Multinational corporations are gearing up the way to a certified 'global village' reality. The world, in all its aspects, does follow up a path towards global integration. It is inevitable as the transactions between individuals or groups of individuals, in disparate locations around the globe, grow exponentially as time goes by. Multinational corporations have the organisation to achieve that.
Lots of thoughts which are needed to be channeled appropriately. Questions in seek for answers.
Their expansion a result of a multitude of all the wrong reasons, paramount being the maximisation of profits, but at the same time, they only have the know-how and possess the necessary organisational structures to bring the world closer together.
Someone can argue that the profits drive tends to leave places in their path bone dry, lunar landscapes. Using up remorselessly all resources a place can offer. Human and natural resources alike.
But on the other hand they push the world nearer to its attractors. Amidst conflicting forces they spread the means for development and bring the world communities together.
Whereas I find this necessary, a major concern is the extent of the damage to environment and to human lives. Would they manage to bring the world in an unrepairable state beyond recovery? If they are left on their own they would certainly do.
Their course unstoppable. Supported to the hilt by the multitude of legislation and the more effective underlying web of power in governments and states, what spawned them in the first place, spring out of their home countries, to spread all over the world. Assisted by the dominant, in most individuals, ego-centred facet of the human persona, to look after dear self blind of others, driving its insatiable hunger for profiting at all costs.
draft
Wednesday, 27 February 2008
Saturday, 9 February 2008
Scope of individuality
Makes me feel like throwing up, it boaks me. Profits? A feeling of revulsion. As in the Atlas shrugged at 50, proclaim
" .. who held to his own ideas and ideals, in stark contrast to those who surrender their dreams simply for the empty approval of others."
that is true and is everywhere, in all societies and it applies for the capitalists and for the "postmodernists", and in short for any individual.
" ... are needed even more today to provide the philosophical basis for a much-needed culture of principled individualism."
I am getting confused or the message is a product of a confused mind. If the American culture is not purely or largely individualistic, why would be in need for individualism or is it the 'principled' what is in question here? I can not think any other society on earth to be more individualistic than the American society.
Individuality? It makes me think that the only individuality you talk and care about is your very own individuality, your cherished ego. Individuality thrives when it considers the individuality of all individuals, and in a society like yours the individuality that is nurtured is the individuality of a handful, hand-picked individuals ignoring all other.
And a misguided individual which at some point in her life guided by her own simplified mind, produced the work you so proclaim that proves your style, a few self-cherished concepts by the likes of you, out of the richness of concepts about. And by virtue of these few partial concepts built a worldview totally defined by her choices.
Any individuality will grow only when all individualities are let free to grow, in the farthest out freedom-to-grow version, as it can be imagined.
It is vile to mingle genuine human traits with false, empty messages. To admit that there were and are
"... pseudo-businessmen, looters who were more interested in appearance than products; who used government to extort wealth from others; and who were guilty and ashamed of their prosperity."
is not enough to exonerate the pursuit of profits for what it actually is, a scourge to humanity.
Profits? Profits? What on earth would profits give you apart from indulging your ego and spoiling your body.
" ... and who took pride in their profits and achievements."
Does humanity live for that? Profits! Is it its ultimate goal? Profits! Is what it is longing for? Profits! And what kind of achievements are these? As they are so proclaimed. Measured in hard currency?
We are but simplified minds. Our mental capacities does not allow us to be any better. Unable to include in our daily thinking everything that exists and takes place around us. And that is what we are. And fair enough.
But this is something we should always bear in mind when we take a stance, look around and address the world.
Everyone in the world that has been born and died or is born and still alive or even (may be, it depends) has not been born yet and not lived, is, or is going to be an individual with a simplified mind.
Me, you, everybody should drive that deep into mind before even think to actually do pass judgment against another person or persons.
Everybody has the potential to thrive if a chance is there to have.
" .. who held to his own ideas and ideals, in stark contrast to those who surrender their dreams simply for the empty approval of others."
that is true and is everywhere, in all societies and it applies for the capitalists and for the "postmodernists", and in short for any individual.
" ... are needed even more today to provide the philosophical basis for a much-needed culture of principled individualism."
