105. A Wall Street Twist

There is a justified outrage at how the financial markets first created and managed the financial crisis. The Occupy Wall Street movement in Manhattan and around the globe are just the agitated spearhead of these emotions.

But the location for their protests should perhaps have been placed somewhere else – in front of The White House in Washington and outside parliament buildings worldwide.

It is not greeds fault that it takes what is being served. It is, rather, the legislators inability to set boundaries for events that are not allowed to take place.

International capitalism and the financial markets can not be expected to be acting morally. It is simply naive to see it this way. They do not exist as a physical person - even though they are often represented by a number of well-dressed men in suits and ties - but rather the result of a variety of individuals’ dreams of a better future.

And this future is always spelled “economy”. We all want food on the table, be adequately paid, have health insurances, benefits, and preferably a secured old age. There are really no limits how much better we would like it to bee! It is here everything begins.

The financial mentality on Wall Street is not much more than the result of the world’s collective desires to have a little bit more, a little bit better. They invest our dreams, and then the economic flows always reaches the lowest levels – just like water!

Which of course makes the most skilled among them able to skim off a lot of cream on all of these streams.

Production are always located where it is less expensive as the price is the main competitive element. Our investments and pensions are placed where they are expected to provide the most – all a fairly simple equation.

Wall Street is simply the brain of the financial system, and the heart of its circulating flows.

The great liberal fallacy is to expect that the capital markets in themselves are to be moral and self-regulating. But they do not exist on these grounds. They exist only as an abstract movement and as a result of all our dreams of a better future. And the framework for all these movements must be regulated by legislation.

103. Whose story are we living?

Whose story are you living?

Good storytelling have always bound us together, led us to perceive things alike, thus giving a sense of togetherness sharing and reality. Our stories and by extension our language contains thus our respective worlds.

Through language one can capture the magic of storytelling and take possession of someones reality – this is to influence the lives of others.

Those who do not have anything to say can never occur in someone else’s thinking or dreams.

In the case of successful storytelling, it is not just chatting about whatever. Just talking will not create great stories. Wont have any followers or listeners.

A political party, a creed or a brand that loses touch with its original idea is then doomed – the ideas are a movement’s ultimate ground.

But it is not possible just to  hold on to the old stories as they must constantly be retold in a new way.

In the narrative, the main challenges is to be consistent (follow a clear line), to be directed (to know what and who it is aimed at), emotional (what is said must touch), pragmatic (the ability to ongoing adjust the story), multi-layered (be able to be given to a great number) and have credibility (must be related and consequently told).

In the United States the Tea Party movement (what has nowadays become synonymous with the republicans) is desperately spreading its reinvented version of the American dream. This while the Italians now brutally have awakened from its peculiar “schlaraffenland” when the area of “berlusconiism” now hopefully is over. The lies are just so much more appealing.

Apple founder Steve Jobs was a master of linking just a brand with an existential feeling through a consistent narrative – but the trick can hardly be repeated. Good rhetoric is driven by a very special kind of logic which is very difficult to pin down.

Non, Je ne regret rien!

Tomorrow also calls for new storytellers who can inoculate new dreams, self-image and confidence to an increasingly deaf and critical audience that no longer blindly will absorb other people’s grandiose visions. But that is surely a truth with some modification.

It is said that we today want to create our own dreams, to realize our own lives, define ourselves and get control over our own destinies – because we are condemned to freedom. The only question is whose story we are living then?

58. Post-partisan-ship-ness

Pragmatic & Pragmatist

Much is different in comparison to 1997 or 1984. Today most of us know that we are living in a pluralistic and changing world in which it becomes increasingly difficult to find some really great and compelling truths. And many of us see life’s ongoing interaction and the transience of all things without even having to be dedicated Buddhists.

Most of the modern sciences are now full aware of that their study indeed are contextual. In economics, sociology, psychology or communication (yes, even within some of the natural sciences) the relational context is at the very heart of their knowledge. The world has simply become more and more relative in its essence.

In the U.S. a pronounced pragmatist* has been taken to the highest office and logically being accused from both left and right to have no defined or outspoken ideology.

There has been some talk in American media about the new American and political trend (the post-partisanship) who seek answers and collaborations beyond old ideological polarizations. This is a trend that is also growing stronger, especially with the generation that grew up with the Internet. The old and rigid fundamentalism with only one answer to all possible questions has simply no future.

That is true, but not quite as simple.

On the contrary, if we take a real look at the world today we will find that the majority of us are against the democratic and pluralistic description of the world. Many are still holding on to a vast ocean of great truths about the world and are able in their self-righteousness to judge those who do not share their particular views.

Fundamentalism, ideological conservatism and anti-democratic tendencies are still at the heart of Europe, the US and around the world. These fixed beliefs may not always be expressed in the same way but are based fundamentally alike from the same structural approach. Common to them all is that they all uncritically believes themselves to be right – while everyone else then must necessarily be wrong.

But if we should be able to build a common future that is something to build upon, we can no longer indulge in what divides us, to paraphrase Barack Obama.

* “Pragmatist” is someone who assumes a pragmatic world view – and should not be confused with just being “pragmatic”.

36. Things Held Too Tightly

Stoning...

The idea of democracy was born in Athens in the 460s B.C. It then had approximately half a century in which to develop. Thereafter the democratic experiment was set aside for a few thousand years. So although the idea is old, it is still a fairly young and inexperienced political movement.

The western world has had about 2500 years to let its ideas sink in and shape our language, laws and cultural superstructure. And so, our culture has had certain advantages with regard being able to understand and apply these principles.

This is something “we” must consider when “we” in “our” zeal for dominion are trying to export the democratic system to other regions of the world.

I think  we are unfortunately still relatively naïve when it comes to understanding the complexity of foreign nation’s cultural specificity – which of course is a trivial understatement.

Sometimes certain mental bolts are simply held too tight. Something that could have dire consequences in “our” attempts to democratize e.g. Iraq. Afghanistan? And Iran! And a difficulty that also comes into play in our growing relationships with “The New China”!

An anonymous Greek author wrote about 400 BC, that ‘Europeans’ as opposed to ‘Asians’ where more independent (autonomoi) because they had not in the same way been ruled by despots. The term “Asians” were used at the time for people from southeast of Greece and Athens.

We are now talking about words that were spoken over 2000 years ago. And still (see graph) one can not but state the fact that the same observation applies today. Asia is still dominated, far more than the western hemisphere, of violence, oppression and lack of personal autonomy.

Democracy Index as published in January, 2007. The palest blue countries get a score above 9.5 out of 10 (with Sweden being the most democratic country at 9.88), while the black countries score below 2.

Execution of homosexuals in Iran

Why is that? Some claim that Christianity and especially the Reformation and its more progressive approach to family formation of capital were factors contributing in creating stability and development in our part of the world (e.g. Max Weber).

Another view is that it was the original humanist idea of enlightenment that arose in Greece together with the democracy, which later had its revival with the Renaissance and the new Enlightenment, that made it possible to establish the idea of personal freedom in the West.

Whatever it was – one can not but conclude that it always requires a huge breeding ground to get something new to grow well.

34. Barack Obama & Pragmatism

Barack Obama has often been praised for being a skillful and pragmatic rhetorician – something that perhaps is a prerequisite if you’re going to be a successful politician.

But what also has been pointed out is that he also is an ideological pragmatist – a so-called “Pragmatist” with a capital P – which is something else than just being pragmatic.

His opponents have been busy searching for any possible link with this ideological pragmatism – which they believe is an anti-Christian and an Un-American philosophy without principles or a stable framework.

But without giving these conspirators right in the interpretation of this idea, we actually don´t have to dig deep to get it confirmed. One need only go to, for example to his own writings, in the book “The Audacity of Hope”. Here the links to this more ideological kind of pragmatism becomes explicit.

But, what makes this kind of pragmatism so scaring? Well, to begin with, if we are to interpret one of its founders, William James, pragmatism can be understood as the art of not getting locked in certain ideas, concepts or discourses.

And this ability of conceptual freedom has Barack Obama not only developed – but also recognized the full importance of. He exhibits an extreme skill in bringing words into the world without giving rise to unnecessary polarization. At the same time he always with firmness shows where both he himself and the U.S. stands. But he has also shown that he is able and prepared to see and understand “the other”, which naturally follows from this pragmatic and humanistic approach. This represents a true pragmatic perspective! 

