|
in reply to Re^2: Organizational Culture (Part I): Introduction -- autogestion
in thread Organizational Culture (Part I): Introduction
I may have misunderstood your intent but -- taking prevarication to mean evasion of the truth; deceit, evasiveness -- it is widely accepted that prevarication was indeed common and widespread in hunter-gatherer communities ... and among many other Ape species too!
This may well be the case, but isn't very helpful. References to the animal kingdom must not lead to indulgence. As long as I define myself as human, there is a strong distinction between animals and humans - not wrt to the physical apparatus, where this distinction is pointless (which is why the term zoonosis is ridiculous), and not by the psychical pontential - but by the basic needs and aims of what can be coined human.
Somebody said (was it Steiner?): "humans have instincts, while animals are instincts". Which of course is an over-generalization, since animals do love and have emotions, and the same or even more potential than humans, and many species are e.g. able to transcend themselves and help even members of other species out of critical situations (think dolphins). And then, much of human intelligence is instinct driven, is tied to instincts and nothing but a refinement of them.
So, among the most basic needs of a human (his animal needs aren't looked at here, among which are many human liberties) are: transcendence and introspection, pursuit of knowledge and happiness (which is distinct from animal pleasure, but a delight of inner peace and achievement). This leads to the necessity of containment of men's animal condition and its instinct-driven forces (which btw is the meaning of Genesis 1, 28 "fill the earth and subdue it": it is men's own earthly condition which shall be subdued and filled with humanness). This never ever can be achieved by war against the animal condition, nor by negation or torturing it, only with love.
Having said this and coming back to prevarication: the human needs are present and don't die, and if they are overcome by the animal condition and subdued (by self or society), they don't go away but are perverted, and lead to abuse of both the animal and human condition of the human being. And this is the kind of prevarication Discipulus talkes about, at least I perceive it that way. It leads to atomic bombs and gain of function virus research.
I can smell abuse of power miles against the wind, and in hindsight I guess that this is one strong reason for me not to pursuit any kind of career whatsoever. And in the same notion, "Codes Of Conduct" are a bill of shame any community expedites to itself, not only to those who are blamed for making such proceedings necessary, but also for those who believe in fixing anything with that codes.
Prevarication is related to privatization (in fact "privare" in latin means "to rob"), and capitalism is built upon privatization and abuse of power, and it is nothing but the expression of lack of "subdueing
the earth" wrt some aspects in the above sense.
There are and have been other ways. E.g., even in the US, and more so in Canada, there are small towns whose inhabitants leave their ignition keys stuck to the cars: to make sure anybody in need of a car gets one. There are as much or more unlocked doors in Canada (in percent of households) as those with rifles in the US. Go figure.
perl -le'print map{pack c,($-++?1:13)+ord}split//,ESEL'
|
Re^4: Organizational Culture (Part I): Introduction -- prevarication
by Fletch (Bishop) on Jun 14, 2021 at 18:45 UTC
|
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals . . . except the weasels. — H. Simpson
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
Re^4: Organizational Culture (Part I): Introduction -- prevarication
by bliako (Monsignor) on Jun 15, 2021 at 08:11 UTC
|
Well said. Points made apply to many more areas of life and work. I totally agree. And at least once in my life I did apply the "I am Human, I refuse to downgrade", so, I am proud I try to be Human.
But the total sum of the trajectory of average human is "the belly", food, substinence, economy. And that amounts to a force so strong that takes away even the strongest humanists or it breaks them. Are there any humanists among the daily commuters of the metro in New York (judging only by films, never been there)?
Economy is Capitalism today. But there are different stages to Capitalism although it has always been brutal to a varying number people although, sometimes, it balanced out with its positive effects, like driving economy and technology to a max. Today it is brutal to a maximum number of people.
OT: Are there alternatives? Yes, I claim that technology as it is today can drive and sustain an alternative economy, although I respect the point of view of those saying "it has been tried before", my point is that technology is an important, qualitative factor in this new endeavour. And so, I am all for the abolishment of Capitalist Economy, confident that the alternative will succeed.
