A view from a corner of the World
Since 2015 I have been blogging (http://openthoughts.eu/) on what I see as the most pressing societal problems in the West, in an attempt ´to present an antidote to superficial and sensationalistic journalism and ideological and political correctness. Most recently in a series of essays on the decline of the West, the looming struggle with Chinese hegemony, with “the centre of gravity” shifting East with alarming speed, while a divided West is losing faith and power.
Previous topics: European cacophony in relation to refugee and migration; Border security; Human rights vs religion;, Muslims in Europe;; Crime statistics and racial profiling; Siren calls of white saviours; Disjointed and ambiguous policies towards Africa; EU indecisiveness; Eroding Western values; German beggar thy neighbour policies; Brexit and British exceptionalism; Does Trump have a point?; Media frenzy and truth decay; Truth becoming a matter of opinion; Ominous signs of seismic upheavals in the West; Tell-tale signs of Western decline; The decline of a “white” world; The flaring up identity movements eroding social cohesiveness; Social media inquisition; The closing of minds; The breakdown of the beliefs in ideas and values of the West.
Since 2015 I have been blogging (http://openthoughts.eu/) on what I see as the most pressing societal problems in the West, in an attempt ´to present an antidote to superficial and sensationalistic journalism and ideological and political correctness. Most recently in a series of essays on the decline of the West, the looming struggle with Chinese hegemony, with “the centre of gravity” shifting East with alarming speed, while a divided West is losing faith and power.
Previous topics: European cacophony in relation to refugee and migration; Border security; Human rights vs religion;, Muslims in Europe;; Crime statistics and racial profiling; Siren calls of white saviours; Disjointed and ambiguous policies towards Africa; EU indecisiveness; Eroding Western values; German beggar thy neighbour policies; Brexit and British exceptionalism; Does Trump have a point?; Media frenzy and truth decay; Truth becoming a matter of opinion; Ominous signs of seismic upheavals in the West; Tell-tale signs of Western decline; The decline of a “white” world; The flaring up identity movements eroding social cohesiveness; Social media inquisition; The closing of minds; The breakdown of the beliefs in ideas and values of the West.
Other views and interpretations
People who look at birds
In ancient Rome, it was the task of the augurs to determine the will of the gods by observing and interpreting the signs of nature, where in particular the flight and voices of certain species of birds were important for interpretation. The augurs’ interpretations were not about predicting events in the future. Rather, the task was to interpret the will of the gods in relation to the specific actions and plans of men. Standing on a mound face to the south,a flock of birds from the east or south would be seen as a positive sign, while birds from the west and north were considered a disadvantageous sign. Many forms of movement and sound could mean something, so augurs had to be well rehearsed in observation and interpretation. A raven's call from the right would be a good sign, but a raven's complaining sounds were considered a bad omen. .
In ancient Rome, it was the task of the augurs to determine the will of the gods by observing and interpreting the signs of nature, where in particular the flight and voices of certain species of birds were important for interpretation. The augurs’ interpretations were not about predicting events in the future. Rather, the task was to interpret the will of the gods in relation to the specific actions and plans of men. Standing on a mound face to the south,a flock of birds from the east or south would be seen as a positive sign, while birds from the west and north were considered a disadvantageous sign. Many forms of movement and sound could mean something, so augurs had to be well rehearsed in observation and interpretation. A raven's call from the right would be a good sign, but a raven's complaining sounds were considered a bad omen. .
People who look to "the scholars"
Today, the Roman augurs are replaced by science and experts. “Good clockworks are they: only be careful to wind them up properly! Then do they indicate the hour without mistake, and make a modest noise thereby” (F. Nietzsche).
Day in and day out they observe and determine the world scientifically for all of us. Perhaps with some preponderance to those who can measure and interpret the world using numbers. Where the augurs had to interpret the will of the gods, we now have experts who, from the oceans of data and scientific models, make it possible to intelligently predict and design the future. We no longer have to interpret a god's will. All we have to do is let the scholars determine the scientific laws for us.
However, it turns out that problems arise by leaving observation and interpretation to the experts. Firstly, the experts do not always agree, so the rest of us who look to them have to interpret and select who to believe. Selecting among divergent views, taking decisions and acting on behalf of society cannot be left to the scholars alone. "A class of experts is inevitably so removed from common interests as to become a class with private interests and private knowledge, which in social matters is not knowledge at all.” (John Dewey 1927).
Secondly, we must note time after time that experts are unable to see or predict decisive breaks in the field in which they are claimed to possess expertise. This was true of the economic expertise that could not foresee the global financial crisis of 2008. We are dealing with a non-mechanistic, complex world that in principle remains unpredictable. Expert opinions therefore remain relative and based on known relationships and projections of these.
Thirdly, experts see only a limited section of the world. They are prone to stick to an ideological mindset that colours their observations and interpretations. Ideology hidden in the scientific method, the theories and data selections.
Today, the Roman augurs are replaced by science and experts. “Good clockworks are they: only be careful to wind them up properly! Then do they indicate the hour without mistake, and make a modest noise thereby” (F. Nietzsche).
Day in and day out they observe and determine the world scientifically for all of us. Perhaps with some preponderance to those who can measure and interpret the world using numbers. Where the augurs had to interpret the will of the gods, we now have experts who, from the oceans of data and scientific models, make it possible to intelligently predict and design the future. We no longer have to interpret a god's will. All we have to do is let the scholars determine the scientific laws for us.
However, it turns out that problems arise by leaving observation and interpretation to the experts. Firstly, the experts do not always agree, so the rest of us who look to them have to interpret and select who to believe. Selecting among divergent views, taking decisions and acting on behalf of society cannot be left to the scholars alone. "A class of experts is inevitably so removed from common interests as to become a class with private interests and private knowledge, which in social matters is not knowledge at all.” (John Dewey 1927).
