Hey Everyone,
As listener of THC since 2016, my continuous explorations have led me to discover many fascinating rabbit holes. One thing that's become clear overtime, is that to manifest the visions of a fairer, more harmonious World (like say, a civilization that runs on gravity or aether-sourced energies, or one that promotes regeneration of the environment and its ecosystems), we need to be the change-makers.
This is why I wanted to share with this community, a valuable tool (although some would call it a management philosophy) known as Systems Thinking.
To be honest, explaining Systems Thinking would take me a whole book. But let me also say that, most of us already make use of system thinking to make every-day decisions, whether consciously or not. That's because we are, and are part of systems, nested within even larger systems (molecular< individual<family<community<country<species<planetary<galactical), all the way up the cosmic scales
For example, most of us need to eat (let's assume you're not a breatharian:D). What you eat (e.g. diet), where you get your food from (e.g. farmer's market vs supermarket) ; how you eat (i.e., at home, or outside): All these actions have a larger effect on the larger world out there, even if it seems too complex. In essence, your money affects the larger system dynamics out there, in small but measurable ways.
Donella Meadows defines systems as:
an interconnected set of elements that is coherently organised in a way that achieves something.
I'm afraid going deeper than this would only make it harder. So let me instead, recommend a great book that gets to the heart of this concept. It's called Systems Thinking for Social Change by David Peter Stroh (links at the resource section below)
Systems Dynamics: An extension of System Thinking & the tools to model systems
System Dynamics seeks understand the processes involved within a system(s) over time.
We use computer modelling tools to visualise the various elements and interconnections within a structure, to get a clear picture that resembles reality.
Such a tool can't/doesn’t aim for perfection (there are infinite unforeseeable variables), and that's okay. Instead, it's goal is to give a general system overview of the interactions at play (and the sub-systems). We can use those parameters to simulate various scenarios (e.g. population growth over-time).
An analogy is to look at the way an apple contains seeds, which thanks to food, water, and other conditions develops into a fruit tree, fruiting many apples, and continue the feedback loop ad infinitum (or not). While this perspective is seen as a linear process, the real dynamics involved are non-linear.
For instance, the tree provides wood from prunings (which can provide wood for mushroom substrate); the tree also provides nutrients to other plants, increasing soil health; the fruits provides food or even revenue, which in turn helps inject cash in the local economy, and so on.
We can see how all these things are tightly inter-connected and inter-dependent, and realise how the tree is part of a larger ecosystem. In fact, this non-linear process is how Nature works all the time. It is all around us, we just generally don't perceive it as such.
I see it as over-unity (free energy) applied to business by making use of resources as efficiently as Nature does.
Personally, I am still new to how it all works, but the essence of it is simple enough to grok, and the tools used are quite basic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IenySRdkRu8
This video gives a clear, and simple overview of the process.
Another benefit of System Dynamics is that they are scale-invariant: from molecular actions to interstellar dynamics, you can create a flow diagram using the exact same tools. It's thus a universal tool. I can imagine using this to assess one's health (or finances), by mapping the daily activities that are either productive/benefitting or life-energy depleting, and adjusting accordingly (more on that in the resources section below).
Why don't they teach this at Universities, or even in high-school beats me.. but I'm glad there's plenty materials for self-study online. (At least, I never came across it..)
I should add, that there is nothing inherently benevolent about this business model. One can easily use this to further enrich oneself. But, I personally feel the greatest benefit come with using this to benefit self, as well as others (and environment). Whole is bigger than the sum of the parts (aka synergy).
Also, this is just the tip of the iceberg. In the future, I'll try to go more in-depth on certain characteristics: for instance, uncontrolled exponential growth almost always leads to an abrupt crash due to unforeseen reasons. Inversely, negative feedback loops often serve to control growth, and can be used productively.
Balance is a key aspect, and Pauli discusses why trees don't grow in size infinitely, even if they technically could, because doing so would lead them to collapse and destroy. Instead, Nature usually works within its self-imposed limits, or equilibrium (Inversely, current linear economies too often seek to maximize return-on-investment, to the point where ethics or benefits to the common-good are unconsidered). But I think this is good primer to start.
It also reminded me of a famous conspiracy document/book called Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars, which explains societal dynamics using electrical principles (i.e., physics) to map out how populations can be manipulated using economics.
