Emerging Systems IX: Honesty

Times are difficult for people with double lives because now everything is visible. Being coherent is much more difficult today than it was just a few years ago because today we live in front of the gallery, we do not act but we live for others. lifestreaming.

Kant did not leave his village and was very coherent, we have a hundred times more interactions with others than Kant, so we are a hundred times more likely to be incoherent, and also to have the incoherence documented.

As it is so difficult to be consistent we must at least be honest; I will talk about transparency in the next and last chapter of this series. If you are honest and humble enough to recognize your mistakes you will have no problem adapting to change; if you are not, pretend without deceiving.

We live in a change visible to all, people are disoriented but tolerate failure, among other things because otherwise we would all commit suicide. Today we are receptive to novelties, we are willing to try them and to accept that they do not work well yet. We are in an era of betas, of release versions.

What we do not allow is lying, and lying is becoming easier and easier to discover every day because everything is known. A liar is a stinker today and was not so not so long ago. We are much more tolerant of ideas different from our own. A global world with many interactions means that we travel a lot, that we mingle and surprise each other, but above all that we learn to understand each other. As Pío Baroja used to say, nationalism is cured by traveling.

An emerging system does not handle lies well because it has the capacity to amplify them and, if amplified, they lead to a collective error. In the same way that lies can rise upwards, once discovered, they can come back downwards because in the lifestreaming era everything is documented, responsibilities are purged and the stinkers appear.


4 responses to "Emerging Systems IX: Honesty”

  1. You make me think...
    A nationalistic and exclusionary system functions as an ecosystem. Hitler did not need to give orders, from a few laws, a little time and a lot of enthusiasm he got everything. "Working in the direction of the Fhurer", no more and "Without direct transmission of orders, initiatives could be launched that were supposed to be in tune with Hitler's goals.... . and had a good chance of success." I. Kersaw "Hitler, 1889-1936." Peninsula, 2000. Pg. 479.
    And boy, did it work...it was a perfect political-military Ecosystem.
    Which leads me to contradict you: there is room for lies in an Ecosystem, and lots of them.
    An Ecosystem operates on assumptions, good (protect freedom) or perverse (all Jews are evil) and self-organizes to make them true: Defend the Net or Kill Jews.

  2. The fewer and more basic the rules, the better the system works. As long as it has enough attraction for the ants to enter, and enough comfort so that they don't leave or die, the system works.
    Let alone if the individuals in particular and the system in general have a common enemy, as in the case of Hitler; nothing unites more than a common enemy.
    Perhaps Hitler's merit lay in his fear of non-compliance with his orders, so that he rationalized them, and instead based his correction of behavior on punishment; to do that you have to give freedom to the individual.

  3. I don't think so. An ecosystem is based on the automation of the individual, not on his freedom. It's a contradiction, but that's how it is. You enter and leave when you want, but while you are inside you follow the rules: it is the consensus. Hitler ruled like that, not with fear.

  4. How there is no freedom, look at the case of the emerging urbanism of Manchester in the 17th century. It is freedom that reaches anarchy, pure disorder, and from there order emerges.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *