Short answer is no. The lesson is that we need to manage adequate liquidity, and ignore most details as irrelevant?
How are dynamic values such as piety denominated and accurately tracked? Only on faith? How about affinity credits? It's affinity credits, after all, that bestow the tremendous value of citizenship.
Maha Kumbh Mela Pilgrimage
Makar Sankranti. A Holy bath during this [kickoff] period carries special significance. Those who take a holy bath in the rivers acquire pious credits.
This phrasing is actually very revealing, and really fascinating. Most of our diverse credit systems, including those for dynamic values - the highest values of all - don't even require accurate accounting, but the least valuable of all - static asset credits - does?
This conundrum demands pondering. Some immediate observations follow.
We argue most over what little we think we know, not over what actually matters later on? Seems odd, given we have zero predictive power. In short, we kill one another most often over form, not function? Are we, in actuality, evolved to individually be the diverse options we collectively demand feedback on? That would at least explain our mass tendency to argue over form instead of function. Does form really predict foundational value? If enough diverse form is adequately sampled and compared, yes it does - which implies that we have to value failures as well as we do successes. It's the array of all tests that accurately discriminates global maxima and minima, not just the idiot savant who - entirely by accident - stands near to what turns out to be an adaptive group route. Once on to the next context, we'll need the same array of context sampling, because yesterday's methods don't predict success tomorrow.
To improve adaptive agility, individual and group entrepreneurs have become progressively more flexible. Despite all formal accounting, reality is that we safely ignore most formal accounting, and tunnel between formulaic paradigms - by flexibly changing our own form in response to ongoing feedback. Actually, all that's saying is that recombination - aka, indirection - constitutes, by definition, extra-dimensional tunneling around existing methods and toolkits, which then become immediately obsolete form in search of newly recombinant function. That's an obvious truism once stated that way.
Our options truly are endless, and rapidly expanding!
Yet anal accountants will continue to slowly calculate formal claims on what others will have always functionally occupied previously. LOL!
There really is nothing functional that's actually new to all of us! Intellectual property is a maladaptive myth! All we really have are wasteful arguments over the form in which we allow recombination events to distribute.
In a fully recombinant system - e.g., a social species or a tribe - to declare static ownership of anything is to declare obsolescence of both asset and owner? No matter the static asset, it's dynamic pass-through value is always far higher in an adaptive system. Recognition by group members of the ratio of dynamic/static valuation is, however, a function of interaction rates. Our success as a nation tracks our ability to achieve a pass-through economy as fluid as smaller tribal economies were. You can already see this trend in the changing definiton of poor and/or disadvantaged. Poor people today have conveniences that rich people didn't just one generation back.
Time to be complacent? Never! Without practiced interactions, we take too long to recognize and explore the higher-value dynamic options. Despite our personal conveniences, our group Output Gap is growing at a shameful rate. It's obvious to all that we're wasting most of our group opportunities, while squabbling over distribution of trivial static assets already available in excess!
It's good to remind ourselves of what constitutes adequate Situational Awareness. By definition, an adaptive system is always coordinating the transition of every static asset to be a component in new dynamic asset, but the tempo of that transition dictates adaptive rate. Consequently, adaptive rate is always dependent upon the latest transients affecting the tempo of recombination. This concept of multiple weak affects tuning process tempo is recognized not just as social catalysts, but also in chemistry and enzymology and physics as catalysts, co-factors and "channels," and in military jargon as "Fast Transients."
Wow! How are coherent patterns of such distributed selective pressures discriminated by groups? Basically, by iterative group practice, same as any other analog-computing-system or network. Even though individuals are the product of very constrained recombination and embryological processes, cultural recombination and embryology is nowhere near pushing the limits of cultural adaptive rate. As processes, cultural recombination and cultural embryology go on continously, in parallel time slicing, with increasing tempo. The average human today transitions through increasing numbers of professions, at faster rates, with greater agility - depending upon the diversity of team practice during both early education and adult work.
All this means that tribal cultures were correct in function, but struggled to scale specific forms for guiding coordination. Is that all we're also competing to do, just on a larger scale? The forms by which we scale populations involve use of larger and larger method sets - e.g, expanding toolkits?
It's not methods alone that drive results. That statement generates an overly simplistic outlook in most people. In everyday jargon, to productively convey our options, we should say that it's practiced, group agility in applying specific permutations of expanding method sets that drives results. In short, return on group coordination. We need to have all our methods, and selectively use them too? Piece of cake! And an endless one too. No need for argument. Let us eat our options cake, and accrue even more too! We can do this. Easily.
Our options truly are endless, and rapidly expanding!
Yet anal accountants will continue to slowly calculate formal claims on what others will have always functionally occupied previously. LOL!
There really is nothing functional that's actually new to all of us! Intellectual property is a maladaptive myth! All we really have are wasteful arguments over the form in which we allow recombination events to distribute.
In a fully recombinant system - e.g., a social species or a tribe - to declare static ownership of anything is to declare obsolescence of both asset and owner? No matter the static asset, it's dynamic pass-through value is always far higher in an adaptive system. Recognition by group members of the ratio of dynamic/static valuation is, however, a function of interaction rates. Our success as a nation tracks our ability to achieve a pass-through economy as fluid as smaller tribal economies were. You can already see this trend in the changing definiton of poor and/or disadvantaged. Poor people today have conveniences that rich people didn't just one generation back.
Time to be complacent? Never! Without practiced interactions, we take too long to recognize and explore the higher-value dynamic options. Despite our personal conveniences, our group Output Gap is growing at a shameful rate. It's obvious to all that we're wasting most of our group opportunities, while squabbling over distribution of trivial static assets already available in excess!
It's good to remind ourselves of what constitutes adequate Situational Awareness. By definition, an adaptive system is always coordinating the transition of every static asset to be a component in new dynamic asset, but the tempo of that transition dictates adaptive rate. Consequently, adaptive rate is always dependent upon the latest transients affecting the tempo of recombination. This concept of multiple weak affects tuning process tempo is recognized not just as social catalysts, but also in chemistry and enzymology and physics as catalysts, co-factors and "channels," and in military jargon as "Fast Transients."
Wow! How are coherent patterns of such distributed selective pressures discriminated by groups? Basically, by iterative group practice, same as any other analog-computing-system or network. Even though individuals are the product of very constrained recombination and embryological processes, cultural recombination and embryology is nowhere near pushing the limits of cultural adaptive rate. As processes, cultural recombination and cultural embryology go on continously, in parallel time slicing, with increasing tempo. The average human today transitions through increasing numbers of professions, at faster rates, with greater agility - depending upon the diversity of team practice during both early education and adult work.
All this means that tribal cultures were correct in function, but struggled to scale specific forms for guiding coordination. Is that all we're also competing to do, just on a larger scale? The forms by which we scale populations involve use of larger and larger method sets - e.g, expanding toolkits?
It's not methods alone that drive results. That statement generates an overly simplistic outlook in most people. In everyday jargon, to productively convey our options, we should say that it's practiced, group agility in applying specific permutations of expanding method sets that drives results. In short, return on group coordination. We need to have all our methods, and selectively use them too? Piece of cake! And an endless one too. No need for argument. Let us eat our options cake, and accrue even more too! We can do this. Easily.
No comments:
Post a Comment