I'm learning learning as I go myself, but hopefully, will be sharing more personal experiences with the tools soon. Just planting some seeds here in case it may inspire someone else 😉
Below are some resources, including self-education online classes.
https://insightmaker.com - Free browser-based modelling platform
Systems Thinking and Modelling (includes a free book for learning; also, great contents)
Vensim PLE - Vensim Modelling software (free for personal use) there are others as well.
Guide to Learning Systems Dynamics
System Dynamics self-study offered by MIT Sloan School of Management
Resources for Systems Thinking - This is great primer for a more general understanding for affecting change
Books:
(epub, mobi) Systems Thinking for Social Change by David Peter Stroh
(epub, mobi) The Fifth Discipline by Peter Senge
(epub) Limits To Growth, by Donella Meadows 1971 (30-year update edition 2004)
(mobi) Thinking in Systems, Donella Meadows 2008 (primer for the subject)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9VMxuDxZCM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxSvXJIarA4
This wonderful video discusses leverage points, using the iceberg model. Shows non-linear evolution, and how changes at the model (root causes) level has drastic, qualitative effects, instead of just trying to fix the symptoms. Very educational content 🙂
Happy New Year 2020 Everyone! Cheers:D;)
Since I first posted this thread at the inception stage into systems thinking, I noticed how complex this is to break-it-down coherently.
Coming across such great books (which I'm still reading through) as David Peter Stroh's Systems Thinking for Social Change, or the more pioneering ones by Donella Meadows (all titles are available above), I realised the importance of opening the topic focusing on the philosophy, rather than the tools themselves, which can come later, for applying the models more concretely.
One of the clear insights I had, was that a group like THC is especially suited for Systems Thinking. Let me explain. We are seekers of truth (or untruths) whereby we question how events unfold; the structures of powers in place that are often unknown to most.
In other words, we use systems thinking in order to get a better grasp on our reality.
For me, the epitome of this was finding (and reading) David Icke's books a few years ago. It put together pieces of the puzzles that I had (and had not) in a way that not only made sense, but allowed for predictability of patterns, which more often than not, confirmed the proposed model (the reptilian, top-down totalitarian tip-toe control power). Better yet, later on, other bits of information provided even more elaborate, and infinitely more complex elements (i.e., dark magick, spiritual entities..)
Another one would be Ole Dammegard and his analyses of shooting/false-flag events, or even Nassim Haramein's work in unified physics. The point is, by taking a step away from the superficial event (i.e., tip of the iceberg), and instead, by looking at the patterns and trends (mid-level of iceberg), we are able to picture beyond, into the foundational structure that gives rise to it all (the root, or largest part of the iceberg).
And in fact, this is what's known as the iceberg model to distinguish superficial issues and underlying root causes.
To continue with the conspiracy analogy, when we focus solely on above-surface events, at best we only put a band-aid on it without addressing the root causes, at worst, we make the problem worse (even despite our best intentions). It's only by digging deeper that we are able to detect patterns, and later arrive at a coherent structure. Ultimately, the goal is to find the most effective leverage points, allowing us to tip the system with minimum effort (martial arts). Donella Meadows also calls it social acupuncture (more on that in the future).
Example: Most "normies" would react with surprise to a pedo-criminal scandal in the higher echelons breaking out, even though most THC listeners would not.
The latter group knows that this is a common pattern (i.e., billionaire boys club = shady business).
Those who are balls deep into it (no pun intended) know further that these patterns emerge from an even deeper underlying structure rooted in some-kind of luciferian-dark magick occultist cult that goes back centuries, if not more.
The difference, then, between the normie who is surprised (and shuns away quickly), and the THC-System Thinker, is that the latter is not surprised at the symptoms (events) when they pop-up (if not for the fact that they did suface to light), offering a better, more holistic understanding of his/her environment, thus, potentially, be able to make better decisions to affect the system towards their ethical alignments (e.g., like not empowering the predator groups even more by signing up to Disney+!, just kiddin, but you catch my drift)
So that's system-thinking (holistic, iceberg-like) compared to linear-thinking (event-to-event) in a nutshell. You can see how not only it's empowering, but most importantly, how ubiquitous it is, even if you haven't heard of it by its name before.
