![Function [F(x)]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_DWbW3mDlzWc/SXVI30gmC2I/AAAAAAAAADo/rl-_jtqmMjs/S1600-R/BANNER+V2.JPG)
"There is one spectacle grander than the sea, that is the sky;
there is one spectacle grander than the sky, that is the interior of the soul."
-Victor Hugo
1.27.2009
1.25.2009
Function
It seems a natural impulse for a person to define and establish their presence in life*; who they are, how they view the world, where they fit in and what their purpose is. For many a foundation is built on religion and early childhood conditioning, augmented with personal beliefs (which are not always consistent with the former) and eventually a political perspective is drawn. Opinions vary greatly from person to person and shift rapidly in and out of coherence. Far more tangible is a person's actions; what they do.
func-tion (n) 1. the kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing or institution; the purpose for which something is designed or exists; role.
In their own capacity, each person occupies a number of functions. People adopt some of these roles while others are implied. You choose what your career is, you don't choose what family unit you're born into ['Choice' may be addressed at a later date]. Taking social views into account one could determine a ranking of these functions based on contribution, both personal and public. In reflecting on my place and purpose in this world, I outline the following:
Brevity is important when theorizing and each function can be expanded or broken down into many components. For example, I consider my default function the charge to eat wholesome food and get regular exercise as well as maintain close relationships and spend a certain amount of time alone. A function list is what I do with a priority for items that contribute to the whole. In essence, my utility.
*I've written about the advent of 'social views' [here], which should be considered along with this post.
func-tion (n) 1. the kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing or institution; the purpose for which something is designed or exists; role.
In their own capacity, each person occupies a number of functions. People adopt some of these roles while others are implied. You choose what your career is, you don't choose what family unit you're born into ['Choice' may be addressed at a later date]. Taking social views into account one could determine a ranking of these functions based on contribution, both personal and public. In reflecting on my place and purpose in this world, I outline the following:
Default : Human
1st : Student
2nd : Family member
3rd : Employee
Our nature must always be taken into account. What we are affects everything about us. My full-time occupation is 'student.' This coincides with my primary goal right now, which is to achieve a Master's degree. Next I am a son, brother and uncle, which implies a number of charges and obligations. Lastly, I am a part-time employee of a company to which I contribute a marginal amount of time and effort. This is a snapshot of my life at this point in time, the ranking determined by my priorities based on personal development with an overall relatively low amount of public contribution. In 10 years, my list of functions could look like this:2nd : Family member
3rd : Employee
Default: Human
1st: Kinesiologist
2nd: Family member
3rd: Business owner
4th: Writer
1st: Kinesiologist
2nd: Family member
3rd: Business owner
4th: Writer
At this point I have achieved a great increase in human capital and as a result have a much more significant function by which I contribute to society. I'm still a family member but perhaps a father and husband. I believe there are biological imperatives of "fatherhood" that fall under the human function but "parenthood" requires more active, conscious effort and therefore in part necessitates the family member function. Consider the tertiary and quaternary functions a to-do list.
Brevity is important when theorizing and each function can be expanded or broken down into many components. For example, I consider my default function the charge to eat wholesome food and get regular exercise as well as maintain close relationships and spend a certain amount of time alone. A function list is what I do with a priority for items that contribute to the whole. In essence, my utility.
*I've written about the advent of 'social views' [here], which should be considered along with this post.
1.20.2009
Resources
_time___
_effort__
_money_
_food___
_objects_
_land___
___?____
The exchange of resources* is the hallmark of human social interaction. The concept of 'give' is not generally expressed in the "animal kingdom." Family units always take care of each other but you don't see much trade occurring. The human mind necessitated the concepts of value and gain. Basic animal behaviors dictate self-preservation through the acquisition and protection of resources. Don't go near my food bowl. If all life is occupied with this pursuit you have an essentially smooth system like Earth (sans Humans). It is an animal's instinct to protect what it has: domain, young, food. It is a natural human extension of that instinct to possess and protect what it has gained. With the concept of value in effect you have a grade with which to appraise resources. With worth you are afforded the ability to equate resources. The next step is trade.
