contd
Created | Updated Jul 18, 2002
I am in Malaysia for a great multitude of reasons. So many that I have forgotten some of them. I think in my mind I binary list things unconciously, then I assess what is the best solution. Funnily enough, I have made the mistake of assuming that the short term is the long term. I have just learnt this error.
One of the reasons, which must have some high importance was to increase the wealth of my family, but not to do it in a way that harms those around me. If I see the harm than I believe it has harmed someone as I see it. That seems rational as the population grows beyond belief and counting by one person. In order to do that, one must be fair.
I have joined a team of young entrepreneurs, under capitalised but with vision (maybe...that is to be seen), and who share one thing I merit, the wish not to harm but to build. Our first project was a personal disaster. It was my fault of course. I assumed I was right and all were wrong. I regret this but I was selfish enough to test a hypothesis. It was definitely wrong :D.
But I did learn a lot personally. There are multiple political economies. Subsets or maybe over-lapping independent sets. In this we contend with other variables like human credibility (or lack thereof). Some of these sub-subsets even overlap (I go with the independent sets but with some reservation).
There are also multiple types of people. I think the types appear to be as many as there are people on earth but one can differentiate the two in level of what my girlfriend call greediness. I am not sure. I think its like hunger, closer to desire but controlled.
It makes me think of bipolarity or something I have heard and read basically a synopsis of the thing called duality. It is simpler to think of things in the binary way. Like Bayes (another synopsis), I think that sampling is a good way to define the truth (although I worry about the sampling rate). So going back to people, I have met good people and not-so-good people. The good to me appears to be the ones that want to help us but only because of our company mission statement "Do the right thing right" [Thanks to that smart bimbo SuLin - and if she ever reads this, I still think she is a bimbo :D].
So we went off to create business growth. We wanted our guests to see the beauty of malaysia, socialise, wanted our suppliers to get wealthier. We developed a concept that all our food must be obtained from the local area, to channel money there, and we were going to make a small profit so we were to have two great gatherings. It failed on account of a bureaucrat and my own naivete. I hoped that honesty and truth would sway the person. It did not. We left with our tails between our legs while this person attempted to destroy us.
We went home, licked wounds, remember what another friend said (thanks bernard...now your thoughts and experiences may live forever), and got up from it. I am proud of the team and my place in it but the obligations increase with the acceptance of support from that team. So this begins my thinking about the "Social Contract", as conceptualised first by the Labour Party and God know who in it (I tend to think it was Helen but I must admit it could be some speech writer, anal or not "You are for us or against us!" What he hell is that :D).
New Zealand as the model economy (yes it is the abstract term ;)). The social contract that was lost is being developed and the economy grows. That was almost too easy to forget for 3 million people. Imagine for 20 million. Bounded rationality, especially when information is controlled by those in control (thank god for the net - competing information - economically sound as it approaches optima [maybe local or not but the world is the world now]). The lesson can be applied here to create a wealthier nation. It is already here anyway but not supported in the same way or at the same time by the consensus. How can that be unless the information it creates is less easily translated, and can be translated only by direct experience. NZ had the advantage that its history put it on that path early but it got caught up in the new political economy (mainly based on prejudice and pride). I am fortunate to have seen the change for myself, and in my lifetime. I have alway thought that NZ may be a barometer for the rest of the world (in the abstract way). The reality only appears as the abstract in the model but that as defined is not reality. Trends are only real on the average. Variability is any where.
The question becomes how can one speed the tendency towards the trend on the negative side and delay it on the positive side.
I believe that there is one answer only (funny that - a binary system with a single solution). The social contract appears not only to increase productivity, but also to increase the rate, maybe for a short period of wealth (in all the commodities, even happiness). If this is true than it must be that this social abstraction has a physical effect on the universe, as we are represented by that. It appears that no one has the monopoly on what is right and what is wrong. Whether this is a social thing or not is a question. Is destruction right or wrong. There is value in both. Maybe it is wrong when the destructor does it with or without intent. Maybe it is a natural subset of the universe and a subset of socialisation.
If that is the case than it must be that at least 50% of us think one thing is positive and the other is negative. I believe that the number is greater as the suffering of deprivation is also greater, so there is experience.
In my experience, I find that those that are positive are the bigger majority, although they temper it with levels of risk aversion.
I now believe in the Social Contract. I believe that the US model reached a local maxima, but one that may be a local maxima for all other nations. I believe that information provides the leap from that local maxima to the other higher level of wealth. Does not GNU provide a cheaper and better alternative to the proprietary systems. It certainly does when one is in the process of exchange, and should the hardware makers join the game, it will be for hardware as well (when will someone make the open source hardware I wonder).
