deep thought on change

One of the major challenges in being in a paradigm shift is how you let go of the old to bring in the new, while still holding on to the ability to function with the old that hasn't caught onto the change. Many people look to take economic advantage of such situations, but trade is supposed to be a reasonably fair exchange between two parties. The whole concept of fiat money means lots of little hands involves in many many exchanges. Fast and loose is punished selectively, if at all and the concept of income redistribution by voluntary means is long gone. Common vision is everybody seeing the same thing the same way, rather than everybody noting the same event and interpreting it from a variety of directions to determine what just occurred.

Perpetuation of the system is because the only system we know is inertia. Systems collapse for all sorts of reason, but the pieces generally remain to be used in another application. But will future generations be able to transfer this knowledge base, if they lose access to moving electrons - because almost all of our significant information today is digitized rather than on paper. Being talked at seems to be the norm for info transfer today.

When gutenberg invented the press and was anybody worried that it might be the downfall of religion because people wouldn't congregate to tell stories if they became literate? uh-huh. Myths die hard that contain a kernal of truth. My guess is that past societies had some very intricate mechanisms that worked under their paradigms that were never reinvented, because they were not germane to circumstance. Religion carries on, though not with the social power that it held through a few centuries when the only universal published book was the bible.

Systems come and go - the means of determining truth requires multiple perspectives. but how important is truth in the current scheme? Personally, i hold truth in the highest regard and will interpret things in terms of how it makes sense with things i already know. Removing false information is like editing wiki - except that the individual understands the requirement for shifting the false information out of each application where it worked fine and replacing the new in, but only if the concept holds. Otherwise, you have to think again, develop a new hypothesis, test, observe, tes, observe, etc.

If it's not broke don't fix it is a good axiom for practical matters - but it will never create improvement until something's broke. Tinkering with the mechanism should be encouraged and documented, not prohibited and penalized. But to do that for real requires many small groups in cooperative competition, where the games get played hard, and the lessons are learned afterward with the flow of malt, analysis and recap from the perspective of group progress. what to measure is important, but so is how to measure and whether the conparisons are fair. Right now the only units of measure seem to be economic units.

Everybody chasing one objective by the same means pastes a monocultural blur on everything.