Another cool thing are common dysfunctional patterns found in systems. These are called system archetypes, and like their tarot counterparts, there are a number of them, and by knowing how to identify them, we're able to recognise a dysfunctional system, and take more effective measures to fix it.
Often times, we fail to recognise our mistakes, which perpetuates more short-term band-aid fixes, only to worsen the problem we're trying to fix (Vicious cycle).
I won't go too in-depth into archetypes (yet), but if you're interested definitely do check them out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpRT987rRUQ
Shifting the Burden, example of a system Archetype
I hope the examples below weren't too distracting, and helped explain the point.
To conclude this post, I'd like to end with a well-known Sufi story that illustrates the linear-thinking perspective and the system-thinkers one, from Donella Meadows book.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL_lOoomRTA
Old, but timeless!
Adam Curtis' All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace is a good introduction to systems theory, cybernetics, and the strange origins of the ecosystem as a steady-state model. You can watch the first two episodes on Vimeo. Here is the third:
[MEDIA=dailymotion]x60y8sn
shamangineer wrote: Adam Curtis' All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace is a good introduction to systems theory, cybernetics, and the strange origins of the ecosystem as a steady-state model. You can watch the first two episodes on Vimeo. Here is the third:
[MEDIA=dailymotion]x60y8sn
Thanks for that link, Doc!
The BBC documentary is not only eery but what a strange mash-up of many fascinating topics. A bit like a nightmarish tour of the subconscious.
I’m not sure how it directly relates to system thinking, if not for the fact that every action is inextricably linked to an event popping up on the other side.
Not sure I grasped what the scientist Hamilton was hinting at, that we are mere genetic automatons which could be modelled by computer models (?) This is the view espoused by the like of materialist scientists such as Dawkins and others (which just a few days ago made the headlines for his controversial views on eugenics).
I now tend to view those mental models as a bit too simplistic and fatalistic in a holo-fractal universe, even if they’re worth serious consideration.
But maybe that’s beside the main point of the film. In which case, my apologies 🙂
PS: lately, I’ve been thinking about ways in which gaming could leverage the power of systems thinking. Because systems are everywhere, this would be a game in which a user would create, or simulate systems present in his/her environment. The result (goal) would be to visualize and optimize such systems in an interactive “gaming” environment.
To push things further, this could involve multiple users to optimize the function of one system (e.g., optimize energy efficiency in a home/business/community; food resilience; personal finances..)
I wonder if similar games already exist (mine craft?). But anyhow, just another stoner thought 😉
This way of using gaming to solve concrete-world problems seems like a huge opportunity.
The only related thing I can think of, is how some companies are using such games during the hiring process, to have insights into how a potential new hire acts within certain scenarios.
https://resources.workable.com/stories-and-insights/gamification-in-recruiting-effectiveness
enjoypolo wrote: PS: lately, I’ve been thinking about ways in which gaming could leverage the power of systems thinking. Because systems are everywhere, this would be a game in which a user would create, or simulate systems present in his/her environment. The result (goal) would be to visualize and optimize such systems in an interactive “gaming” environment.
Jesus H. Christ, Polo! That is a trillion dollar idea! You've combined like six different new phenomena and powered the whole system with a human's desire to have fun and innovate- GAMING.
Computer Modelling
Computer Gaming
Open Sourcing - code perfecting and "mods" for different conditions
Crowd Sourcing - millions of tinkering gamers
Weaponized Autism - a portion of those gamers will have savant-like capabilities and spend countless man-hours perfecting solutions
The only flaw I can see is the translation from material problems to psychological problems. Computer models work well for material, physics-based problems where the "rules" are hard and fast (acceleration of gravity, tensile strengths, and thrust to weight ratios). I tend to see the problem as a more psychological one.
The human need to "fit in" with his social group is a natural and beneficial tendency. But now, they have weaponized it against us. What nature designed to give "pack hunters" an edge over their prey has now been twisted to stifle free thought and impose social consequences for dissent. I think what we need are more humans with the capability of thinking and speaking freely about their leaders. A return of a healthy distrust of those wielding power - which is what the US Constitution is founded on, but has all but disappeared these days.
