Le Loup et l'Agneau
par Jean de la Fontaine
La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure :
Nous l'allons montrer tout à l'heure.
Un Agneau se désaltérait
Dans le courant d'une onde pure.
Un Loup survient à jeun qui cherchait aventure,
Et que la faim en ces lieux attirait.
Qui te rend si hardi de troubler mon breuvage ?
Dit cet animal plein de rage :
Tu seras châtié de ta témérité.
- Sire, répond l'Agneau, que votre Majesté
Ne se mette pas en colère ;
Mais plutôt qu'elle considère
Que je me vas désaltérant
Dans le courant,
Plus de vingt pas au-dessous d'Elle,
Et que par conséquent, en aucune façon,
Je ne puis troubler sa boisson.
- Tu la troubles, reprit cette bête cruelle,
Et je sais que de moi tu médis l'an passé.
- Comment l'aurais-je fait si je n'étais pas né ?
Reprit l'Agneau, je tette encor ma mère.
- Si ce n'est toi, c'est donc ton frère.
- Je n'en ai point. - C'est donc quelqu'un des tiens :
Car vous ne m'épargnez guère,
Vous, vos bergers, et vos chiens.
On me l'a dit : il faut que je me venge.
Là-dessus, au fond des forêts
Le Loup l'emporte, et puis le mange,
Sans autre forme de procès.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query raison. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query raison. Sort by date Show all posts
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Pareto's Principle
For a long time lately i thought i was cursed to only understand things of the past. Real time thinking was a unattainable task for me anymore. I remember when i was last time in dr.Boboia's office at Providence Scholls, i told her i cannot enjoy anymore anything in the present but only memories, everything else being the present Hell. And she completed with: It's good you have pleasant things to remember or something like that.
Real time thinking is only allowed to people with a thorough understanding of the times and reality they live in. I think.
For the first time in a long time i'm going try to react to a current event other than a response to my own blog posts.
For a few days now the Romanian newspapers keep a news about a mayor of a city in Romania that seems to me to be home of some radical thinkers. She allegedly plagiarized from an Italian philosopher. I say philosopher because it is a tittle that is separated from the others attached to his Wikipedia entry. Alright. What's the big news? Besides proving one more time how bad is if one is assuming someone's else work, that unfortunately is nothing new?
Then something caught my eye in another Wikipedia entry associated with his name, by clicking on the link above, Pareto's principle. (God i wish my computer and internet was faster, maybe i'm going to order next speed, 20 mbps, right now i only have 7 and i thought the servers are not fast enough for this but i think in 2 years that changed).
Wow. So outdated. So much linked to the time period he lived in. So tributary and inseparable from his momentous state of mind. I thought philosophy, sociology and applied sociology was much more than that. A long time before the current post post-modern age when society was driven by an elite few.
Pareto defines the society he lives in based on some statistics pretending he discovered something.
I'm not going to go further with the analysis of thinking of a grown man who can theorize his own state of mind and make a principle out of it. I suspected for a long time that some educated people can take their own childish understanding of the surrounding reality, twist it a little bit, according to some rule they got obsessed by in some school or acquired through some random experience and make a philosophy out of it and project it in an ideology and give a raison d'etre to many others that simply don't have time or cannot afford the luxury to think. ("forgetting" to apply one of main principles of logic and that is verification through generalization - the main excuse after all could be he was probably mainly educated as an engineer). After all it's a temptation that we all fall in, the return to the innocent mind that allowed us the discovery of this world we live in, before we fell slaves to our own needs.
And start to manipulate their present reality by creating whole schools of thought and actions for those who are vulnerable and tempted because of the failure of other models, or any model that don't match with their state of mind.
The more different their model from current reality, the more radical their means of necessary actions are.
It's not 20-80 anymore. Those elites are gone mostly because of the last 2 WWs. It's everybody giving in and melting their personality into some huge entity and then bowing their egos to it. Some went so far and call this God or the collective subjective conscience that came out from the thinking of a single man 50 years or a century ago just because it fits their current psyche. Or because they think others might have had overlooked it at the time.
An entity that can handle everything for them better than themselves can. Some call it NWO. With its ancestors, communism and Nazism, usually under the form of dictatorships. That can build a whole new reality modeled on a whatever unfinished, unproven theory, like the one mentioned in the alleged plagiarism case above. If it can change the world? Of course it can and probably it already did. Bad luck for us if one of these incomplete theories merged with others of the same kind is the starting point leading historically to our current social reality cause there are probably much better models of reality we can resort to, and some i hope take as starting point our individuality and the presumption we don't have to give it up in order to exist as a society.
