“Thinking does not solve problems it merely expresses the possibility. This vast, uniquely human capacity brings to mind a contemporary criticism of the medical system that defines a healthy person as one who has not been fully worked up. Cities are like that, never fully worked up. Outside this glorious realm of thoughts and laughs, the work of finding and defining a real, live lie and not the presumption of one is the first step in proving a truth.”Rex L. Curry
In one sense, a lie and the truth are brothers. They are born of an honest union in most cases, but now they walk the earth telling stories of their competitive exploits and views on how the world works.
Truths and Lies represent the reasonableness of adjudication systems by asking us to choose between two, three, or a hundred versions of the truth or the lie. They differ and vary in detail, but present honest interpretations. We in the audience will pick the one we like most, making our choice a matter of categorical interest over factual accuracy.
Please take comfort in this chaotic combination of inductive and deductive processes as specific to the general, and from the general to the specified, because it evolves in stages.
First, the legal concepts build up as cases are compared.
Second, these cases wrestle for a while with the inherent ambiguity of language. The most dramatic arguments are about causation such as the cause of global warming. The facts are well known. The concept of a cause becomes exclusive, while the process of reasoning continues to place specific events inside and outside of the concept.
Third, a condition or stage emerges as reasoning through these examples moves ahead until matters of kind move into matters of a mathematical degree leading to the breakdown of the concept. New discrete components form.
It is back to basics.
Change occurs in a kind of 3D matrix that defines who, where, when why, and how ideas ignite into use. When problems are “vehicular-like” accidents of use they are equal the one stop sign solution. Why? There is little proof of preemption and a lot about failure.
The assignment of natural resource consumption rates is concrete with named companies and materials in aggregate. The “unsafe at any speed” narrative is symbolic of our 20th century. As 21st c. consumption rates begin to exceed the earth’s replacement capacity, the examples of “kind” continue to have measurable quantities. Most of it is about making stuff directly attributable to the loss of life and its quality as predictable. Now, matters of kind become elements of degree. Here is an example.
Work the concept of climate change cases with laws against the presumption of entitled consumption. Take these steps to attach your personal and professional mind to this change.
- Step back, look at the roots of technology, and decide to become comfortable with getting to know the arc of this change.
- A summary is (here) from Kevin Kelly, it’s OK
- Look at how the making of things expresses human genius. The idea that we have to make or acquire stuff to find “ultimate expression” misses the point. It is about the choice of stuff to make.
- A vague look at this responsibility (here) is troubling, accurate.
- Private Workshop Project. Transect the ground between any two things, perhaps a collection of bobble-head dolls and then a set of dishes at home. Realize measures for a cult of personalities and the acquisition of gigabytes about them both. Now do it this with thousands of “things” and make choices using tools such as:
- Accept the opportunity of the 1 thru 3 (above) processes and expect change, but do not expect to know what they will mean.
- Public Workshop Project. Imagine a world before language as a whisper of thought and a fragment of an individual’s movement and imagination.
- Write down what you really need and want to know with other people and then let it happen and if necessary make it happen.
- Now imagine knowing everything of your world within the system itself as if a tree had knowledge of all trees. Do you see less stuff and more life?
- If not go back to step one.
- Make your own step seven to acquire the knowledge implied and you will become comfortable with dense idea of activism and life.
All of the above is how I imagined Kevin Kelly (first video) might make an argument for a new kind of quality of life with added restraints. His “technium” is described in his book What Technology Wants.
When defining the relevant economic and environmental conditions for social capital investment, the tendency is to view these investments in a broad social mobility dimension. This means a local education budget in NYC may not capture its investment in five amazing geniuses as they might all end up in Los Angeles. The technology available now suggests NYC can still have access, still benefit.
Investment in people is a recognized flaw in the Republic, policymakers attempt to balance knowledge capital through immigration law. These days are ending and this overall approach typically disregards the experience of individuals in obtaining viable social capabilities. The pressures of resistance to this kind of oppression are vague, yet powerful.
The well-known midrange of capability as captured in Maslow’s hierarchy ignores two elements – interpersonal social capacity and harmony. Regardless of the physical design, from cave to Agora, the public responsibility of governance is to assure individuals the widest possible set of choices. (John Locke)
The lack of balance in human capital investment policies would be immediately apparent by measuring the number of individuals able to choose among a variety of social dimensions vs. the number who have a limited number and further parsed by country of origin, race, gender, and sexual orientation. The amount of money at the core of the issue is less evident by the lack of choices made complicated as the evidence of discrimination becomes more apparent.