I am getting confused or the message is a product of a confused mind. If the American culture is not purely or largely individualistic, why would be in need for individualism or is it the 'principled' what is in question here? I can not think any other society on earth to be more individualistic than the American society.
Individuality? It makes me think that the only individuality you talk and care about is your very own individuality, your cherished ego. Individuality thrives when it considers the individuality of all individuals, and in a society like yours the individuality that is nurtured is the individuality of a handful, hand-picked individuals ignoring all other.
And a misguided individual which at some point in her life guided by her own simplified mind, produced the work you so proclaim that proves your style, a few self-cherished concepts by the likes of you, out of the richness of concepts about. And by virtue of these few partial concepts built a worldview totally defined by her choices.
Any individuality will grow only when all individualities are let free to grow, in the farthest out freedom-to-grow version, as it can be imagined.
It is vile to mingle genuine human traits with false, empty messages. To admit that there were and are
"... pseudo-businessmen, looters who were more interested in appearance than products; who used government to extort wealth from others; and who were guilty and ashamed of their prosperity."
is not enough to exonerate the pursuit of profits for what it actually is, a scourge to humanity.
Profits? Profits? What on earth would profits give you apart from indulging your ego and spoiling your body.
" ... and who took pride in their profits and achievements."
Does humanity live for that? Profits! Is it its ultimate goal? Profits! Is what it is longing for? Profits! And what kind of achievements are these? As they are so proclaimed. Measured in hard currency?
We are but simplified minds. Our mental capacities does not allow us to be any better. Unable to include in our daily thinking everything that exists and takes place around us. And that is what we are. And fair enough.
But this is something we should always bear in mind when we take a stance, look around and address the world.
Everyone in the world that has been born and died or is born and still alive or even (may be, it depends) has not been born yet and not lived, is, or is going to be an individual with a simplified mind.
Me, you, everybody should drive that deep into mind before even think to actually do pass judgment against another person or persons.
Everybody has the potential to thrive if a chance is there to have.
Thursday, 7 February 2008
Mr John McCain voted as the next President of the United States. The white man wins.
This website reports on a study which shows that culture influences brain function, following up the trail left by research in psychology.
"Psychological research has established that American culture, which values the individual, emphasizes the independence of objects from their contexts, while East Asian societies emphasize the collective and the contextual interdependence of objects. Behavioral studies have shown that these cultural differences can influence memory and even perception. But are they reflected in brain activity patterns?"
Is there anything here that can be connected with the current presidential primaries in USA? Yes there is, as the values adhered by the American people define the simple rules followed by individuals in the American society, and by that, its complexity and the emergent states which will come out of the process of the presidential primaries. Emergent state being the next administration that would follow up Bush.
As the American culture values the individual, it is obvious that their vote is judged on issues that emphasize the independence of the objects from their context(s). The objects being, the candidates and the context(s) being, the current local and global political situation. The candidates will be picked according to their individual merits, regardless of the policies they profess, their approach to the context.
The New York Times report after the decisive Super Tuesday primaries that
"Black voters overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama ..."
and
"Women went, by large margins, to Mrs. Clinton."
and certainly on the day after the Presidential election they will announce
"Mr John McCain voted overwhelmingly as President of the United States."
As the overblown and misguided American individuality will certainly choose along gender and racial lines and the choice between a white man and a black man or a white woman, is not hard to guess.
The white man wins. So there it is again, four more years of McCain health care
"For free-market, consumer-based system; has pledged affordable health care for every American without a mandate; says universal health care is possible without a tax increase."
war in Iraq,
"Voted in 2002 to authorize invasion, still supportive; in favor of troop increase; against a timetable for troop withdrawal."
economy,
"Short-term plan is long-term plan: make the Bush tax cuts permanent; eliminate alternative minimum tax."
and so on.
"Psychological research has established that American culture, which values the individual, emphasizes the independence of objects from their contexts, while East Asian societies emphasize the collective and the contextual interdependence of objects. Behavioral studies have shown that these cultural differences can influence memory and even perception. But are they reflected in brain activity patterns?"
Is there anything here that can be connected with the current presidential primaries in USA? Yes there is, as the values adhered by the American people define the simple rules followed by individuals in the American society, and by that, its complexity and the emergent states which will come out of the process of the presidential primaries. Emergent state being the next administration that would follow up Bush.
