Human organization
How can individual determinism impact human organization?
In every way imaginable.
We are and have always been totally determined individually, and to have some sort of easy/immediate organization, order or control over our societies, we have considered determinism non-existent.
We cannot wish this fact of being individually determined, out of existence.
This inescapable, total individual determinism was never validated by any authority that naturally had to have laws or rules to program/format/"educate" society in a certain way under the threat of punishment and praise. For the punishment or the praise to be justified, personal or group accountability is needed.
Personal accountability is the cornerstone of all human (and divine...) organization.
In a chain of command, the individuals determined to execute a command are never held accountable, since the only accountables are the individuals issuing the command.
But since in life the supposed "designer" or chance could not be held accountable as they should have been, then human organization had no alternative; it had to hold the determined individual responsible for being determined, using the only option possible; displacement of accountability.
By denying determinism, we have elaborated sophisticated patterns of organization, but always hinging on the easy but false assumption that we are able to choose the thing we were not determined to choose.
All and every human organization and all and every "way of life" being built on this false assumption has been the only constant throughout human existence.
I understand that even if we were aware of determinism, we could never have admitted or acted on this awareness in the past when we were still confronting situations of life and death.
At those primitive times we needed an immediate social organization that enhansed survival first, and later in larger collectives, we needed an organization enhansing survival by behavioral coherence: Legality and morality, always accompanied by the false assumption of accountability and consequent punishment or praise.
Denying determinism permits unconditional, total accountability not only in the eyes of any authority or administration, but also in the eyes of the presented Creator who was "revealed" in a time when personal or group accountability was a must for survival...
Accountability permits control over the individual or a group by reprehension or praise.
Later came larger and larger organizations, but always like a variation on the main theme, always considered everybody responsible/having merit, for the way everybody was determined to be.
Then came monotheisms and took the theme to its paroxism and considered everybody as "chosen" or not, or being "saved" or not (whatever purpose for creation their specific monotheism teaches), for characteristics we all are determined or condemned to have or lack.
Admitting this transmitted but false "non - determinism" is easy, since all we have to do is continue on it, and conform to the way things were done before, without rippling our personal or collective ponds.
But what's the relevance of being easy, if it is false?
On the contrary, what must be done should be done, regardless of the difficulties; a human organization based upon the inescapable individual determinism of the human condition.
If what must be done proves to be extremely difficult which it surely will, then it definitely becomes worth doing, because nobody else will; humanity will be condemned to stay this course of false organization if we, the people who comprehend the situation, do nothing.
My daughter has a saying on her wall that reads: "Nothing worth having comes easy". Maybe in this case it should read: "Nothing worth doing will be easy".
And what if the situation now is such that our survival depends on admitting this determinism?
Can our individually determined state of being all different be rendered not only inoffensive, but useful?
Can we invent or come up with a model of an environment in which our interactions would automatically and without any effort be in coherence with the fact that we are condemned to be the people we are?
Can the desire for cooperation of "different" people for their "sameness", the consensus, be the environment in which a new human organization may be gradually elaborated?
What if our "free will" is never individual but collective?
What if the term "free will" concerns our species and means that only together we can be free of determinism?
What if we will attain that collective free will only after admitting our individual determinism and acquiring the consciousness and the will to do something about it?
Man, as a collective, can go as far as he decides, be the being he wants to be, and have the existence he wants to have, by simply modifying his environment, and by changing the single element nurture, influence his own evolution and make his existence what he wants it to be.
That's how far man can go together.
Do you still think the notorious "free will" concerns the totally determined individual?
So do we want to consider dealing with determinism as important, useful, and on the long run even vital, or totally irrelevant?
There is something deeply unsettling in holding each and every human being responsible for things he can never decide nor control, be they considered as positive or negative in the actual period of human existence. There also is a powerful destructive aspect in holding every human responsible for what or who he is, in the enduring context of an already fragmented humanity.
As mentioned earlier, it's perfectly understandable that humanity until this age of communication could not give in to the fact of being individually determined even if they felt it. They were too busy confronting unending existential difficulties be they caused by the hostile nature around or other humans. They were also not advanced enough scientifically to have the option of fighting scarcity itself, something that we do now.
This awareness of being determined is something you cannot follow all alone. It will be suicide if you consider someone not accountable for being who he is, and he reciprocates by considering you accountable for being who you are. These two outlooks to human accountability are from two different perspectives. They can never interact or be harmonized.
