" humans lie, cheat, steal, connive, and hustle each other for ego and profit, ... "
There is merit in what you are saying, Gruff ! But that wasn't the point. The point was that the capitalist ' environment,' at this point in history, is exacerbating such behaviour, actually causing and bringing out more of it, because that is what it finds expedient and also because of the ' message ' it is sending to the billions who find themselves marginalised and dispossessed, unheard by the powers that be and long muted with their inexorably miserable fate. What I am suggesting is this : If the room is clean from before, I would not litter it. Indeed, my suggestion is to do the clean up act. In the context, it means bringing ' cooperation ' and ' care ' centre stage, in place of primacy to capital in terms of value and ' power ' over the fate of humanity, from here on. Mere ' ownership ' of capital, and concern for more and more profit, is no longer an adequate qualification for the tasks ahead ! To restate : Capital is way overrated, for the future I am speaking of. We should be looking a lot more closely at what it is doing to everyone, not just how it is working for the owner of capital. On Aug 8, 6:23 am, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > Vam, I have no problem with systems, but as you point out they are > rife with inefficiency, incompetence and plain ordinary not giving a > damn. However, I seriously doubt if there is anything that can be > done about it. Inefficiency, incompetence, not giving a damn and > ordinary stupidity are part and parcel of the human matrix, the human > equation. When it comes to system, we have had countless systems over > the course of our history and many, if not most of them would have > worked well were it not for the human equation. > > That is why we have to deal with the core issues of human care, > concern and behavior before we can ever hope for a system to work > well. As long as humans lie, cheat, steal, connive, and hustle each > other for ego and profit, no system will work well. > > On Aug 6, 10:11 am, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > My choice is a very deliberate one, Gruff, just as I believe yours > > would be. > > > It's all about bringing the consequences of what you subscribe to into > > the perspective. I find the inefficiency appalling and, from here on, > > not affordable by humanity at large. That's definitely not limited to > > the US, the West, the developed, or the first world. Most of us here, > > most of the time, would not even be aware of their existence. > > > For one, I feel we are already finding competition in capital intense > > sectors just not ' competitive ' enough, on which benefits ( such as > > in quality and price ) to people rests. I believe resources per capita > > tommorrow are going to be still less to support competition in all > > sectors, across scales of enterprise. My belief is similar to one that > > says : Bad or poor quality is ( just so inefficient way of doing > > things as to be ) unaffordable. The path you are wish to persist with > > is ' bad,' in my assessment, as at this point in our history. > > > Secondly, each time economies are led through ' crisis,' they in my > > opinion lose close to 20 - 40 % of ' effective ' resources to once > > again pick up the thread. Thank god, the economic value of sentiments > > is actually getting to be recognised. Bhutan, one of the poorest > > countries in the world, had shown the way two decades back when it > > defined and measured the well - being of its people in Gross Happiness > > Index / Product. > > > Thirdly, and most importantly, all these inefficiencies and losses get > > ' compensated ' by far from the lot of economically weaker sections of > > the population. The weaker, the more adversly affected. > > > The entire orientation of the system needs changing. I however would > > like to make the most of the structure innovations and democratic > > values natural to capitalist system. But, with socialist goals > > covering the basic food, health and security needs of the people. > > > There is nothing capitalist or socialist about what I belive in. Just > > Pro - People, Pro - Poor. The capitalist system, in itself, as it is > > now, is incapable of orienting itself towards those goals ! > > On Aug 6, 8:37 pm, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Vam, in this you and I are on opposite poles. I believe we are > > > everything and can turn to no other place but ourselves for the root > > > causes of our misbehavior. I agree my thoughts are presumptuous but I > > > wouldn't call yours adolescent. Please offer me the same grace. I do > > > however think that your path, while eventually leading to the same > > > place as mine, is a very roundabout path to get there. And I do > > > agree with systems such as you postulate, but only for short term > > > temporary patches and fixes until we can get to the root causes which > > > have been planted for a long time and go deep so it's going to take > > > some doing to get down to them in many cases, such as is at hand. > > > > On Aug 5, 7:16 am, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Gruff, you ( and I ) are nothing, nobodies, to really be " address > > > > ( ing ) the root causes of humankind's misbehavior." You only have to > > > > attempt with it with one person, anybody, you know. So, I find the > > > > very thought presumptuous, and adolescent like. > > > > > However, we all can and should try, in our own ways, provided we've > > > > succeeded with ourself. I do it not because I have any hopes of > > > > reclaiming some, but because that is how responsible I feel, for > > > > myself. In short, because I cannot help myself from trying to do so > > > > when I am faced with an occassion. Period. I