I'm looking for a system that teaches humans how to better deal with fear- as fear is the prime mover employed by the enemy.
I'm not a systems guy, but I think that deciding what you want your system to accomplish is the most important step. Designing a system to "take down" or supplant another system is useful, but if that is all your system does, it does not address the underlying weaknesses in human behavior that will allow another group to hijack your new one. I would prefer to see systems that help to perfect the individual human and make him more immune to manipulation in general.
The best example I can come up with is a contest. Charge an entry fee and make the prize half of the total collected entry fees (or something like that so it is self sustaining). All entries are videos less than 3 minutes in length. They must all highlight and explain a single instance where the government lied to us. But it must be one of the lies that everybody agrees was a lie - you have to be able to reference mainstream sources or widely accepted scholarly work. Even THEY have to admit it was a lie. There are plenty examples of this, they're just not publicized widely.
This is a system designed to create as many 3 minute indisputable "teaching tools" as possible, that can be posted on the net and shared with your buddy on the school bus via your phone. It is designed to teach people a healthy distrust for their leaders - which I think is the first transitional step in creating Polo's utopia in which new solar power plants are designed by millions of school children on spring break.
You are far more powerful than they will ever tell you.
Thank you @fifthcolumn, it means a lot coming from you. Since I wrote that post, a lot more shades to this have been elucidated. And I think you've hit the nail on the head regarding the imperative to start from a psychology paradigm shift.
In fact, out of all the previous books I mentioned in this thread, the only one on the subject I finished cover-to-cover, and that I'd recommend for a good breakdown, is The Fifth Discipline (mentioned in the first post). In fact, one of the focal points stressed by the author, is (1) around the way we identify ourselves with the world (influenced by our worldview, for instance from competition/dominance to cooperation/learning), and (2) something that I didn't expect in a management philosophy book, was the emphasis, and imperative on a commitment to Truth.
Regarding ways for systems to improve our quality of well-being, there's a lot to unpack here. In my case, I find that I make "bad" judgements most, when I lack a sense of other possible alternatives. And I think, if technology could help give us simulated scenarios of each possible choices, based on current circumstances and high-fidelity data (aka data we can agree is "authentic"), as well as our explicit desired goals, then giving us probable outcomes for each one choice, then maybe, we'd be able to make decisions that lead to better desired outcome, even if they seem counter-intuitive to us (hard not to resist what initially seems counter-intuitive).
I'm (synchronistically enough) in the middle of reading Buckminster Fuller's book Critical Path (last book of his before passing), and he gives an astounding example of how we can leverage computers to get the outcome for a desired goal. This by the way, fits right-into system thinking.
If they could do this in 1953 with mainframes that took-up whole rooms, then there's gotta be a way to democratize this to every Joe and Jane out there with a "smart"phone.
Goes without saying, we would still need to be psychologically "fine-tuned" to know, what is it that we truly desire or seek first.
Last but not least, once again, you hit the f-in' nail on the head. What you've described is pretty much Bucky's vision of a World Game, in which we'd harness the brains and talents of people around the world, in order to solve challenges at the global scale, outside of traditional power-structures.
“Make the world work, for 100% of humanity, in the shortest possible time, through spontaneous cooperation, without ecological offense or the disadvantage of anyone.”
Love the term weaponized autism in that contex: it may be our salvation!
Namaste my friend
fifthcolumn wrote: The human need to "fit in" with his social group is a natural and beneficial tendency. But now, they have weaponized it against us. What nature designed to give "pack hunters" an edge over their prey has now been twisted to stifle free thought and impose social consequences for dissent. I think what we need are more humans with the capability of thinking and speaking freely about their leaders. A return of a healthy distrust of those wielding power - which is what the US Constitution is founded on, but has all but disappeared these days.
I'm looking for a system that teaches humans how to better deal with fear- as fear is the prime mover employed by the enemy.
Along with dealing with fear is the social polarization which is protecting fear quite well. As we know well, people are clutching so tightly to their beliefs/political party/media source/fill-in-the-blank that they won’t ever face a fear if it means abandoning their pack.
The gaming platform is brilliant! And it’s pack has to be very appealing to get ppl to cross lines. I think fighting fire with fire is the best strategy and psychology gives off the most heat. I guess I’ve jumped to another level from encouraging people to create better systems for living to influencing (ok manipulating) people towards critical thinking and having the courage to call out bullshit.
