Imagine a system* which would never go against itself, and would never go against it's own design, would never develop anything that would undo it or make it 'better'... if you can imagine that (like the old authoritarian mentlity) then you can see better the reality no matter which realm of work you're in... and then start on what needs doing about it...
You're on the right track if you can imagine that.
Because a system* which would never design or develop something against itself is what I believe were measurably in. Most things appear or even outright promise things and never do them or just switch the chair to appear something has changed when those in the older mindset (authoritarian, warl-like mentality) simple are not going to allow or design a system that can design itself out of that system.
I believe that is the *system* and it's truth (system being a pattern) and above it's own survival or profit there is nothing or not much room to play with anything else humanitarian.
Even in the 'complaints' department there is a pre-determined funnel of information of the complaint, a pre-determined avenue to which nicely fits into what any company (including government) want.
This interpretation of what you said into their own template and their flow limits any blame or responsibility as we see in real life or anyone that has worked and seen injustice every day or the injustice that gets moved onto another department to avoid the complaint being seen in totality.
A definition of system in the context:
(system = an optimised pattern of mentality mostly from the days before such as the warring warlord days not too long ago) and the added new business techniques today (optimised government and it's governed business extensions called 'company' or 'business' registered to that government)
@canwolf
What you say is not bad -> but in some way you are coming out of context that is initially represented. So it is losing focus which I detail below:
The context was authoritarian unfair systems not wanting to incorporate change towards the good and more the old cruel mentality of injustice and injustices by design.
Some parts of your reply might touch on something around life but the sub-category was this unfairness and your reply something similar to 'invest your time and effort and all will be ok'.... (and you can see this is different to what I was pointing to)
So to suggest in a uncaring system you should just be positive (which is good but it's overlooking really big holes people are making in front of you) makes me think you are emotionally reacting, speed-reading or not really looking from the angle of the text. If correct this measurable unclear and even almost illogical. What you said suggests overlooking that massive injustice and perhaps assumes you can be ok even by doing good within it.
So my point here is mostly that what you write doesn't stay in the category I started the conversation in or mention more specifics in that category or that problem field.
If you're suggesting to ignore terrible / cruel / unfair design and just do my best for that system then I think I can say 'good luck' to anyone trying that (and I think we have proof in our lifetime and recent history... but more than me assuming anything on your side it seems (in my non-conflictive opinion) that you are jumping a bit to reply / reading too fast what I was writing/
The MAIN title can always be better but the context within it adjust it in each paragraph...
So just for your own replying feedback, it's a little bit like hearing a person mention something else but not really what I wrote (most of what I wrote talks about the injustice by design, defectiveness as a default and your comments seem limited in harmonising with that problem / perspective I was bring forward).
So while there is a lot more to say about life, it seems almost jumping around and even jumping to other things when the context is about life in authoritarian injustice etc etc (if you were reading fast, please study it a bit more like a mini essay) or happy to jump into chat because I think this is where I can catch anyone responding slightly tangentially or remind them what I was initially thinking. Thanks
@freeschool well, you still have not written what you would like to do with such system that you don't like. You didn't give a solution to this problem, but only talked about it. It is not so constructive, don't you think.
What I proposed is to leave the bad system as it is, because it would probably die without your effort and your work or your money. You stop using it or buying it or don't follow the directions it gives to you.
Is there something better to do? Should you fight it directly or indirectly? I usually prefer a peaceful method of conflict solving, if it is possible.
Understand the problem or explore first... AND then after thinking about a solution (not the other way around)...
@canwolf It is something I've found common where in the modern-day someone may or may not understand the problem or explore it enough first...
AND then on top wants a solution from someone else.
If you can see this human equation above, it is erroneous.
It is hard to tell people who can't see or are not taught (in common life or in sciences) that the human problem is not always a scientific or 1-shot answer or that it should be expected someone else has the answer instead of understanding the problem also much deeper.
So here we have something similar where it's a human problem and the solution *IS* the talking, IS the participating in understanding FIRST. But for many this evades them or they assume one person can give them such answers at the same time as trying to explain the problem and not claiming to see 100%. So it's probably a team game and this is what needs to happen more than anything.
It seems to me that people skip this part and also try to go 10 steps further trying to overreach in a 'solution' by those expecting it to be perfect and also the solution not been more of a slow-burn development... So yes I have some idea but without you and others looking part sciences or money, then you (plural) are still not going to get the solution or you (plural) are going to create problems in the solution AGAIN which I feel is the cycle happening.
Most of the solution is understanding the problem enough in this case and what's happened to us over a long time... AND then solutions will become more clear... it's you do it backwards your solution will be flawed... or people will start to look for holes (people are better are this or it's easier than talking around all the satellite problems and finally understanding one day) because there is a lot of bad work that is easy to do and also like 'efficiency' demoting or cutting out this we need as humans... and this includes expecting solutions before real study and consideration across many disciplines.
I'm not scolding you but it's very important to learn what we haven't learned, and going in to more area than which even sniper type you have been trained as and temped in analysis.
Often this sapience is in our schooling from youth but then we turn into sniper (in my observation and from how system is set up and some responses I get from mathmaticians, german-efficiency type thinking etc which is all good but unmoderated dangerous in it's 'efficiency' or non-caring... so to make a 'solution' it's easy from this perspective not to understand the human side and exploration needed to solve things because it's not rewarded and system not setup that way using psychology and deeper cross-discipline things from engineering or maths to caring psychological outcomes,
Maybe in business there is a bit but of what 'm looking for by the other ways (so not business for tricking people, number manipulation and money, but more ethics and measured acceptance of different people and ways even if a little business is the transition to the other side wherever we go with caring involved)
This involves hours of talking and doing what others have deliberately or not cut out of the equation (humans! caring, measured but accepting ways, trying to avoid the common pollution / devaluation of money or minimising it / not selling out completely etc etc).
I'm asking for you to have regular conversation and allow people into that conversation, as this increments the awareness but also a basic continuing conversation in the first place which in safe space helps to upgrade everything else in a person. This I can do with 1 or more people and so can everyone else.
I can also moderate a group that can see the result in my ability and even test it blind to see what I mean about the humanity that is needed... not just numbers etc.
Peaceful is good but nature of 1 individual or many has internal self-conflict and many external factors unavoidable. The idea is not to block but let our in a controlled way and deal with it nicely. If we agree this paragraph then we have to accept any heat / anger / passion / protectiveness people bring us and accept it while I can use language to show components and where there might be this misconceptions / fallacies or even just more-human possibilities a bit more as I'm more at peace with myself and expect everything from a system that has 'efficiently' cut it out.
Our task is to humanise a bit more.
Join me in chat,.. (invitation to you and everyone). Happy for this to be publicly or privately done for a small meeting 1hr perhaps so I can explain this live and direct to you (plural) and increment weekly or whenever you feel is right for you. Thanks)
I think I'm happy with what I wrote but feel it's a lot of text... so let us move into audio conversation so I can adjust these things as we go and even invite more people to listen and take turns like a 'round' table.
Imagine a system* which would never go against itself, and would never go against it's own design, would never develop anything that would undo it or make it 'better'... if you can imagine that (like the old authoritarian mentlity) then you can see better the reality no matter which realm of work you're in... and then start on what needs doing about it...
@freeschool The meaning of life is unrest and feeling the need to change (to change internaly and to change the world). Complete peace, stability leads to degradation, death.
There is never a system that is always the same. If you don't like how some of system's parts work, you should invest resources (time and effort) in another part of this system. To take the effort alone or with someone - it doesn't matter. But there should be your positive attitude about developing the system, a desire to make the world better and doing something for it.