In an even more general sense, we can say 'resources' are 'what I have (or hold).' I listed things prior that some people might not consider "resources." Given the working definition they all agree and to discourage redundancy or extraneity, any item must be able to be gained independent of another resource's expense. Effort is a resource? Absolutely. Every person has a finite amount of it, whether mental or physical. It can be donated to another person, or exchanged for another resource. Objects are a tremendous resource of the modern US citizen. Everything from your toothbrush to your car falls in here. Land, of course, is the world's oldest reason for war.
Dispute over values is the source of most human conflict; our resources are the manifestation of our values. And as elevated as we are above our fellow animals, we still like shiny things. That's why the first money systems were based on silver and gold. Clearly we can be touchy about the use of our personal and especially our collective resources. What is the relative value of them? When is time worth more than money? What is the relative value of food? What of our collective resources? If you are a U.S. citizen you have a stake in national resources: money (taxes), effort (most prominently in the form of security through application of police and military). Since we pay taxes, many consider a claim to other connected resources that are debatable as "national".
Consider agriculture: if someone pays taxes that are eventually awarded to a farm, they might care about the methods by which that food is grown (even if they don't eat it). Or security: if their individual contribution is used toward means of international conflict as opposed to local stability, they might take grievance. In these situations they have exchanged one resource for ______? Is their claim to the application of these resources justifiable? What can one do to influence the application of national resources? We have now reached the topic of "the sprawl," which has been addressed[here].
*Here the working definition for 'resource' is anything that 1) is limited in quantity 2) can be transferred/sacrificed from one individual or party to/for another 3) can be equated to another 'resource'.
_effort__
_money_
_food___
_objects_
_land___
___?____
The exchange of resources* is the hallmark of human social interaction. The concept of 'give' is not generally expressed in the "animal kingdom." Family units always take care of each other but you don't see much trade occurring. The human mind necessitated the concepts of value and gain. Basic animal behaviors dictate self-preservation through the acquisition and protection of resources. Don't go near my food bowl. If all life is occupied with this pursuit you have an essentially smooth system like Earth (sans Humans). It is an animal's instinct to protect what it has: domain, young, food. It is a natural human extension of that instinct to possess and protect what it has gained. With the concept of value in effect you have a grade with which to appraise resources. With worth you are afforded the ability to equate resources. The next step is trade.
In an even more general sense, we can say 'resources' are 'what I have (or hold).' I listed things prior that some people might not consider "resources." Given the working definition they all agree and to discourage redundancy or extraneity, any item must be able to be gained independent of another resource's expense. Effort is a resource? Absolutely. Every person has a finite amount of it, whether mental or physical. It can be donated to another person, or exchanged for another resource. Objects are a tremendous resource of the modern US citizen. Everything from your toothbrush to your car falls in here. Land, of course, is the world's oldest reason for war.
Dispute over values is the source of most human conflict; our resources are the manifestation of our values. And as elevated as we are above our fellow animals, we still like shiny things. That's why the first money systems were based on silver and gold. Clearly we can be touchy about the use of our personal and especially our collective resources. What is the relative value of them? When is time worth more than money? What is the relative value of food? What of our collective resources? If you are a U.S. citizen you have a stake in national resources: money (taxes), effort (most prominently in the form of security through application of police and military). Since we pay taxes, many consider a claim to other connected resources that are debatable as "national".
Consider agriculture: if someone pays taxes that are eventually awarded to a farm, they might care about the methods by which that food is grown (even if they don't eat it). Or security: if their individual contribution is used toward means of international conflict as opposed to local stability, they might take grievance. In these situations they have exchanged one resource for ______? Is their claim to the application of these resources justifiable? What can one do to influence the application of national resources? We have now reached the topic of "the sprawl," which has been addressed[here].
*Here the working definition for 'resource' is anything that 1) is limited in quantity 2) can be transferred/sacrificed from one individual or party to/for another 3) can be equated to another 'resource'.