It is very intriguing why they brought this in the light of the current news paradigm and into the search engines' cache, and it occurs to me it may be yet another attempt into manipulating us into thinking that this may be a current model they use to manipulate us on daily bases.
I suspect the models currently used in applied computational sociology may very well be generated by computers using data from different digitized sources, even more simplified, similar to those used in modelling in engineering like finite elements, that cannot be understandable by a single human mind, ever changing, or even modelling our thoughts like a long string of Pavlovian reflexes. It might very well be, but it is applicable only for a current state of mind. Depending on a very unique combination of neurotransmitters unevenly distributed in different areas of the brain at a certain moment in time. (But then what is conscience, an illusion?)
Thus the need to continually manipulate the society to make it fit better on whatever theory they think they discovered. And the best way to do it is to keep it continuously in a collective trance or psychosis by creating on-demand, shocking news, and by repeating all kind of mantras, behind closed doors, and resulting in a cult like collective mind set-up. Being all close to the same state of mind would keep us with a similar distribution of neurotransmitters, and similar thought patterns, but it will also cut our minds' and society's natural redundancies. (I remember during communism a very common tendency in all conversations was the generalized need of reaching a consensus.)
Trouble is if they go too far with those and how far and if they can revert it back to human control and understanding. Some are saying we are already on a one way, no return road.
Or could they have brought it to public's attention through a back door like they often do, invoking this plagiarism case they might have constructed themselves so they can keep it in the news to test our reactions because they think they might just have found a new way in which they can apply the magic combination, 20-80, by considering themselves a new elite, based on ideology alone and not on history and inheritance of values, like it used to be during Pareto's time, that might in the future not even needing the rest of us, and trying to replace us with robots? So deja vu, except for the robots part.
But more worrying, these incomplete theories might be just psychological tricks, applied on large scale, letting us think they have a "strong" theory, that would bring humanity in its right place like it has never been before, thus the need for collectively experimenting, flattering to all that adhere to their organization, like through becoming an elite, just to better manipulate the whole of us until they reach their real purpose, whatever that might be though full of good intentions.
There are better ways to deal with individual's integration in a society. It only takes a set of rules and laws. The rules are applied in micro-society, within family and circles of friends. The laws, for the greater society, and as a last resort when one forgets his rules. That lets society grow little by little governed by its own naturally and historically generated principles.
I always asked myself, how can two people live together without giving up something if each can't stand him/her-self, not talking about a society? Is there any way to be part of a group without any giving in his own freedom, individuality and ego, without understanding the simple fact that he/she wants the same as every one of his kind?
How can some attempt to model a society when they could never model a single human brain? And probably we'll never could. (And if they are pretending they already did, please beware of tricks).
Living in a society is so complicated that it takes each a sophisticated, mature mind, a complete connection with the society one lives in, a complete understanding (or simply the wish to) of the rules, laws and the principles of this reality - paradigm we each see differently.
Real time thinking is only allowed to people with a thorough understanding of the times and reality they live in. I think.
For the first time in a long time i'm going try to react to a current event other than a response to my own blog posts.
For a few days now the Romanian newspapers keep a news about a mayor of a city in Romania that seems to me to be home of some radical thinkers. She allegedly plagiarized from an Italian philosopher. I say philosopher because it is a tittle that is separated from the others attached to his Wikipedia entry. Alright. What's the big news? Besides proving one more time how bad is if one is assuming someone's else work, that unfortunately is nothing new?
Then something caught my eye in another Wikipedia entry associated with his name, by clicking on the link above, Pareto's principle. (God i wish my computer and internet was faster, maybe i'm going to order next speed, 20 mbps, right now i only have 7 and i thought the servers are not fast enough for this but i think in 2 years that changed).
Wow. So outdated. So much linked to the time period he lived in. So tributary and inseparable from his momentous state of mind. I thought philosophy, sociology and applied sociology was much more than that. A long time before the current post post-modern age when society was driven by an elite few.
Pareto defines the society he lives in based on some statistics pretending he discovered something.
