slower, & use small words & non-threatening hand gestures. Politicians don't say "You are a moron, so I'll speak slower", but by their actions they demonstrate how they relate to their audience.
Then there's the words that they use to communicate their message. An acquaintance long ago introduced me to "projection" - saying something about someone with the hope that nobody thinks the same of you.
A classic politician statement will go along the lines of "My learned opponent is lying!" I've obviously cleaned that up & made it more polite, but I think I have succinctly represented 50% of politicians' pronouncements. Let's look closely at what they've said, within the context of their belief that they are talking to morons.
They don't say "I am telling the truth!" Morons don't believe you when you say that. Politicians also don't say "They're lying - just ask them!" because morons don't follow up on information provided. (Let's forget about the logic puzzle of how to ask a question of someone who is suspected of lying.)
A politician is actually making an empty statement when they say that their opponent is lying (or that their opponent eats babies, will raise taxes, or intends to sell the public service to an overseas consultancy).
They are in fact expressing a fear. They hope that you'll acquire the fear that they express - that the opponent is untrustworthy, &, more importantly, that you will think that they (the politician) ARE trustworthy. After all, there couldn't possibly be two politicians who lie. The deepest fear that the politician has is that they have lower credibility than their opponent, & they express that fear by wanting you to believe their opponent (has) less.
Children do this a lot. "Johnny, did you eat a cookie?" "No, it was Billy! I saw him!" This is a normal response regardless of whether a cookie was eaten in the first place. Johnny needs to be trusted. Someone needs to bear the blame. Billy isn't there to defend himself. Everyone's happy.
Politicians are slightly more efficient, in that you don't have to ask them if they've eaten a cookie, they will jump straight in to assuming that Billy ate one, & they just want to make sure that they're not covered in crumbs.
Then I thought of the old Police song "Every step you take", & its meanings, relative to the name of the band & the lead singer.
I'll just start again, before my head explodes or crashes into the ceiling before I can find the "Eat me" cake.
What you say says more about you than it does the topic you are discussing, in general. Politics is a classic example. The larger the audience, the bigger the issue, the more strident the voice, the more likely that the communication is not in the words. I should say, the true meaning is not in the words. Politicians are not a special case, but they are a classic example of assuming an audience & treating it in a special way.
Politicians treat people like morons (who else would vote for them?), & everyone knows that the best way to communicate with a moron is to speak louder, slower, & use small words & non-threatening hand gestures. Politicians don't say "You are a moron, so I'll speak slower", but by their actions they demonstrate how they relate to their audience.
Then there's the words that they use to communicate their message. An acquaintance long ago introduced me to "projection" - saying something about someone with the hope that nobody thinks the same of you.
A classic politician statement will go along the lines of "My learned opponent is lying!" I've obviously cleaned that up & made it more polite, but I think I have succinctly represented 50% of politicians' pronouncements. Let's look closely at what they've said, within the context of their belief that they are talking to morons.
They don't say "I am telling the truth!" Morons don't believe you when you say that. Politicians also don't say "They're lying - just ask them!" because morons don't follow up on information provided. (Let's forget about the logic puzzle of how to ask a question of someone who is suspected of lying.)
A politician is actually making an empty statement when they say that their opponent is lying (or that their opponent eats babies, will raise taxes, or intends to sell the public service to an overseas consultancy).
They are in fact expressing a fear. They hope that you'll acquire the fear that they express - that the opponent is untrustworthy, &, more importantly, that you will think that they (the politician) ARE trustworthy. After all, there couldn't possibly be two politicians who lie. The deepest fear that the politician has is that they have lower credibility than their opponent, & they express that fear by wanting you to believe their opponent (has) less.
Children do this a lot. "Johnny, did you eat a cookie?" "No, it was Billy! I saw him!" This is a normal response regardless of whether a cookie was eaten in the first place. Johnny needs to be trusted. Someone needs to bear the blame. Billy isn't there to defend himself. Everyone's happy.
Politicians are slightly more efficient, in that you don't have to ask them if they've eaten a cookie, they will jump straight in to assuming that Billy ate one, & they just want to make sure that they're not covered in crumbs.
25 February 2013
Knowledge & Wisdom
Once upon a time, great sages would sit on mountain tops or in caves, contemplating the secrets of the universe. People would come to them seeking their advice, or to find out what knowledge they had acquired, what wisdom they could impart. Students needed a master scholar to gain the basic understanding of their world. Leaders needed guidance. People needed reassurance that answers were out there.
Eventually, some structure was put in place - the caves became artificial stone edifices that we now refer to as Universities. The scholars dress in a manner that is a little more socially acceptable, although their other manners may not have gone through that transformation. This state of affairs did us well for a very long time.
However, the times have changed. The new oracles of knowledge are machines which gather more information & knowledge quickly & easily & make it accessible to the masses with little sacrifice on their behalf. The scholars still delve into the unknown, but they are less likely to be consulted directly. They are networked into the consciousness of humanity.
With knowledge so easily available, it makes it too easy to forget that knowledge is useless without the wisdom to apply it appropriately. Ethics cannot be explained in a web page. It cannot be provided by a search of the internet. I needs someone who has already mastered the topic - gained wisdom - to share their experience.
To the modern mind, this seems to be a bit of a waste of effort - talking to actual people, etc, but it is still necessary. Just as time is still necessary to gain experience - for anything truly worthwhile, there are no short cuts.
The problem is that it takes wisdom to realise this in the first place, & that is something - a little bit of wisdom, enough to know how much you don't know - that is often severely lacking in the young & impatient. Self-reflection is a skill that is not natural, is not easy to learn, cannot be assumed, but is essential for personal growth.
Thus, with time & effort, we can achieve the wisdom we need to use the knowledge that we gain.
Eventually, some structure was put in place - the caves became artificial stone edifices that we now refer to as Universities. The scholars dress in a manner that is a little more socially acceptable, although their other manners may not have gone through that transformation. This state of affairs did us well for a very long time.
However, the times have changed. The new oracles of knowledge are machines which gather more information & knowledge quickly & easily & make it accessible to the masses with little sacrifice on their behalf. The scholars still delve into the unknown, but they are less likely to be consulted directly. They are networked into the consciousness of humanity.
With knowledge so easily available, it makes it too easy to forget that knowledge is useless without the wisdom to apply it appropriately. Ethics cannot be explained in a web page. It cannot be provided by a search of the internet. I needs someone who has already mastered the topic - gained wisdom - to share their experience.
To the modern mind, this seems to be a bit of a waste of effort - talking to actual people, etc, but it is still necessary. Just as time is still necessary to gain experience - for anything truly worthwhile, there are no short cuts.
The problem is that it takes wisdom to realise this in the first place, & that is something - a little bit of wisdom, enough to know how much you don't know - that is often severely lacking in the young & impatient. Self-reflection is a skill that is not natural, is not easy to learn, cannot be assumed, but is essential for personal growth.
Thus, with time & effort, we can achieve the wisdom we need to use the knowledge that we gain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)