Is it really our decisions that have landed us in the ‘crisis’ that is today?
May be it is time to navigate the alternative routes? Well, maybe not. It may be just another fabrication that doesn’t make much sense. Let’s examine.
Life is a sequence of bifurcations. Well, it’s not that simple. It is a sequence of events that take place and are all affected by a huge number of parameters, some of which depend upon the results of the first event, i.e. a chaos system. Of course, choice of one road is important but the event in the choice is a variable change. And it has to be accounted for. It’s non linear and it’s literally complex.
Background check on Francis of Assisi:
This person was actually a Saint in the Roman Catholic Church. And as all high up in the Church, life was a gift to them. They knew no vulgarities of nature, didn’t face the darker sides of life. They had to perform neither toil nor any hard work without their consent (slavery). The church took care that they lead a life like none other. And thus, all he had to do is preach. Preach. Preach.
Background check on Machiavelli:
This person was a practical, down to earth man. He did what his reason told him was right. He himself worked in his fields and did all that a common man would do. So, it may be said that he was in sync with the realities of the world back then. And whatever he claimed, he had actually put into practice or proved it. Hence, the masses accepted it.
Hence people followed Machiavelli and not the Francis of Assisi. That was the most logical thing to do in that context. I feel that it was the right thing that had been done then. Following the Francis of Assisi would have proved to be against the laws and order of nature, as it was imaginary.
Now about Giovanni Francesco Pico della Mirandola
This guy was a philosopher, who I would say, failed in actuating his real genius. A sorry tale for a person with such talents, but he had a right approach, though it was quit beyond the society of that time to understand.
One can go on questioning the people like the above believe or say or do. But the underlying principle is that a person and his beliefs are always a function of his intellect and the circumstances in which he is plus a small variable change (∂x) which is very critical in determining his entirety or completeness.
About Giordano Bruno
Bruno is known for his use and development of the art of memory, a mnemonic system based upon organized knowledge. He was also an early proponent of the idea of an infinite and homogeneous universe. It was for this reason that he was burnt at stake by the Roman Catholic Church. The official reason for the Roman Catholic Church was, of course, to retain the social order. But it was the fear of loss of authority that actually drove them to take such a step. Something we may claim to follow the principle of Machiavelli. Something which in later years was termed by scientists as “survival of the fittest” (NOTE – the term ‘pantheism’ was coined only after 1700s, long after Bruno’s execution)
Gothe’s science – well, it is more a philosophy, rather a great philosophy made to sound like science. More importantly, research (and hence, science) is still on in the fields related to feeling, intuition, consciousness etc. Research in these areas has partly led to the development of psychological warfare. A wrong application, but it’s the evidence that the fields are still of interest to the scientific community.
This world is now in confusion?? Is the universe or the nature ordered? These are all interlinked questions whose answer science is trying to work out – the Theory of Everything. Moreover, what we think is chaos is because we fail at the present point to understand the underlying pattern. Would there have been no confusion had we followed “the other/forgotten route”
“Knowledge is not the road to understanding.” Well, then what is?? Knowledge is formed from the innumerable steps we take with the view of attaining total understanding, some of which get a bit luckier and some get unlucky. So, it is always knowledge that is always the road to understanding; especially when the case is love. Can a person in love or who has been in love define it? More importantly, does he/she understand love; when it started and when it ended or may be quantify it?
There is nothing wrong in the dominant language if it copes up with the challenges of the period. And yes, it does shape the perception of the common man at the same time. But the phase transition from one language to another is a period in which several sub-languages emerge and try to come onto the main screen. It is in this phase when we are most likely to lose focus and control.
For example, the Wild Wild West or cow-boy type of culture that was once prevalent in US suddenly re-surfaced with Bush Junior taking up the reins at the White House and has made it clear that some privileged people can actually devastate the entire system. Changes like these are effected by the leaders of the masses, in which case, can it be said that Al Gore or the members of jury in the Supreme Court who ruled in favour of Bush Junior are to be blamed for failing?
The whole problem is with one new language coming over by replacing an old one. That, I dare say, led to all the problems in the first place. So, instead of actually trying to figure out and implement a completely new language, we should try to focus on the re-drawing of the perspectives and improvising or upgrading or optimizing the language. And, regrettably, this is no decision to make; it’s a path to be followed.