I also think that the concept of specialisation must exist with generalisation. It is too bad that in order to create importance, one has to disparage one side over the other. In a binary system, both must be aknowledged as bringing information and hence has some use in one way or another. But then importance and not important are binary as well. For those that read this, it is of great importance that those of you who believe in this (at least 50% as the population increases and access increases), for whatever reason (as they go on forever, support this concept, add to it (and those of you that subtract from it, well I hope my hypothesis is correct). The hypothesis is of course the equity hypothesis. Those at the top do not want to go down, those at the bottom want to move up. The social contract of course applies when those at the top maintain that level by assisting those at the bottom. To raise the level of the cone. It other words, seeking a higher optimal point is a law of intelligence (this law explains why Bush is considered stupid. Either he is or he is uninformed). The question of why it is a law must be proven false, but only after taking into locality and the concept of the local maxima. My argument is based on the knowledge that we are now probably living at the best we have ever, on the average, in terms of morbidity rates (the lowest measure of positivity that seems to be the norm). Life is better than death it seems.
I notice that those of wealth appear to worry about the trivial according to those not of wealth. Maslow was right except we think of it in a literal manner only. To be hungry is much worse than being without a date.
We are now in the process of rebuilding. We may have lost the interest of the team but, with luck, and by their own choice, they will know that that is all we can do. Singapore appears to want to assert sovereignty based on their perception of the business model. They want to simplify things and create their reality on earth. I hope they will not succeed, although they do speak in the common tongue of money. My hope is that Malaysians will follow the positive instinct and look beyond that. Singapore must be welcomed but not at the expense of the locals. Should they take all the important jobs, than either we deprecate the importance of those jobs, or we assert sovereignty and realise that money is just another commodity. Wealth is the outcome of the Social Contract. Socialise locally and than as wealth grows, increase the socialisation. As the Social Contract is an exponential equation, the level of wealth will be an increasing function. But it must start locally.
If business teaches nothing, it must teach that in order to make big steps, small steps must be taken first. This navel gazing must be the outcome of many things. I think it is true.
On a more positive note, there is good out there. We have met a person who may be a spy or who may be a genuine positiver. We do not know and cannot take the risk. I hope he forgives us for being paranoid. We live in the environment of the majority and we cannot take that chance now. Maybe in the future, maybe never. Trust is lost when one is burnt but it is still there. Trust is a positive that the world is not ready for, but may soon be ready (we must read the other mind and they ours, and balance this against all knowledge of humans).
Psychology will get its turn one day as the premier science. All is knowledge as all is Information.
Our company will either be a failure or not, but it existed for a time now. We will use this company as a test case. Maybe another variable will need to be realeased from it constraints.
One of the reasons, which must have some high importance was to increase the wealth of my family, but not to do it in a way that harms those around me. If I see the harm than I believe it has harmed someone as I see it. That seems rational as the population grows beyond belief and counting by one person. In order to do that, one must be fair.
I have joined a team of young entrepreneurs, under capitalised but with vision (maybe...that is to be seen), and who share one thing I merit, the wish not to harm but to build. Our first project was a personal disaster. It was my fault of course. I assumed I was right and all were wrong. I regret this but I was selfish enough to test a hypothesis. It was definitely wrong :D.
But I did learn a lot personally. There are multiple political economies. Subsets or maybe over-lapping independent sets. In this we contend with other variables like human credibility (or lack thereof). Some of these sub-subsets even overlap (I go with the independent sets but with some reservation).
There are also multiple types of people. I think the types appear to be as many as there are people on earth but one can differentiate the two in level of what my girlfriend call greediness. I am not sure. I think its like hunger, closer to desire but controlled.
It makes me think of bipolarity or something I have heard and read basically a synopsis of the thing called duality. It is simpler to think of things in the binary way. Like Bayes (another synopsis), I think that sampling is a good way to define the truth (although I worry about the sampling rate). So going back to people, I have met good people and not-so-good people. The good to me appears to be the ones that want to help us but only because of our company mission statement "Do the right thing right" [Thanks to that smart bimbo SuLin - and if she ever reads this, I still think she is a bimbo :D].
So we went off to create business growth. We wanted our guests to see the beauty of malaysia, socialise, wanted our suppliers to get wealthier. We developed a concept that all our food must be obtained from the local area, to channel money there, and we were going to make a small profit so we were to have two great gatherings. It failed on account of a bureaucrat and my own naivete. I hoped that honesty and truth would sway the person. It did not. We left with our tails between our legs while this person attempted to destroy us.
We went home, licked wounds, remember what another friend said (thanks bernard...now your thoughts and experiences may live forever), and got up from it. I am proud of the team and my place in it but the obligations increase with the acceptance of support from that team. So this begins my thinking about the "Social Contract", as conceptualised first by the Labour Party and God know who in it (I tend to think it was Helen but I must admit it could be some speech writer, anal or not "You are for us or against us!" What he hell is that :D).
New Zealand as the model economy (yes it is the abstract term ;)). The social contract that was lost is being developed and the economy grows. That was almost too easy to forget for 3 million people. Imagine for 20 million. Bounded rationality, especially when information is controlled by those in control (thank god for the net - competing information - economically sound as it approaches optima [maybe local or not but the world is the world now]). The lesson can be applied here to create a wealthier nation. It is already here anyway but not supported in the same way or at the same time by the consensus. How can that be unless the information it creates is less easily translated, and can be translated only by direct experience. NZ had the advantage that its history put it on that path early but it got caught up in the new political economy (mainly based on prejudice and pride). I am fortunate to have seen the change for myself, and in my lifetime. I have alway thought that NZ may be a barometer for the rest of the world (in the abstract way). The reality only appears as the abstract in the model but that as defined is not reality. Trends are only real on the average. Variability is any where.
The question becomes how can one speed the tendency towards the trend on the negative side and delay it on the positive side.
I believe that there is one answer only (funny that - a binary system with a single solution). The social contract appears not only to increase productivity, but also to increase the rate, maybe for a short period of wealth (in all the commodities, even happiness). If this is true than it must be that this social abstraction has a physical effect on the universe, as we are represented by that. It appears that no one has the monopoly on what is right and what is wrong. Whether this is a social thing or not is a question. Is destruction right or wrong. There is value in both. Maybe it is wrong when the destructor does it with or without intent. Maybe it is a natural subset of the universe and a subset of socialisation.
If that is the case than it must be that at least 50% of us think one thing is positive and the other is negative. I believe that the number is greater as the suffering of deprivation is also greater, so there is experience.
In my experience, I find that those that are positive are the bigger majority, although they temper it with levels of risk aversion.
I now believe in the Social Contract. I believe that the US model reached a local maxima, but one that may be a local maxima for all other nations. I believe that information provides the leap from that local maxima to the other higher level of wealth. Does not GNU provide a cheaper and better alternative to the proprietary systems. It certainly does when one is in the process of exchange, and should the hardware makers join the game, it will be for hardware as well (when will someone make the open source hardware I wonder).
I also think that the concept of specialisation must exist with generalisation. It is too bad that in order to create importance, one has to disparage one side over the other. In a binary system, both must be aknowledged as bringing information and hence has some use in one way or another. But then importance and not important are binary as well. For those that read this, it is of great importance that those of you who believe in this (at least 50% as the population increases and access increases), for whatever reason (as they go on forever, support this concept, add to it (and those of you that subtract from it, well I hope my hypothesis is correct). The hypothesis is of course the equity hypothesis. Those at the top do not want to go down, those at the bottom want to move up. The social contract of course applies when those at the top maintain that level by assisting those at the bottom. To raise the level of the cone. It other words, seeking a higher optimal point is a law of intelligence (this law explains why Bush is considered stupid. Either he is or he is uninformed). The question of why it is a law must be proven false, but only after taking into locality and the concept of the local maxima. My argument is based on the knowledge that we are now probably living at the best we have ever, on the average, in terms of morbidity rates (the lowest measure of positivity that seems to be the norm). Life is better than death it seems.
I notice that those of wealth appear to worry about the trivial according to those not of wealth. Maslow was right except we think of it in a literal manner only. To be hungry is much worse than being without a date.
We are now in the process of rebuilding. We may have lost the interest of the team but, with luck, and by their own choice, they will know that that is all we can do. Singapore appears to want to assert sovereignty based on their perception of the business model. They want to simplify things and create their reality on earth. I hope they will not succeed, although they do speak in the common tongue of money. My hope is that Malaysians will follow the positive instinct and look beyond that. Singapore must be welcomed but not at the expense of the locals. Should they take all the important jobs, than either we deprecate the importance of those jobs, or we assert sovereignty and realise that money is just another commodity. Wealth is the outcome of the Social Contract. Socialise locally and than as wealth grows, increase the socialisation. As the Social Contract is an exponential equation, the level of wealth will be an increasing function. But it must start locally.
If business teaches nothing, it must teach that in order to make big steps, small steps must be taken first. This navel gazing must be the outcome of many things. I think it is true.
On a more positive note, there is good out there. We have met a person who may be a spy or who may be a genuine positiver. We do not know and cannot take the risk. I hope he forgives us for being paranoid. We live in the environment of the majority and we cannot take that chance now. Maybe in the future, maybe never. Trust is lost when one is burnt but it is still there. Trust is a positive that the world is not ready for, but may soon be ready (we must read the other mind and they ours, and balance this against all knowledge of humans).
Psychology will get its turn one day as the premier science. All is knowledge as all is Information.
Our company will either be a failure or not, but it existed for a time now. We will use this company as a test case. Maybe another variable will need to be realeased from it constraints.