Polo, you need a team and a go fund me. (Yes you are elected LOL)
sofahkingfoxy wrote: Along with dealing with fear is the social polarization which is protecting fear quite well. As we know well, people are clutching so tightly to their beliefs/political party/media source/fill-in-the-blank that they won’t ever face a fear if it means abandoning their pack.
The gaming platform is brilliant! And it’s pack has to be very appealing to get ppl to cross lines. I think fighting fire with fire is the best strategy and psychology gives off the most heat. I guess I’ve jumped to another level from encouraging people to create better systems for living to influencing (ok manipulating) people towards critical thinking and having the courage to call out bullshit.
Polo, you need a team and a go fund me. (Yes you are elected LOL)
First, let it be said that anyone who contributes to this conversation is/should automatically become a participant in the project. I'm afraid I still lack a concrete vision for the gaming idea, even though it feels like all the feedback from y'all is paving the way to somewhere further up the staircase.
I think @sofahkingfoxy you're onto something regarding dealing with fear, which as you mentioned, is it's polar opposite, courage. And how can/do we transmute fear into courage? How do we turn hot into cold? I'm afraid I don't have a convenient answer to that [intuitively, e.g., if my cup of coffee is too hot, I let it sit for a while 'til it cools down (i.e., equilibrium)]. If you have any insightful suggestions, keep us posted 🙂
Below are some helpful resources I found on this inspiring article by Daniel Christian-Wahl on "The Role of Visioning in Design". Lengthy, but seems appropriate in this context.
😉
Edit: forgot to mention another way to reduce temperatures: vortexing!!
enjoypolo wrote: In my case, I find that I make "bad" judgements most, when I lack a sense of other possible alternatives. And I think, if technology could help give us simulated scenarios of each possible choices, based on current circumstances and high-fidelity data (aka data we can agree is "authentic"), as well as our explicit desired goals, then giving us probable outcomes for each one choice, then maybe, we'd be able to make decisions that lead to better desired outcome,
I don't know, man...
You really want a computer making your decisions for you? Or narrowing your infinite set of options down to a few that it decides for you? I could see an app like this being one of the greatest tools of tyranny yet invented.
Besides, isn't that the spice of life? Risk and reward? The foolhardy gambit that could win you into her pants, or send you home alone. I can't imagine ever feeling proud of myself again if a computer was telling me how to play my game.
I'm pretty racist against cell phones, so that could be the reason I can't see the possibilities for their employment here. But I would hope to see apps that aimed at perfecting the human, rather than the human's decisions. If the human is perfected, he'll naturally come up with more novel options than you could ever program into a phone.
And, Polo, I don't think Courage is the polar opposite of Fear. I think Courage is a tool you use to see more options when your Fear only dictates 1 or 2 paths. I think "A Sense of Security" is the appropriate polar opposite of Fear.
If I have a fear of dogs, I can use courage to pet one. It doesn't mean I no longer fear dogs. I have to nut up and charge through my fear to do the petting. Then, after I've petted my hundredth dog, I realize it doesn't scare me anymore. I feel pretty secure around dogs and require no more courage to pet them.
Tell me if I ain't seeing things right.
You are far more powerful than they will ever tell you.
fifthcolumn wrote: I don't know, man...
You really want a computer making your decisions for you? Or narrowing your infinite set of options down to a few that it decides for you? I could see an app like this being one of the greatest tools of tyranny yet invented.
Besides, isn't that the spice of life? Risk and reward? The foolhardy gambit that could win you into her pants, or send you home alone. I can't imagine ever feeling proud of myself again if a computer was telling me how to play my game.
I'm pretty racist against cell phones, so that could be the reason I can't see the possibilities for their employment here. But I would hope to see apps that aimed at perfecting the human, rather than the human's decisions. If the human is perfected, he'll naturally come up with more novel options than you could ever program into a phone.
And, Polo, I don't think Courage is the polar opposite of Fear. I think Courage is a tool you use to see more options when your Fear only dictates 1 or 2 paths. I think "A Sense of Security" is the appropriate polar opposite of Fear.