Furthermore, he demonstrates that he respects the need of a powerful society with great legislative strength. And he understands the significance of religion and traditions – but without being an absolute advocate for any specific direction. This is both his strength and his weakness.

Barack Obama knows that we live in a changing world in which we all must focus on finding the “best” ways forward. The direction and the movement is more important than the creation of an idealistic and absolute world view.

This is probably not the easiest thing to grasp for common man.

(Swedish version)

21. One Thing Feeds The Other

There is a clip on youtube where Sarah Palin is blessed from witchcraft and other kind of devilry. It is not clear if she really is posessed, or if it is more of a preventive expulsion?! But it sure is a bit fishy.

The belief in hell and the devil evolved among the primitive religions of the biblical deserts around two thousand years ago. We are talking first and foremost, about Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

And it is perhaps only logical that it is primarily among their devoted practitioners where religious tradition and the believes in the power of darkness is still alive today.

In the U.S., of course, there are, among others, The Christian Right who maintain these strange and dark believes. The old ex-president George W. Bush explicitly said he believed in this devil.

And the irony is the fact that even within al Qaeda they believe in the same devil. And in retrospect it may well be said that it was probably just a damn good luck that they never discovered the closely related features.

To my knowledge it is only within these particular religions the idea of the devil exists. In the Swedish (Polish) Silver Bible we find among other things, a cute little devil kneeling (see picture to the left). And in the Great Church in Stockholm there are a lot of  carved ornamented demons on the pews. And the Gothic Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris is literally dotted with devils – everywhere. 

Ironically, these religions have probably caused more pain than any other ideological movement that the world have seen (maybe beside communism, that is to say). Perhaps it is logical, given that fact that evil has here been so strongly manifested.

A particularly frightening example of this is found in the book “Malleus Maleficarum”, “The Witch-Hammer”, which was first published in 1450 and became one of those days most widely used books alongside the Bible. It describes how women, through their weaker nature and feeble intellect was more susceptible to evil. And how to use torture in order to first get them to confess – and then how to  kill them.

The question is if not the most effective form of exorcism would be to simply revise our language – where there is no word “devil” he can´t possibly be thought of or have any existence. If only anyone could tell Sarah!

11. Women Who Know Their Place

Don´t ever forget that there are still plenty – especially men – who actually don´t believes that women can match man’s level in terms of intelligence, creativity and wit.

With  the measure “man’s level” one is usually referring to the historical fact that the most prominent among us primarily have been men. Nothing to say about that. There where times when only men were allowed to hold the batons and take part in the world.

That there also has been female scientists, musicians, writers and mathematicians does not change the overall picture. But we are now talking about the most outstanding people, and on a whole these geniuses may at most involve a few thousand people – worldwide. I mean people who, through their brilliance, are really taking part in changing the the foundations for social life.

Therefore it is probably only a thousandth of a thousandth of us that explicitly are involved in the grand scale development of our physical and cultural environments. And women’s actual share of this group of prominent people are increasing rapidly. It is all the women who now knows how to take their place.

But the intriguing part is – if I, as a man, refer to the male intelligentsia in order to heighten myself, I´m just making a sort of hefty intellectual somersault. Because I personally, can´t make sense, neither of Albert Einstein or Maria Sklodowska-Curie’s skills and ingenuity.

Alas, how hard I twist and turn myself around there will always be both men and women who will be both superior and inferior to myself in many ways. And so it is for all of us, for both men and women. Always!

And one effective method for many men to avoid dealing with all these successful women is of course simply trying to avoid them. And this method seems to have been successfully practiced particular among such men who regard women as inferior. They don´t voluntarily involve themselves in situations where they need to come even close to the class of capable and prominent women.

Men who generally disparage women tend instead to surrounded themselves with women who are themselves inferior. Their partners seems to be handpicked for the purpose. They can then rank themselves in accordance  to their prejudices. And in this way we will find both our positions and our own truths about the world – and then effectively place ourselves in accordance to our most fitting social needs.