1.19.2009
Gradient
"I always liked to hear about the old-timers. Never missed a chance to do so. You can't help but compare yourself against the old-timers. Can't help but wonder how theyd've operated these times. There was this boy I sent to the 'lectric chair at Huntsville Hill here a while back. My arrest and my testimony. He killt a fourteen-year-old girl. Papers said it was a crime of passion but he told me there wasn't any passion to it. Told me that he'd been planning to kill somebody for about as long as he could remember. Said that if they turned him out he'd do it again. Said he knew he was going to hell. 'Be there in about fifteen minutes.' I don't know what to make of that. I sure don't. The crime you see now, it's hard to even take its measure. It's not that I'm afraid of it. I always knew you had to be willing to die to even do this job. But, I don't want to push my chips forward and go out and meet something I don't understand. A man would have to put his soul at hazard. He'd have to say, 'O.K....I'll be part of this world.'"
-Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, No Country for Old Men
Attitudes
Social networking. When you go to compose your profile they ask you about two things among many others: Political Views and Religious Views, accepted as a generalization of someone's outlook and world perspective. I think there is something missing here, an important factor not accounted for.
I'm making the argument for a third field: Social Views. Come along, if you will. Given a person's religious and political views does not necessarily impart their feelings toward an individual's involvement in a system. Political views like Republican or Libertarian describe attitudes toward government and its effect on the individual, but not of the individual's charge. In general, most people expect others to be 'contributing members to society' and consider this duty complete if they fulfill the base requisite of punching a clock. Raise the bar.
Religion, some being a retired form of government, can describe values conflicting with political views and as far as social attitudes has a general approach of presenting a list of "no-nos" with the usual creed of "Be a good person! :)" As long as you're not killing, raping or stealing my daughter--we're cool. So far we have what the man can do, and what you can't do. Something's missing.
I get the impression that social views are not something most people think about but they do have latent feelings on the matter. Any non-contributing member is naturally frowned upon; most people can appreciate reciprocation as a base concept. Adopting a Social View would require someone to think about how they declare what they expect of fellow citizens.
This goes without saying:
ONE CANNOT MAINTAIN AN EXPECTATION IN ANOTHER
THEY THEMSELVES COULD NOT FULFILL.
"Democracy" represents its constituents and calls on them to perform an integral function in the process. Unfortunately the topic these days is: social capital and involvement aren't what they used to be. Democracy inaction. There are no laws requiring citizens to vote, serve in bureaucracy/armed forces or in any way make their world better. Many US citizens would be troubled to make the distinction between their political, religious and underlying social views. Separation of hearts and minds.
Political allegiances address two basic issues: what the government can do with my money, and what the government can do with my personal life. Regulation of these areas and a person's feelings in regards can outline their social views to a degree but it's all geared toward government involvement at some point. Conservatives don't want liberals giving their tax money to poor kids, liberals don't want the conservative's de-regulation allowing profiteering. Socialism even (in general) is just a variation of how the government establishes who gets what, when and how. Things get personal when some people can get married and some can't, and again we're faced with a system geared to say "No."
Things get fuzzy even from an insider's perspective when religious views are taken into account. Sprawling across the political spectrum, religious representation is borne on the chests of the minor sincere and the major trite, who have found a variety of illogical ways to reconcile their political and religious beliefs (No, you can't be against abortion and support the death penalty). Religion does not serve the administrative function it once did but it still exercises power in influence. Of course no obliged conservative can produce a single reason other than their personal beliefs dictated by indoctrination as to why two men or women shouldn't be able to legally recognize their union. This is becoming old news. Yet still, in spite of the weak argument, states have denied that very right. Do your part, follow my rules.
People might benefit from contemplating a list of "do's." Do perform your duties well, do leave something better than you found it, do give as much as you get, do consider the impact of your actions, do well to your fellow beings. We all know what people can't do, but what are our developed expectations of them? What are our expectations of ourselves? We throw an impossible variety of expectations at our government and most sit back to reap the benefits. Nobody said bailout here, this issue is nothing new.
You give people the choice and they tend to get lazy. With no expectations, what could one expect? The thing about attitudes is people who share them tend to gather. Once enough aggregate, they can affect the process of their world. Interest groups, lobbies, political parties form. Religions begin. Other new things leap from the collective mind. Presume positive intent. Even people you disagree with on many levels are trying to make their world a better place. Disdaining at errant arguments over personal beliefs, I encourage a focus on contribution and prudence. What does a person have to offer to theirself and those around them? How do they better the world around them?
The direction is forward.