Secondly, we must note time after time that experts are unable to see or predict decisive breaks in the field in which they are claimed to possess expertise. This was true of the economic expertise that could not foresee the global financial crisis of 2008. We are dealing with a non-mechanistic, complex world that in principle remains unpredictable. Expert opinions therefore remain relative and based on known relationships and projections of these.
Thirdly, experts see only a limited section of the world. They are prone to stick to an ideological mindset that colours their observations and interpretations. Ideology hidden in the scientific method, the theories and data selections.
People who focus our attention
Media people, journalists of all sorts, photographers and anchor-persons with greater or lesser charisma help us observe and interpret the world. They tend to place themselves smack in middle breaking news clips from the epicentre, say of a famine, with famished children with eyes as big as teacups fitting into the picture frame around them.
In their self-image, as the fourth state power, they influence what we think, what we see as important, what we see as true. They colour our opinions by focusing our attention on specific themes and issues.
However, since they depend on our attention to have influence and to survive, they also have to give us what they believe we want. This means serving us easily digestible chunks of what is happening in a form that is assumed to be suitable to arouse our interest. Breaking, sensational and full of drama. Garnished with today's clips of a violent protests, disasters, bizarre incidents, human tragedy and rounded off with a cute animal's strange behaviour.
With hasty steps, public service media are degenerating to the level of Twitter Tweets in their selection of what they deem important to us. Even the more serious spectrum of the news media are using exactly the same methods, albeit more sophisticated, that we find in the social media. Reporting to suit a certain political view, choosing carefully selected facts presented as the whole truth, and catering to a biased opinion, partly created by themselves.
Media people, journalists of all sorts, photographers and anchor-persons with greater or lesser charisma help us observe and interpret the world. They tend to place themselves smack in middle breaking news clips from the epicentre, say of a famine, with famished children with eyes as big as teacups fitting into the picture frame around them.
In their self-image, as the fourth state power, they influence what we think, what we see as important, what we see as true. They colour our opinions by focusing our attention on specific themes and issues.
However, since they depend on our attention to have influence and to survive, they also have to give us what they believe we want. This means serving us easily digestible chunks of what is happening in a form that is assumed to be suitable to arouse our interest. Breaking, sensational and full of drama. Garnished with today's clips of a violent protests, disasters, bizarre incidents, human tragedy and rounded off with a cute animal's strange behaviour.
With hasty steps, public service media are degenerating to the level of Twitter Tweets in their selection of what they deem important to us. Even the more serious spectrum of the news media are using exactly the same methods, albeit more sophisticated, that we find in the social media. Reporting to suit a certain political view, choosing carefully selected facts presented as the whole truth, and catering to a biased opinion, partly created by themselves.
People who interpret “The Word”
They are the people who observe and interpret the world through a religion, through the word of God. In practice, this results in widely differing and often incompatible interpretations. Often rather narrow-minded observations and rigid interpretations of the world that limit aspirations and ability to think independently.
In the sense described by Bertrand Russell. "A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time towards a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create." (Bertrand Russell 1957). Unfortunately, THE WORD, and in particular its interpretation in various versions, seems to be asserted with increasing emphasis in the modern world.
They are the people who observe and interpret the world through a religion, through the word of God. In practice, this results in widely differing and often incompatible interpretations. Often rather narrow-minded observations and rigid interpretations of the world that limit aspirations and ability to think independently.
In the sense described by Bertrand Russell. "A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time towards a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create." (Bertrand Russell 1957). Unfortunately, THE WORD, and in particular its interpretation in various versions, seems to be asserted with increasing emphasis in the modern world.
People who twitter like birds
Almost like the augurs in ancient Rome, observation and interpretation today takes place through bird twitter, understood as tweets and chats, with ultra-short, exclamational texts, photos and a few seconds clips from me to the world. Everyone can act both as the “raven” and “the augur” in a chirping, flighty bunch of tweets and chats to be observed and interpreted on.
Sometimes in chaotic cacophony, sometimes in self-reinforcing vicious spirals of Twitter crowds that happen to fall over a certain theme with terrifying discharges of synchronous agitation over this or that. Emotional, fluctuating waves of opinions, creating the strangest patterns and the most bizarre interpretations. Like the eerie formations of thousands of starlings in the sky. What kind of "igniter" is causing such synchronous flare-ups? What causes the thunderous discharge of opinions?
How do these lightning flashes in turn influence and perceptions and behaviour? What do they mean for the societies we live in, for the media, for justice, for the actions of people, and for the institutions? Do such medial thunderstorms somehow represent positive contributions or do they contribute to a hasty decline of free speech, enlightenment, reason and social cohesion?
Almost like the augurs in ancient Rome, observation and interpretation today takes place through bird twitter, understood as tweets and chats, with ultra-short, exclamational texts, photos and a few seconds clips from me to the world. Everyone can act both as the “raven” and “the augur” in a chirping, flighty bunch of tweets and chats to be observed and interpreted on.
Sometimes in chaotic cacophony, sometimes in self-reinforcing vicious spirals of Twitter crowds that happen to fall over a certain theme with terrifying discharges of synchronous agitation over this or that. Emotional, fluctuating waves of opinions, creating the strangest patterns and the most bizarre interpretations. Like the eerie formations of thousands of starlings in the sky. What kind of "igniter" is causing such synchronous flare-ups? What causes the thunderous discharge of opinions?
How do these lightning flashes in turn influence and perceptions and behaviour? What do they mean for the societies we live in, for the media, for justice, for the actions of people, and for the institutions? Do such medial thunderstorms somehow represent positive contributions or do they contribute to a hasty decline of free speech, enlightenment, reason and social cohesion?