If I have a fear of dogs, I can use courage to pet one. It doesn't mean I no longer fear dogs. I have to nut up and charge through my fear to do the petting. Then, after I've petted my hundredth dog, I realize it doesn't scare me anymore. I feel pretty secure around dogs and require no more courage to pet them.
Tell me if I ain't seeing things right.
Thanks for clarifying a few points here @fifthcolumn.
It seems that maybe there's two different concepts at play here: (1) for improving human decision-making process, (2) a character shaping app to improve discipline.
If anything, I think app #2 should precede #app 1, because little value (or worse, opposite intended effect) if you use a powerful decision-making tool like #1 without some practice of discpline.
I wondered whether we could get inspiration from the way martial arts are practiced: like a dojo. You know you're most-likely about to get your ass whopped, but you also know it's in a "safe" environment (with teachers and colleagues), as opposed to get into a street fight (fight or flight). So the character-shaping app would be like a mental dojo, where you know you'll get tested in your beliefs and convictions, but not annihilated from the face of earth.
I don't even know if that makes any sense, though.. Another thing to add would be a bio-feedback system (like a pulse-rate, and/or brain wave monitor to track your physiological data-sets) so when you're defensive, your notice your heart-rate increasing, and you realise "oh, why is this having this effect on me?" and put you back at ease (like taking a few deep breaths)
As for the polar opposite of fear, I'm open for debate on that one. I would argue though, that fear is lack of courage. The latter is what allows one to overcome fear, thus giving a "sense of security". Or maybe we can elaborate on that too.
Last but not least, I'm totally with you on being subservient to machines. We already are for the most part (at least I am), and that's not my intention. Instead, I think of the machine as a tool that when working symbiotically with humans, can have synergetic benefits. An elevator is a good analogy, you'd still rely on humans to push the button, but you let the machine do the "portalling", and that's the idea behind an app in which you can give a set of instructions to simulate, and then have someone choose the decisions (and not having the machine do so).
I hope my caffeine-filled explanations make sense, and if not, apologies my friend 😉 I'mma work on my thought process more
I agree. Courage and fear can stand together. In fact, I consider doing something in the face of fear is courageous as opposed to courage being the a lack of fear. Fearlessness requires no courage.
Regarding Courage and Fear:
This is a great side debate to have, because it goes to the basis of decision making. How does one make good decisions? The first step is to decide how you feel about the proposed situation. Mark Passio talks about the "Generative Principle." The generative principle is that which causes us to take action or make change. The generative principle is Care. If I don't care about something, it is unlikely that I will get off my ass and do something about it. But if I care, I will likely do something about it.
This is the first phase of decision making. Do I give a flying fuck? If I don't, then there is no decision to make. If I do, then I must determine the "quality" of my Care in order to make the better decision. This is illustrated by the Love/Hate polarity.
Love--------Like--------[Don't Care]--------Dislike--------Hate
If I love something, I will move toward it. I will protect it and help it to flourish. If I hate it, I will move away from it. I will sabotage it or seek to eradicate it. These are the actions prescribed once I have determined the "flavor" of my Care.
Is Courage a "flavor" or "quality" of my Care? Does it describe how I feel about something?
Take brushing your teeth. Do you feel Fearful of it? Do you feel Courageous toward it? Or do you feel pretty Secure with it? If you fear it, then you can use your courage to push through your fear. You can also flee or call for back up. These are all strategies you can employ, once you have determined that the "flavor" of your Care is Fearful.
The Courage/Fear polarity you propose reeks of a Martial Arts mindset. And I love that smell. But it is a limited perspective - designed for fighting situations where your life is on the line. It is a description of the Fight or Flight response. Either succumb to your fear and haul ass outta there (or even curl up into a ball and start crying), or stand your ground and fight. You must either allow your Fear to drive, or you must take the wheel and teach this prick a lesson.
Courage---------[]----------Fear
Fight--------------[]----------Flight
However, If you are Mike Tyson fighting a 3 year old, what is the quality of your Care? Do you have Fear? Do you need Courage? Or do you feel pretty secure in the notion that you could drop kick that baby into next week if you needed to?