I'm not going to go further with the analysis of thinking of a grown man who can theorize his own state of mind and make a principle out of it. I suspected for a long time that some educated people can take their own childish understanding of the surrounding reality, twist it a little bit, according to some rule they got obsessed by in some school or acquired through some random experience and make a philosophy out of it and project it in an ideology and give a raison d'etre to many others that simply don't have time or cannot afford the luxury to think. ("forgetting" to apply one of main principles of logic and that is verification through generalization - the main excuse after all could be he was probably mainly educated as an engineer). After all it's a temptation that we all fall in, the return to the innocent mind that allowed us the discovery of this world we live in, before we fell slaves to our own needs.
And start to manipulate their present reality by creating whole schools of thought and actions for those who are vulnerable and tempted because of the failure of other models, or any model that don't match with their state of mind.
The more different their model from current reality, the more radical their means of necessary actions are.
It's not 20-80 anymore. Those elites are gone mostly because of the last 2 WWs. It's everybody giving in and melting their personality into some huge entity and then bowing their egos to it. Some went so far and call this God or the collective subjective conscience that came out from the thinking of a single man 50 years or a century ago just because it fits their current psyche. Or because they think others might have had overlooked it at the time.
An entity that can handle everything for them better than themselves can. Some call it NWO. With its ancestors, communism and Nazism, usually under the form of dictatorships. That can build a whole new reality modeled on a whatever unfinished, unproven theory, like the one mentioned in the alleged plagiarism case above. If it can change the world? Of course it can and probably it already did. Bad luck for us if one of these incomplete theories merged with others of the same kind is the starting point leading historically to our current social reality cause there are probably much better models of reality we can resort to, and some i hope take as starting point our individuality and the presumption we don't have to give it up in order to exist as a society.
It is very intriguing why they brought this in the light of the current news paradigm and into the search engines' cache, and it occurs to me it may be yet another attempt into manipulating us into thinking that this may be a current model they use to manipulate us on daily bases.
I suspect the models currently used in applied computational sociology may very well be generated by computers using data from different digitized sources, even more simplified, similar to those used in modelling in engineering like finite elements, that cannot be understandable by a single human mind, ever changing, or even modelling our thoughts like a long string of Pavlovian reflexes. It might very well be, but it is applicable only for a current state of mind. Depending on a very unique combination of neurotransmitters unevenly distributed in different areas of the brain at a certain moment in time. (But then what is conscience, an illusion?)
Thus the need to continually manipulate the society to make it fit better on whatever theory they think they discovered. And the best way to do it is to keep it continuously in a collective trance or psychosis by creating on-demand, shocking news, and by repeating all kind of mantras, behind closed doors, and resulting in a cult like collective mind set-up. Being all close to the same state of mind would keep us with a similar distribution of neurotransmitters, and similar thought patterns, but it will also cut our minds' and society's natural redundancies. (I remember during communism a very common tendency in all conversations was the generalized need of reaching a consensus.)
Trouble is if they go too far with those and how far and if they can revert it back to human control and understanding. Some are saying we are already on a one way, no return road.
Or could they have brought it to public's attention through a back door like they often do, invoking this plagiarism case they might have constructed themselves so they can keep it in the news to test our reactions because they think they might just have found a new way in which they can apply the magic combination, 20-80, by considering themselves a new elite, based on ideology alone and not on history and inheritance of values, like it used to be during Pareto's time, that might in the future not even needing the rest of us, and trying to replace us with robots? So deja vu, except for the robots part.
But more worrying, these incomplete theories might be just psychological tricks, applied on large scale, letting us think they have a "strong" theory, that would bring humanity in its right place like it has never been before, thus the need for collectively experimenting, flattering to all that adhere to their organization, like through becoming an elite, just to better manipulate the whole of us until they reach their real purpose, whatever that might be though full of good intentions.
There are better ways to deal with individual's integration in a society. It only takes a set of rules and laws. The rules are applied in micro-society, within family and circles of friends. The laws, for the greater society, and as a last resort when one forgets his rules. That lets society grow little by little governed by its own naturally and historically generated principles.
I always asked myself, how can two people live together without giving up something if each can't stand him/her-self, not talking about a society? Is there any way to be part of a group without any giving in his own freedom, individuality and ego, without understanding the simple fact that he/she wants the same as every one of his kind?
How can some attempt to model a society when they could never model a single human brain? And probably we'll never could. (And if they are pretending they already did, please beware of tricks).
Living in a society is so complicated that it takes each a sophisticated, mature mind, a complete connection with the society one lives in, a complete understanding (or simply the wish to) of the rules, laws and the principles of this reality - paradigm we each see differently.