As the American culture values the individual, it is obvious that their vote is judged on issues that emphasize the independence of the objects from their context(s). The objects being, the candidates and the context(s) being, the current local and global political situation. The candidates will be picked according to their individual merits, regardless of the policies they profess, their approach to the context.
The New York Times report after the decisive Super Tuesday primaries that
"Black voters overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama ..."
and
"Women went, by large margins, to Mrs. Clinton."
and certainly on the day after the Presidential election they will announce
"Mr John McCain voted overwhelmingly as President of the United States."
As the overblown and misguided American individuality will certainly choose along gender and racial lines and the choice between a white man and a black man or a white woman, is not hard to guess.
The white man wins. So there it is again, four more years of McCain health care
"For free-market, consumer-based system; has pledged affordable health care for every American without a mandate; says universal health care is possible without a tax increase."
war in Iraq,
"Voted in 2002 to authorize invasion, still supportive; in favor of troop increase; against a timetable for troop withdrawal."
economy,
"Short-term plan is long-term plan: make the Bush tax cuts permanent; eliminate alternative minimum tax."
and so on.
Monday, 21 January 2008
Glimpses galore of the state of the world, US presidential primaries would bring about
Presidential elections, primaries in USA. What does it actually matter here? Would it make any difference what candidate wins?
It is not a simple matter of funding an election campaign in the US primaries, it is what the fundraisers would expect from the person they back that makes the difference. The ties that hold the candidates with their backers. And it is obvious that the big money would back the candidate that would follow a policy that favours their schemes. And usually these schemes do not include the welfare of individuals. It will be the schemes which will ensure that profits for industry do not suffer setbacks.
A recession, it was proclaimed yesterday, looming in the world, as it is deduced by the recent fall in the stock markets.
"Stock markets in London and Europe recorded their biggest one-day falls since Sept 11 yesterday, as concerns about global credit market turmoil and a looming US recession sparked panic selling amongst investors."
A global recession that is driven by a recession in USA. What does that actually mean? Would the recession deduced by the stock markets, involves or is it about the individual in the world? Would be a matter of concern for the individual? Or is the recession the result of the change of mind in the individual? The myth of terror in the world, that the US has to defend the world from, is crumpling. Nobody believes President Bush and the Americans. The global view of the US is going from bad to worse:
" A poll of 26,000 people in 25 countries show the global view of the U.S. role in world affairs is deteriorating.
• 73% disapprove of U.S. role in Iraq
• 68% believe that the U.S. military presence in the middle East provokes more conflict than it prevents
• 49% believe the United States plays a mainly negative role in the world."
The bubble is bursting. If Bush and the rest of the Americans that their livelihood depend on the proliferation of wars and the creation of tensions in the world to bring forth new wars, if they can not convince the individual about the necessity of the wars they start, that would have an effect on their industry, the GDP and so forth, and if the industry doesn't do well, you bound to have recession. Would that be a bad thing? No, not at all.
Is that what actually happens? How can not be? What effect would a 51% of the total current US budget allocated for military purposes would have in an economy? What would happen if the common sentiment around the world is against wars? That economy is bound to go into recession, or nearly collapse? Is that a bad thing? Certainly it is not.
And what is the position of the candidates in the recent US presidential primaries? According to sources all republican candidates have proclaimed they are in favor of troop increase and against a timetable for troop withdrawal in Iraq, apart from Ron Paul, the representative from Texas. As for the democrat candidates they are all opposed to troop increases and in favour of troops withdrawal ranging from immediate to within 16 months, apart from Hilary Clinton who sees troops withdrawal to conclude by the end of 2013.
Over the years it has become a lasting impression of the US as a war nation and that notion is hitting home. And the repercussions are felt and reflected on the American individuals and in the positions put forward by their candidates. True, the republicans did not concede. They continue on supporting war efforts. They are the ones that have direct links with the war involved interests. Their backers and funding partners are representing the war industry. But, as there is the widespread belief that the republicans do not have a chance to win in the presidential elections, that they are fighting a loosing battle, what it matters comes from the positions of the democrat candidates.