Safe------------------------------------[Don't Care]------------------------Dangerous
Secure----------Confident----------[Don't Care]--------Uneasy--------Fearful
Courage is a tactic you employ to move toward something that scares you. Once the threat is eliminated and there is no more fear, you will return to feeling secure. Or not giving a shit.
Please let me know if you see a flaw in this model.
You are far more powerful than they will ever tell you.
sofahkingfoxy wrote: I agree. Courage and fear can stand together. In fact, I consider doing something in the face of fear is courageous as opposed to courage being the a lack of fear. Fearlessness requires no courage.
fifthcolumn wrote: Regarding Courage and Fear:
This is a great side debate to have, because it goes to the basis of decision making. How does one make good decisions? The first step is to decide how you feel about the proposed situation. Mark Passio talks about the "Generative Principle." The generative principle is that which causes us to take action or make change. The generative principle is Care. If I don't care about something, it is unlikely that I will get off my ass and do something about it. But if I care, I will likely do something about it.
This is the first phase of decision making. Do I give a flying fuck? If I don't, then there is no decision to make. If I do, then I must determine the "quality" of my Care in order to make the better decision. This is illustrated by the Love/Hate polarity.
Love--------Like--------[Don't Care]--------Dislike--------Hate
If I love something, I will move toward it. I will protect it and help it to flourish. If I hate it, I will move away from it. I will sabotage it or seek to eradicate it. These are the actions prescribed once I have determined the "flavor" of my Care.
Is Courage a "flavor" or "quality" of my Care? Does it describe how I feel about something?
Take brushing your teeth. Do you feel Fearful of it? Do you feel Courageous toward it? Or do you feel pretty Secure with it? If you fear it, then you can use your courage to push through your fear. You can also flee or call for back up. These are all strategies you can employ, once you have determined that the "flavor" of your Care is Fearful.
The Courage/Fear polarity you propose reeks of a Martial Arts mindset. And I love that smell. But it is a limited perspective - designed for fighting situations where your life is on the line. It is a description of the Fight or Flight response. Either succumb to your fear and haul ass outta there (or even curl up into a ball and start crying), or stand your ground and fight. You must either allow your Fear to drive, or you must take the wheel and teach this prick a lesson.
Courage---------[]----------Fear
Fight--------------[]----------FlightHowever, If you are Mike Tyson fighting a 3 year old, what is the quality of your Care? Do you have Fear? Do you need Courage? Or do you feel pretty secure in the notion that you could drop kick that baby into next week if you needed to?
Safe------------------------------------[Don't Care]------------------------Dangerous
Secure----------Confident----------[Don't Care]--------Uneasy--------FearfulCourage is a tactic you employ to move toward something that scares you. Once the threat is eliminated and there is no more fear, you will return to feeling secure. Or not giving a shit.
Please let me know if you see a flaw in this model.
Touché. I think you both make great points to re-evaluate my assumptions on the matter, so thank you:).
I guess on Security/Fear are of the same quality. Might courage/cowardice be a more appropriate dichotomy then?
Btw, this makes a great case for a kind of logic-meter, or "deconstructor of hypothesis" to be implemented in this software :p:D
A bit of side-note, but on that note, lately, I've been realising that there seems to be an underlying geometric Nature in everything, including things like, the structure of arguments/thinking.
In other words, a valid argument might look like a flat-triangle (or tetrahedron) ; a paradox, like a sphere (opposites reconcile); whereas an invalid argument like an instable shape (e.g, like a square where the points don't meet or something). but I digress. Or I may just be losing my mind:cool:
Regarding the use of Technology to Improve Character:
I believe that the initial steps for most to improve their character are improving Self Awareness and Self Discipline. You must be aware of your faulty programming and habits in order to catch yourself in the act of performing them. Then you must have the discipline to stop the performance.
Self Awareness can be improved by recording audio of yourself while engaged in an argument or pushing your own fears onto others. When it is over, and you can let the emotion pass and recenter yourself, you can listen to how much of an asshole you are. It can be a powerful tool.
What if you could build a device that monitors your bio-feedback indicators and when you "go into the red zone" it would turn on and record audio?
Just a thought.
You are far more powerful than they will ever tell you.
enjoypolo wrote: Might courage/cowardice be a more appropriate dichotomy then?
I think this is spot on, bro.
You are far more powerful than they will ever tell you.
