Sorry to distract you with this [removable] post. But watch the smear campaign against me in response to the PP paper by Monsanto and incompetent Ketchum copywriter:It did not hit them that I AM a cancer survivor, and changed “despise those who boast” to despise cancer survivors”. Also look at the fake student evaluations…
https://www.facebook.com/sciencebabe?fref=ts
Here is the offensive propaganda they removed it. As a cancer survivor all I can see this is…. bothersome.
via: Facebook
NO WORSHIP WITHOUT SACRIFICE (Skin in the Game)
This is a picture of a church altar in Maaloula (St Sergius/Mar Sarkis) I saw a few decades ago, with a striking feature: it has a drain for blood. This altar came from a reconverted pagan temple used by early Christians. Pre Nicea (4th C) Christians recycled altars. Altar in Arabic/Aramaic is still Mazba7 from “DB7=ritual slaying by cutting the guttural vein”. And Korban is still used for sacrament (the Semitic word for sacrifice).Well, in the Mediterranean pagan world, no worship without sacrifice. The gods did not accept cheap talk. This also applied to the Temple of Jerusalem.
Somehow Christianity removed the idea of such sacrifice under the notion that the Christ sacrificed himself for others; but there is still a simulacrum with wine representing blood, at the close of the ceremony flushed in the piscina (the drain).
So in a Judeo-Christian place of worship, the focal point, where the priest stands, symbolizes Skin in the Game. The notion of belief without tangible proof is not existent in history.
Hebrews 9:22 ” And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.” (et omnia paene in sanguine mundantur secundum legem et sine sanguinis fusione non fit remissio)
(Credit Elisabeth Thoburn)
A DISCUSSION ON “OPTIMIZATION”
A lot of the discussions we’ve had here can be framed with the difference between “satisficing” (an old Northumbrian word meaning “good enough”) and “optimizing” (meaning always try to do better). Clearly, as with everything we think both modern and relevant, this was present in the classics in the various discussions of the difference between moderation and greed, particularly in virtue ethics. The great polymath Herbert Simon posited that systems cannot really optimize; I have held that optimization leads to nonlinear increase in hidden risks (the fragility arguments) which invariably blows up the apparatus. Simon was hated by economists (he got their “Nobel”) because all their methods consist in optimizing (the easy mathematical route).
In human relationships we can’t optimize without becoming greedy selfish unethical crooks. And in commerce we prefer relations to transactions, ready to support the local butcher because we feel we are part of a community and we are not alone –we are paid back with a smile and someone who says hello in the street. Indeed the central flaw in optimization is thinking that “everything else” ceases to exist and makes people think the individual, not the collective, is the true unit –when such thinking blows up the system (or fake local rationality as opposed to more organic, collective, survival of the system broader type of “rationality”).
—
But the true discussion is the Procrustean Bed standpoint: from an existential reason, we humans are punished when we try to optimize, as if we suddenly ceased to be humans.
—
Friends, comments are welcome (provided they conform to the rules, i.e., add to the discussion).
via: Facebook
Friends, let us discuss this point by Rory Sutherland:
“If rationality were valuable in evolutionary terms, accountants would be really sexy.”
1) Is it that professions that are attractive to others and provide social rank satisfy a certain selection criterion, with hidden benefits to society that we can detect? I think so: courage is extremely attractive and heroes are worshipped for a reason, as they take risks for the collective. But is it universal?
2) The accountant definition of rationality is too narrow and not altruistic enough to qualify as useful for the collective. They are scribes, not high priests.
3) We can extend the discussion to other professions: mathematicians (I am told) aren’t interesting to others (except to math students); same with economists. If these professions don’t seem “sexy” is it because they aren’t that “fit”?
via: Facebook
UNINTENDED BONUSES, Looking for suggestions:
Let us list what comes to mind as an auxiliary function, such the “spandrels of San Marco,” where the necessary space between arches in the Venetian cathedral of San Marco has led to the placement of significant art.
+ A dishwasher allows you to hide dirty dishes. A swimming pool allows adults to be shirtless and feel the summer breeze without looking ridiculous. (Rory Sutherland).
+ Formal dress codes allow overweight men to hide their shape.
+ Dietary laws have the side effect of keeping minorities tight together –and preventing the majority from feeling threatened. In Ottoman Mediterranean cities, interdicts against alcohol allowed tolerance; they prevented non-business socializing with the Christians. It allowed multi-religious cities to flourish.
via: Facebook