They are responding to the change in the minds of the american individuals, all apart, as it is obvious by the prolonged withdrawal procedures put forward, from Hilary Clinton. It brings about notions that her backers are representing the war industry and the prolonged troop withdrawal is translated to a continuing war related business cycle and the hope that, in the meantime another war would be prepared to ensure the war industry would not go out of business.
It is not a simple matter of funding an election campaign in the US primaries, it is what the fundraisers would expect from the person they back that makes the difference. The ties that hold the candidates with their backers. And it is obvious that the big money would back the candidate that would follow a policy that favours their schemes. And usually these schemes do not include the welfare of individuals. It will be the schemes which will ensure that profits for industry do not suffer setbacks.
A recession, it was proclaimed yesterday, looming in the world, as it is deduced by the recent fall in the stock markets.
"Stock markets in London and Europe recorded their biggest one-day falls since Sept 11 yesterday, as concerns about global credit market turmoil and a looming US recession sparked panic selling amongst investors."
A global recession that is driven by a recession in USA. What does that actually mean? Would the recession deduced by the stock markets, involves or is it about the individual in the world? Would be a matter of concern for the individual? Or is the recession the result of the change of mind in the individual? The myth of terror in the world, that the US has to defend the world from, is crumpling. Nobody believes President Bush and the Americans. The global view of the US is going from bad to worse:
" A poll of 26,000 people in 25 countries show the global view of the U.S. role in world affairs is deteriorating.
• 73% disapprove of U.S. role in Iraq
• 68% believe that the U.S. military presence in the middle East provokes more conflict than it prevents
• 49% believe the United States plays a mainly negative role in the world."
The bubble is bursting. If Bush and the rest of the Americans that their livelihood depend on the proliferation of wars and the creation of tensions in the world to bring forth new wars, if they can not convince the individual about the necessity of the wars they start, that would have an effect on their industry, the GDP and so forth, and if the industry doesn't do well, you bound to have recession. Would that be a bad thing? No, not at all.
Is that what actually happens? How can not be? What effect would a 51% of the total current US budget allocated for military purposes would have in an economy? What would happen if the common sentiment around the world is against wars? That economy is bound to go into recession, or nearly collapse? Is that a bad thing? Certainly it is not.
And what is the position of the candidates in the recent US presidential primaries? According to sources all republican candidates have proclaimed they are in favor of troop increase and against a timetable for troop withdrawal in Iraq, apart from Ron Paul, the representative from Texas. As for the democrat candidates they are all opposed to troop increases and in favour of troops withdrawal ranging from immediate to within 16 months, apart from Hilary Clinton who sees troops withdrawal to conclude by the end of 2013.
Over the years it has become a lasting impression of the US as a war nation and that notion is hitting home. And the repercussions are felt and reflected on the American individuals and in the positions put forward by their candidates. True, the republicans did not concede. They continue on supporting war efforts. They are the ones that have direct links with the war involved interests. Their backers and funding partners are representing the war industry. But, as there is the widespread belief that the republicans do not have a chance to win in the presidential elections, that they are fighting a loosing battle, what it matters comes from the positions of the democrat candidates.
They are responding to the change in the minds of the american individuals, all apart, as it is obvious by the prolonged withdrawal procedures put forward, from Hilary Clinton. It brings about notions that her backers are representing the war industry and the prolonged troop withdrawal is translated to a continuing war related business cycle and the hope that, in the meantime another war would be prepared to ensure the war industry would not go out of business.
Wednesday, 26 December 2007
Are all individuals in a society considered potential offenders?
What did I notice in that statement from this House of Commons Hansard Debate for 08 Oct 2007 (pt 0020)?
"I particularly welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Lord High Chancellor on homophobic hatred. Provisions in a Bill previously brought into play in Northern Ireland will today send a strong message to society that homophobic hate crimes are not acceptable in a modern-day society."
Send a strong message to society that homophobic hate crimes are not acceptable in a modern-day society? To send a strong message to society? Does society need messages? Messages on how to act and behave? Doesn't society know that acts against other individuals do not befit a human individual? Does it need any message, from anyone, on how to act and behave?