rather consider the > > > > entire characterstic leading to " humankind's misbehavior," the > > > > nature of the cause, like the crookedness in a dog's tail ! > > > > > In the meanwhile, I'd like to go for systems that would work. It would > > > > be of course be more holistic, if we could work on the cause side too. > > > > > On Aug 5, 6:55 pm, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Vam, your exposition is interesting but if I'm reading you correctly, > > > > > you seem to be saying that addressing the effects via a systemic > > > > > methodology is more effective than attempting to address the root > > > > > causes. Is this correct? If so I have to agree. That is akin to > > > > > treating the symptoms of a disease rather than it's core cause. It > > > > > will be a temporary fix at best. > > > > > > That said, however, it seems that your method is the one most often > > > > > chosen by our leaders, movers and shakers to correct the deeper > > > > > problems in our society. But I disagree with the entire concept. > > > > > Treating symptoms is MASH battlefield medicine and does nothing to > > > > > alleviate or cure the root cause. Using your example regarding > > > > > productivity and on-time attendance, if you set up a near perfect > > > > > system to catch the tardy help you might eliminate the tardiness in > > > > > the immediacy of the situation, but it changes nothing in that > > > > > individual who is prone to being late. It does not change their > > > > > attitude, value system, life view, motivation, effects of environment, > > > > > etc. It merely makes them a scofflaw who has been forced to adapt to > > > > > avoid being caught. Any real change would have to have a significant > > > > > effect on that person's inner self to create a higher sense of > > > > > responsibility, self-worth and moral behavior. > > > > > > Seeking and treating the root causes may take longer but it's > > > > > permanent and has a much greater and more positive effect on the > > > > > individual and society as a whole. We cannot continue applying > > > > > patchwork temporary fixes to deeper problems. I find it very > > > > > difficult to accept that we can't address the root causes of > > > > > humankind's misbehavior which is see as the only means of achieving > > > > > the goals we seek. > > > > > > On Aug 3, 10:43 am, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > You know, Gruff, I'll share a case we faced with a huge MNC. It was > > > > > > about productivity which, in short, was about wastage ( pilferage, > > > > > > stealing ) of resources, including time. One specific issue was on - > > > > > > time attendance. Since it involves human beings, everything in our > > > > > > backgound ( within and without ) causally converges on this issue > > > > > > ... > > > > > > our attitude, value system and life view, motivation, effects of > > > > > > environment, our home, inconsistencies within the organisation, our > > > > > > commute and the means, etc. > > > > > > > Clearly, addressing the causes would have been limited and taken a > > > > > > long time for effect. The solution : Define the value and > > > > > > communicate > > > > > > it clearly, including the effects of breach. The repercussions > > > > > > ranged > > > > > > from reward to punishment, promotion to dismissal. All that was > > > > > > required was installation of a transparent and fail - safe system at > > > > > > the gate for satisfactory result. > > > > > > > The result was not perfect, even though the system was close to > > > > > > perfect in transparency and accuracy terms. The man or his nature, > > > > > > his > > > > > > philosophy and his fears, were not material, of zilch relevance, so > > > > > > long as one passed through the gate at 9 AM or before. If he didn't, > > > > > > the system let him ( and others ) know. > > > > > > > This is what I am speaking of. If we cannot address the cause(s), we > > > > > > can have a transparent and thorough monitoring system to address the > > > > > > effect(s). > > > > > > > On Aug 3, 10:03 pm, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Chris actually got this round going back on Aug 2, 1:11 pm with > > > > > > > his > > > > > > > series of one-liners but I'd like to see the both of you in this > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > well. > > > > > > > > Nice summary Francis. Yes, I can see we are both arguing along > > > > > > > very > > > > > > > similar lines and aiming at the same goal. But I'd like to see > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > and Chris get into the fray as well. The more voices the more > > > > > > > stable > > > > > > > and productive the discussion would be. After all, we each know > > > > > > > each > > > > > > > other well enough to assess each others words fairly well. > > > > > > > > /e > > > > > > > > On Aug 3, 9:23 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Now this is what I call a discussion, Vam and gruff! (BB47 and > > > > > > > > deripsni could both learn from you :-)) > > > > > > > > > Maybe it's because the three of us have been around here for a > > > > > > > > while > > > > > > > > that I can really appreciate what both of you are saying, > > > > > > > > because I > > > > > > > > know something about the way the two of you think about a lot of > > > > > > > > things. Actually, I see you both arguing along similar lines; > > > > > > > > Vam has > > > > > > > > a professional background in systems analysis and quality > > > > > > > > management > > > > > > > > and has a lot of experience in the practical work of building, > > > > > > > > using > > > > > > > > and changing systems, while keeping his gaze frimly fixed on > > > > > > > > the goals > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
