Difference between revisions of "Holotopia: Convenience paradox"

From Knowledge Federation
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
Line 23: Line 23:
 
<blockquote>What is really worth aiming for?</blockquote>  
 
<blockquote>What is really worth aiming for?</blockquote>  
  
<p>It is at that point that we begin to seek the information that illuminates such basic questions. </p>  
+
<p>It is at that point that we begin to seek the information that illuminates basic questions. </p>  
  
<p>We have introduced the <em>holoscope</em> as an academically founded method to create and use such information. </p>  
+
<p>We have introduced the <em>holoscope</em> as an academically founded method for creating and using that information. </p>  
  
<p>When illuminated by the <em>holoscope</em>, our contemporary condition emerges in a completely new light—and a wealth of ways to improve it come to the foreground.</p>  
+
<p>When illuminated by the <em>holoscope</em>, our contemporary condition is seen in a completely new light—and a wealth of ways to improve it come to the foreground.</p>  
  
 
<p>We here illustrate that by a few examples.</p>  
 
<p>We here illustrate that by a few examples.</p>  
  
 
</div> </div>
 
</div> </div>
 
<!-- ;)
 
  
  
Line 45: Line 43:
 
<blockquote>Why do we have such faith in our senses?</blockquote>  
 
<blockquote>Why do we have such faith in our senses?</blockquote>  
  
<blockquote>Why do we have such faith in the culture we created while the pursuit of <em>convenience</em> was our goal?</blockquote>  
+
<p>Why do we trust the civilization that made <em>convenience</em> its goal?</p>
  
<p>[[wholeness|<em>Wholeness</em>]] is obviously precarious: We may have all the wealth of the world—and yet a single nutrient that is missing in your diet will make it all in vain. Our senses have evolved to guide us to right choices <em>in nature</em>. Our civilized condition has been only an instant in the course of our evolution, to which our senses had no chance to adapt.</p>  
+
<p>[[wholeness|<em>Wholeness</em>]] is <em>obviously</em> superior; and yet so precarious: We may have everything else in abundance—and a single nutrient missing in your diet will make it all futile. </p>  
  
<p>It is impossible to step into the shoes of another and feel how he feels; especially if this latter lived many centuries ago. What ground do we have to claim that the civilized lifestyle, as it has develop, makes us <em>more</em> happy than what our distant ancestors living in nature were?</p>  
+
<blockquote>Has civilization made us happier?</blockquote>  
  
<p>One might imagine an experiment, where a large group of humans from a single genotype and living on the same geographical terrain is divided into two groups. For a number of years the scientists let them live in two different lifestyle, so that one part of the population lives in the civilized way, and the other in the way this population lived before the civilization reached them. Then the scientists studied the differences. But such an experiment is, of course, practically impossible.</p>  
+
<p>The truth of this matter is that we simply don't know! It is impossible to "step into someone's shoes" and feel how he feels; especially if that someone lived centuries ago, and didn't even have shoes.</p>  
  
<p>Such an 'experiment' <em>did</em>, however, happen—in real life! Early in the 20th century a number of world populations were living on the borderline of civilization, so that part of the population lived in the old way, while another part got civilized. Weston Price undertook a ten-year journey, visiting those populations, and painstakingly recording the data. The results of this research were published in a book titled "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration".  Its message was that civilized nutrition is deficient; that it tends to cause physical degeneration. Consistently, Price reported, the people living in the pre-civilized way were generally doing better, as individuals and also socially.</p>
+
<p>So imagine an experiment, where a sufficiently large human population is divided into two groups. One group continues to live the civilized way, and the other in the way this population lived before it got civilized. What sort of differences would develop?</p>  
  
<p>Werner Kollath extended this line of work to laboratory experiments and statistical analysis of trends. He diagnosed that while the modern healthcare developed as a way to combat infectious diseases (where distinct "causes" and "cures" may be identified), typical contemporary health problems are lifestyle-induced. "Typical contemporary diseases", Kollath wrote, "are in the domain of the non-specific". He found that this new kind of problem requires a completely new <em>approach</em> to healthcare. He also realized that this problem had everything to do with the influence and the power of the large industries. Hence he conceived a new academic discipline, which he called "political hygiene". </p>
+
<p>Such an experiment is, of course, practically impossible. And yet it <em>did</em> occur—not in a laboratory, but in reality. In early 20th century a number of world populations were living on the borderline of civilization, and experiencing the described division. Weston Price traveled around the globe visiting those populations, and recording the data. The results were published in a book titled "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration". Its message was that civilized nutrition was a step away from <em>corporeal</em> wholeness.</p>
  
<p>The rest of the story we told [https://holoscope.info/2010/09/17/ode-to-self-organization-part-two-2/#Vignette_4 in a blog post].</p>  
+
</div> </div>  
  
<p>In 2005 we contributed to EAHMH a presentation "Healthcare as a Power Structure". Historiography, these <em>vignettes</em> or case histories. But we also offered a <em>circle</em>... and a <em>methodological</em> contribution...</p>
+
<!-- ;)
 
 
</div> </div>
 
  
  

Revision as of 07:30, 10 September 2020

H O L O T O P I A:    F I V E    I N S I G H T S



The Renaissance liberated our ancestors from preoccupation with the afterlife, and empowered them to seek happiness here and now. The lifestyle changed, and the culture blossomed. What will the next "great cultural revival" be like?


From scraps of 19th century science, our ancestors concocted a narrow frame—a "rigid and narrow" way to look at the world, which made us misunderstand and damage culture. Convenience—which identifies happiness with acquiring and experiencing what feels attractive—is a case in point.

When we look at the world through convenience, we shun knowledge and wisdom as irrelevant, because we already know what we want. The "pursuit of happiness" then becomes a practical matter—of acquiring it.

The key insight, which we are calling convenience paradox, is that convenience is a deceptive and paradoxical value.

That with striking consistency, the more convenient direction tends to lead to a less convenient condition.

When the convenience paradox is understood, we readily see that we in fact have no clue about the life's important question: What is really good for us?

What is really worth aiming for?

It is at that point that we begin to seek the information that illuminates basic questions.

We have introduced the holoscope as an academically founded method for creating and using that information.

When illuminated by the holoscope, our contemporary condition is seen in a completely new light—and a wealth of ways to improve it come to the foreground.

We here illustrate that by a few examples.



Political hygiene

Why do we have such faith in our senses?

Why do we trust the civilization that made convenience its goal?

Wholeness is obviously superior; and yet so precarious: We may have everything else in abundance—and a single nutrient missing in your diet will make it all futile.

Has civilization made us happier?

The truth of this matter is that we simply don't know! It is impossible to "step into someone's shoes" and feel how he feels; especially if that someone lived centuries ago, and didn't even have shoes.

So imagine an experiment, where a sufficiently large human population is divided into two groups. One group continues to live the civilized way, and the other in the way this population lived before it got civilized. What sort of differences would develop?

Such an experiment is, of course, practically impossible. And yet it did occur—not in a laboratory, but in reality. In early 20th century a number of world populations were living on the borderline of civilization, and experiencing the described division. Weston Price traveled around the globe visiting those populations, and recording the data. The results were published in a book titled "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration". Its message was that civilized nutrition was a step away from corporeal wholeness.