And in that publication of RoSPA, the royal society for the prevention of accidents, I read:
"Many such cases have been highlighted in the media which has contributed to a public perception that it is possible to ‘get away’ with dangerous and lethal behaviour on the road."
Public perception? Public, for everyone of us, every individual in a society, ubiquitous and universal. Our common and shared perception, which we use to direct and unfold our lives, its sole criterion is 'how to get away'? All the values we hold and cherish are reduced to that primary objective, 'to get away'.
How low have they put public perception. In what little regard do they hold public perception. Where each individual is considered a potential offender, or may be even, forget about potential but plainly an offender, a perpetrator. That every individual's main concern is how to 'get away', that each one of us has in mind to pillage, kill, maim and commit acts against the welfare of other individuals as long as they can 'get away'.
I find that degrading for society, for any society and reveals the mentality of the law makers and governing bodies. They are engrossed in a mind frame, a mindset so overriding they can not get away from.
The laws and rules are there because the collective mind of the individuals in the society have brought them forth and not because of some sublime enlightened mind thought them. Parliamentarians and other individuals in government bodies, are servants to the society that put them there. They were not voted or assigned to be masters and overseers of the society.
Neither in society nor in the public perception, 'to get away' is a guiding principle or in need to be taught a lesson. It is for the very few in society who stray from the rest that the laws are for. The values and respect for each other, of individuals in a society, are strong enough to need any laws to be uphold.
Your place is to follow the guidelines as given by society and not to make the guidelines for the society to follow, you are individuals in the society as everyone else and as any other individual in a society, the models you built to make sense out of the world are simplified models.
"I particularly welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Lord High Chancellor on homophobic hatred. Provisions in a Bill previously brought into play in Northern Ireland will today send a strong message to society that homophobic hate crimes are not acceptable in a modern-day society."
Send a strong message to society that homophobic hate crimes are not acceptable in a modern-day society? To send a strong message to society? Does society need messages? Messages on how to act and behave? Doesn't society know that acts against other individuals do not befit a human individual? Does it need any message, from anyone, on how to act and behave?
And in that publication of RoSPA, the royal society for the prevention of accidents, I read:
"Many such cases have been highlighted in the media which has contributed to a public perception that it is possible to ‘get away’ with dangerous and lethal behaviour on the road."
Public perception? Public, for everyone of us, every individual in a society, ubiquitous and universal. Our common and shared perception, which we use to direct and unfold our lives, its sole criterion is 'how to get away'? All the values we hold and cherish are reduced to that primary objective, 'to get away'.
How low have they put public perception. In what little regard do they hold public perception. Where each individual is considered a potential offender, or may be even, forget about potential but plainly an offender, a perpetrator. That every individual's main concern is how to 'get away', that each one of us has in mind to pillage, kill, maim and commit acts against the welfare of other individuals as long as they can 'get away'.
I find that degrading for society, for any society and reveals the mentality of the law makers and governing bodies. They are engrossed in a mind frame, a mindset so overriding they can not get away from.
The laws and rules are there because the collective mind of the individuals in the society have brought them forth and not because of some sublime enlightened mind thought them. Parliamentarians and other individuals in government bodies, are servants to the society that put them there. They were not voted or assigned to be masters and overseers of the society.
Neither in society nor in the public perception, 'to get away' is a guiding principle or in need to be taught a lesson. It is for the very few in society who stray from the rest that the laws are for. The values and respect for each other, of individuals in a society, are strong enough to need any laws to be uphold.
Your place is to follow the guidelines as given by society and not to make the guidelines for the society to follow, you are individuals in the society as everyone else and as any other individual in a society, the models you built to make sense out of the world are simplified models.
Sunday, 23 December 2007
So, was Iraq's war another crusade?
Is religion about good and evil? Are the concepts of good and evil ubiquitous, universal in meaning. Something that everyone, from whatever cultural background is coming from, understands them in the same way? I read in the article of "Blair's faith fuelled his drive to join in the invasion of Iraq", from Guardian Unlimited,
"As Prime Minister, he saw the world in terms of good and evil. Kosovo, Sierra Leone, support for African development and a two-state solution in the Middle East and, above all, war in Iraq were informed by his belief. His rawest expression of motive for taking Britain into Iraq was spoken in Glasgow on the same day as the mass protest across Britain on 15 February 2003. His voice heavy with emotion, he declared: 'If there are 500,000 on that march, that is still less than the number of people whose deaths Saddam has been responsible for. If there are one million, that is still less than the number who died in the wars he started... ridding the world of Saddam would be an act of humanity. It is leaving him there that is in truth inhumane."