The awareness of determinism can be used to advance and save humanity, but only if it becomes the dominant awareness of the humans interacting, never before.
If man or a community acts on the awareness of determinism without making sure that the "other" is acting on the same awareness, the consequences will certainly be most dire.
This condemnation to be what we are or do what we do concerns everything; virtues and vices, greed and generosity, egoism and altruism, qualities to over-achieve and qualities to under-achieve, ... the list includes every characteristic and quality known to man and its admitted opposite.
Bottom line:
No individual merit, no individual blame.
No individual pride, no individual shame.
The ever changing matrix of values in which all the generations of humans have lived and died has always remained hinged on holding every human being accountable for something he was condemned to be.
This age needs a responsible, rational approach to our self-organization based upon the facts of life, facts about the human capacities and potentials, and the facts about the human condition.
Humanity connot continue in this irrational self-organization based on "truths" we think we know, or on statistical "truths" constituted by generations of people who thought they knew... "Truths" admitted through generations should not be mistaken for facts...
Until now, human organization could only be based on something NEGATIVE which could not be conquered; scarcity, and something FALSE; personal accountability... No wonder instead of producing stability, it produced the exact opposite.
Today, we have the luxury to initiate a rational self-organization based on TWO POSITIVES: our human consensus, and the scientific project to eliminate scarcity.
We should organize ourselves in a manner that considers scarcity as a consequence of our imperfect cooperation.
We should be organized for perfect cooperation.
Only then can humanity contemplate the perspective to create abundance and change our way of life to something which humanity has never known; abundance and consequent openness, instead of scarcity and consequent fear, rivalry and conflict.
The current human organization based upon dealing with the consequences of scarcity and being considered responsible for things we could never have chosen, will always lead to an irrational, hence UNSTABLE human organization causing perpetual conflicts, which is no organization AT ALL.
God organizing entire creation and man organizing himself based upon the consequences of scarcity (good, bad) is organizing creation and humanity to continuously and forever lose time and effort to deal with the SYMPTOMS of a perpetual, debilitating sickness or crisis, instead of organizing creation and mankind to deal with the debilitating sickness or crisis itself, take it out, and be free to engage in whatever his abstract mind finds worthy.
In every way imaginable.
We are and have always been totally determined individually, and to have some sort of easy/immediate organization, order or control over our societies, we have considered determinism non-existent.
We cannot wish this fact of being individually determined, out of existence.
This inescapable, total individual determinism was never validated by any authority that naturally had to have laws or rules to program/format/"educate" society in a certain way under the threat of punishment and praise. For the punishment or the praise to be justified, personal or group accountability is needed.
Personal accountability is the cornerstone of all human (and divine...) organization.
In a chain of command, the individuals determined to execute a command are never held accountable, since the only accountables are the individuals issuing the command.
But since in life the supposed "designer" or chance could not be held accountable as they should have been, then human organization had no alternative; it had to hold the determined individual responsible for being determined, using the only option possible; displacement of accountability.
By denying determinism, we have elaborated sophisticated patterns of organization, but always hinging on the easy but false assumption that we are able to choose the thing we were not determined to choose.
All and every human organization and all and every "way of life" being built on this false assumption has been the only constant throughout human existence.
I understand that even if we were aware of determinism, we could never have admitted or acted on this awareness in the past when we were still confronting situations of life and death.
At those primitive times we needed an immediate social organization that enhansed survival first, and later in larger collectives, we needed an organization enhansing survival by behavioral coherence: Legality and morality, always accompanied by the false assumption of accountability and consequent punishment or praise.
Denying determinism permits unconditional, total accountability not only in the eyes of any authority or administration, but also in the eyes of the presented Creator who was "revealed" in a time when personal or group accountability was a must for survival...
Accountability permits control over the individual or a group by reprehension or praise.
Later came larger and larger organizations, but always like a variation on the main theme, always considered everybody responsible/having merit, for the way everybody was determined to be.
Then came monotheisms and took the theme to its paroxism and considered everybody as "chosen" or not, or being "saved" or not (whatever purpose for creation their specific monotheism teaches), for characteristics we all are determined or condemned to have or lack.
Admitting this transmitted but false "non - determinism" is easy, since all we have to do is continue on it, and conform to the way things were done before, without rippling our personal or collective ponds.
But what's the relevance of being easy, if it is false?
On the contrary, what must be done should be done, regardless of the difficulties; a human organization based upon the inescapable individual determinism of the human condition.
If what must be done proves to be extremely difficult which it surely will, then it definitely becomes worth doing, because nobody else will; humanity will be condemned to stay this course of false organization if we, the people who comprehend the situation, do nothing.
My daughter has a saying on her wall that reads: "Nothing worth having comes easy". Maybe in this case it should read: "Nothing worth doing will be easy".
And what if the situation now is such that our survival depends on admitting this determinism?
Can our individually determined state of being all different be rendered not only inoffensive, but useful?
Can we invent or come up with a model of an environment in which our interactions would automatically and without any effort be in coherence with the fact that we are condemned to be the people we are?
Can the desire for cooperation of "different" people for their "sameness", the consensus, be the environment in which a new human organization may be gradually elaborated?
What if our "free will" is never individual but collective?
What if the term "free will" concerns our species and means that only together we can be free of determinism?
What if we will attain that collective free will only after admitting our individual determinism and acquiring the consciousness and the will to do something about it?
Man, as a collective, can go as far as he decides, be the being he wants to be, and have the existence he wants to have, by simply modifying his environment, and by changing the single element nurture, influence his own evolution and make his existence what he wants it to be.
That's how far man can go together.
Do you still think the notorious "free will" concerns the totally determined individual?
So do we want to consider dealing with determinism as important, useful, and on the long run even vital, or totally irrelevant?
There is something deeply unsettling in holding each and every human being responsible for things he can never decide nor control, be they considered as positive or negative in the actual period of human existence. There also is a powerful destructive aspect in holding every human responsible for what or who he is, in the enduring context of an already fragmented humanity.
As mentioned earlier, it's perfectly understandable that humanity until this age of communication could not give in to the fact of being individually determined even if they felt it. They were too busy confronting unending existential difficulties be they caused by the hostile nature around or other humans. They were also not advanced enough scientifically to have the option of fighting scarcity itself, something that we do now.
This awareness of being determined is something you cannot follow all alone. It will be suicide if you consider someone not accountable for being who he is, and he reciprocates by considering you accountable for being who you are. These two outlooks to human accountability are from two different perspectives. They can never interact or be harmonized.
The awareness of determinism can be used to advance and save humanity, but only if it becomes the dominant awareness of the humans interacting, never before.
If man or a community acts on the awareness of determinism without making sure that the "other" is acting on the same awareness, the consequences will certainly be most dire.
This condemnation to be what we are or do what we do concerns everything; virtues and vices, greed and generosity, egoism and altruism, qualities to over-achieve and qualities to under-achieve, ... the list includes every characteristic and quality known to man and its admitted opposite.
Bottom line:
No individual merit, no individual blame.
No individual pride, no individual shame.
The ever changing matrix of values in which all the generations of humans have lived and died has always remained hinged on holding every human being accountable for something he was condemned to be.
This age needs a responsible, rational approach to our self-organization based upon the facts of life, facts about the human capacities and potentials, and the facts about the human condition.
Humanity connot continue in this irrational self-organization based on "truths" we think we know, or on statistical "truths" constituted by generations of people who thought they knew... "Truths" admitted through generations should not be mistaken for facts...
Until now, human organization could only be based on something NEGATIVE which could not be conquered; scarcity, and something FALSE; personal accountability... No wonder instead of producing stability, it produced the exact opposite.
Today, we have the luxury to initiate a rational self-organization based on TWO POSITIVES: our human consensus, and the scientific project to eliminate scarcity.
We should organize ourselves in a manner that considers scarcity as a consequence of our imperfect cooperation.
We should be organized for perfect cooperation.
Only then can humanity contemplate the perspective to create abundance and change our way of life to something which humanity has never known; abundance and consequent openness, instead of scarcity and consequent fear, rivalry and conflict.
The current human organization based upon dealing with the consequences of scarcity and being considered responsible for things we could never have chosen, will always lead to an irrational, hence UNSTABLE human organization causing perpetual conflicts, which is no organization AT ALL.
God organizing entire creation and man organizing himself based upon the consequences of scarcity (good, bad) is organizing creation and humanity to continuously and forever lose time and effort to deal with the SYMPTOMS of a perpetual, debilitating sickness or crisis, instead of organizing creation and mankind to deal with the debilitating sickness or crisis itself, take it out, and be free to engage in whatever his abstract mind finds worthy.