I'm making the argument for a third field: Social Views. Come along, if you will. Given a person's religious and political views does not necessarily impart their feelings toward an individual's involvement in a system. Political views like Republican or Libertarian describe attitudes toward government and its effect on the individual, but not of the individual's charge. In general, most people expect others to be 'contributing members to society' and consider this duty complete if they fulfill the base requisite of punching a clock. Raise the bar.
Religion, some being a retired form of government, can describe values conflicting with political views and as far as social attitudes has a general approach of presenting a list of "no-nos" with the usual creed of "Be a good person! :)" As long as you're not killing, raping or stealing my daughter--we're cool. So far we have what the man can do, and what you can't do. Something's missing.
I get the impression that social views are not something most people think about but they do have latent feelings on the matter. Any non-contributing member is naturally frowned upon; most people can appreciate reciprocation as a base concept. Adopting a Social View would require someone to think about how they declare what they expect of fellow citizens.
This goes without saying:
THEY THEMSELVES COULD NOT FULFILL.
"Democracy" represents its constituents and calls on them to perform an integral function in the process. Unfortunately the topic these days is: social capital and involvement aren't what they used to be. Democracy inaction. There are no laws requiring citizens to vote, serve in bureaucracy/armed forces or in any way make their world better. Many US citizens would be troubled to make the distinction between their political, religious and underlying social views. Separation of hearts and minds.
Political allegiances address two basic issues: what the government can do with my money, and what the government can do with my personal life. Regulation of these areas and a person's feelings in regards can outline their social views to a degree but it's all geared toward government involvement at some point. Conservatives don't want liberals giving their tax money to poor kids, liberals don't want the conservative's de-regulation allowing profiteering. Socialism even (in general) is just a variation of how the government establishes who gets what, when and how. Things get personal when some people can get married and some can't, and again we're faced with a system geared to say "No."
Things get fuzzy even from an insider's perspective when religious views are taken into account. Sprawling across the political spectrum, religious representation is borne on the chests of the minor sincere and the major trite, who have found a variety of illogical ways to reconcile their political and religious beliefs (No, you can't be against abortion and support the death penalty). Religion does not serve the administrative function it once did but it still exercises power in influence. Of course no obliged conservative can produce a single reason other than their personal beliefs dictated by indoctrination as to why two men or women shouldn't be able to legally recognize their union. This is becoming old news. Yet still, in spite of the weak argument, states have denied that very right. Do your part, follow my rules.
People might benefit from contemplating a list of "do's." Do perform your duties well, do leave something better than you found it, do give as much as you get, do consider the impact of your actions, do well to your fellow beings. We all know what people can't do, but what are our developed expectations of them? What are our expectations of ourselves? We throw an impossible variety of expectations at our government and most sit back to reap the benefits. Nobody said bailout here, this issue is nothing new.
You give people the choice and they tend to get lazy. With no expectations, what could one expect? The thing about attitudes is people who share them tend to gather. Once enough aggregate, they can affect the process of their world. Interest groups, lobbies, political parties form. Religions begin. Other new things leap from the collective mind. Presume positive intent. Even people you disagree with on many levels are trying to make their world a better place. Disdaining at errant arguments over personal beliefs, I encourage a focus on contribution and prudence. What does a person have to offer to theirself and those around them? How do they better the world around them?
The direction is forward.
The Human
Bipedal, incapable of flight. Exhibits many common mammalian characteristics and behaviors; social (pack forming, maintains selective inter-species relationships), sense-oriented with a practiced emphasis on sight and sound as opposed to smell, limited aquatic maneuverability, moderate diversity among subjects. Subjects possess a relatively thin coat over a smooth skin compared with other similar mammals, exhibiting moderate hair growth on areas of the head, torso and lower front abdomen. Diet is varietal, including native vegetation and other species, and is gained through a number of means. Sexual intercourse is common among subjects with some homosexual intercourse observed. Communication is audible between members and appears to employ a variety of sound, pitch and inflection. Articulate arm limbs are capable of grasping and manipulating the environment in the course of resource gathering, dwelling construction and creative pursuits.
These extra-biological endeavors will the the large focus of this discussion.
These extra-biological endeavors will the the large focus of this discussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