It is naive to consider that Blair's view of good and evil is shared by anybody else apart from himself and his followers, though I do not think that the war in Iraq was just another christian crusade, a fourth or fifth I am not sure, to apply the western culture version of good and evil. It was a pure exercise of another aspect of monetisation and the whole process needed some sort of cover. Whereas for Britain it might have been Blair's version of good and evil, as for Mr. Bush and his band of followers was the freedom fighting approach.
Unfortunately the whole exercise opened up another can of worms, as the fellow americans tend to say. But it makes no difference to them. As if they care, that british, americans, iraqis are killed and maimed daily. Collateral damage, since for both the objective has been achieved. They managed to use a lot of bombs and other disposable goodies in their arsenal before its sell-by-date run out, saving them from scrap merchants fees and costly disposal processes, gauged the efficiency of some of their smart weapons on some real targets, not some hapless platforms or much needed demolition jobs, created a stir in their war industries as new orders came in, to replace whatever was used, get ready for another war. You see their battle for good and evil, or the freedom fighters cause continues unabated and never stops.
There are baddies still out there. Iran, North Korea eminent candidates and who knows, the return of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan might create the freedom fighters too. To stir up the british and the americans noble pursuits.
Thank goodness up to know Iran and North Korea do not fall into the trap and defuse the tensions, the british and americans constantly create, in negotiations.
I hope Pakistan, likewise, will not give them a reason to invent freedom fighters and a chance to sharpen their swords. Let their brand new manufactured bombs, smart or stupid, and other high tech war equipment to rust past their sell-by-dates.
To put the war industry out of business and into the dole queues.
"As Prime Minister, he saw the world in terms of good and evil. Kosovo, Sierra Leone, support for African development and a two-state solution in the Middle East and, above all, war in Iraq were informed by his belief. His rawest expression of motive for taking Britain into Iraq was spoken in Glasgow on the same day as the mass protest across Britain on 15 February 2003. His voice heavy with emotion, he declared: 'If there are 500,000 on that march, that is still less than the number of people whose deaths Saddam has been responsible for. If there are one million, that is still less than the number who died in the wars he started... ridding the world of Saddam would be an act of humanity. It is leaving him there that is in truth inhumane."
It is naive to consider that Blair's view of good and evil is shared by anybody else apart from himself and his followers, though I do not think that the war in Iraq was just another christian crusade, a fourth or fifth I am not sure, to apply the western culture version of good and evil. It was a pure exercise of another aspect of monetisation and the whole process needed some sort of cover. Whereas for Britain it might have been Blair's version of good and evil, as for Mr. Bush and his band of followers was the freedom fighting approach.
Unfortunately the whole exercise opened up another can of worms, as the fellow americans tend to say. But it makes no difference to them. As if they care, that british, americans, iraqis are killed and maimed daily. Collateral damage, since for both the objective has been achieved. They managed to use a lot of bombs and other disposable goodies in their arsenal before its sell-by-date run out, saving them from scrap merchants fees and costly disposal processes, gauged the efficiency of some of their smart weapons on some real targets, not some hapless platforms or much needed demolition jobs, created a stir in their war industries as new orders came in, to replace whatever was used, get ready for another war. You see their battle for good and evil, or the freedom fighters cause continues unabated and never stops.
There are baddies still out there. Iran, North Korea eminent candidates and who knows, the return of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan might create the freedom fighters too. To stir up the british and the americans noble pursuits.
Thank goodness up to know Iran and North Korea do not fall into the trap and defuse the tensions, the british and americans constantly create, in negotiations.
I hope Pakistan, likewise, will not give them a reason to invent freedom fighters and a chance to sharpen their swords. Let their brand new manufactured bombs, smart or stupid, and other high tech war equipment to rust past their sell-by-dates.
To put the war industry out of business and into the dole queues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)