Back to the point of "Codes of Conduct", they are embelishments to the brutality we feel all around us. And often distract from the real issues. Like for example, human labour exploitation, different opportunites depending on income and class, 2nd/3rd-world exploitation (vaccines and India is a case in point), unemployment (for those who feel the need to Create). It reminds me of the anti-bullying campaigns in schools which totally ignore that the majority of those kids are already hit by inequalities and later will be bullied within and by the Economy they are destined to serve.
The above issues have become central in my life when it fell in my hands a marxist pamphlet in a boring train ride. That's why I keep mentioning them here, mostly as "FYI" and definetely not as "Proselytism", in PM with every opportunity (and elsewhere), but I do sense that I am overstepping the mark, PM being a Perl-forum. Well, I can not stop and I think PM is not just a Perl-forum and Perl is not just a computer language.
bw, bliako
| [reply] |
|
|
> Capitalism although it has always been brutal to a varying number people although, sometimes, it balanced out with its positive effects, like driving economy and technology to a max. Today it is brutal to a maximum number of people.
Yes, I suspect an ancient hunter-gatherer had a more satisfying, varied and enjoyable life than either
the agricultural revolution farm labourer or the industrial revolution factory worker.
Once you make "progress" it seems impossible to say "hey, that was a bad idea, let's go back to being hunter-gatherers!". :)
OTOH, if we remained hunter-gatherers indefinitely we'd certainly become extinct within a billion years or so, while now we have a chance
of longer-term survival by becoming a spacefaring civilization (while admittedly facing a good chance of self-destruction in the
next few hundred years if we fail to gain a foothold in space).
> Back to the point of "Codes of Conduct", they are embellishments to the brutality we feel all around us
I am not at all comfortable with them but ...
as a chess fan, this morning I was disgusted by
yet another cheating scandal,
this time in a Covid charity fund raising event, which resulted in
chess.com banning this user
with the message:
This account has been closed for violating our Fair Play Policy. These rules help keep chess fair for everyone.
I was so disgusted with the disrespect this billionaire showed to the great Vishy Anand
that I leapt out of my chair and punched the air with my fist when he got banned!
Curiously, it seems casual chess players do not understand this emotion, at least most of the chess cheaters are not part of the serious chess culture.
The rise of Covid has forced most chess to be played from home, where it's impossible to know, for sure, if someone is using a chess computer.
Sadly, chess.com's desperate policy of banning "cheats", based on statistical likelihood that they are using a computer,
sometimes results in innocent folks getting banned.
OTOH, chess computers have become so strong that they risk totally destroying the game of chess unless stern measures are taken.
Update: More links on the recent Covid charity chess cheating scandal:
See also: Cancel culture (wikipedia)
| [reply] |
|
|
Hello again eyepopslikeamosquito,
the point is not "let's go back to being hunter-gatherers!" the point is to evolve in a different way. Capitalism is founded on conquist: new markets, new products, new needs to create.. an having overhelmed geographically the whole planet now points its craveness toward new frontiers. It always reminds me an old Polish pun:
> Capitalism is the explotation by a man over a man. Real Socialism is exactly the opposite.
About the space faring civilization I'm completely against this idea: it is a fairy tale aimed to distract the attention on the sad fact we are destroying our dear blue planet: "Ok we failed with this planet, let's try another one" is not what I'd call a progress. If longer term survivial means to live into a metal box on the surface of Io or Europa, I'm not volunteering :)
Sci-fi is nice and fun, but until we brake the Universe Laws being able to travel in the iper-space and being able to terraform planets, there is nothing good for us at our reach. For me this is just the myth of Colonization era projected into the space.
I m strongly for a better consideration of the wonderful planet we walk on and, why not?, of their mad inhabitants :)
L*
There are no rules, there are no thumbs..
Reinvent the wheel, then learn The Wheel; may be one day you reinvent one of THE WHEELS.
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Hello bliako,
Off Topic..
all times I ear about our economy model, it comes back to my mind the best description I ever encountered and, no, it comes not from a '800 theory book :)
> I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus
Alternatives? Maybe we are too late, maybe not. Passing years I'm more and more persuaded that the first change must occur in our minds. I hope we will dont need a catastrophic event to realize the situation. The central point, in my opinion, is the the global values scale behind everything: we are stuck to a view where the monetary profit is only and ultimate value for everything. I have a different scale: first of all there is our dear planet made by earth, air and water: without this in more than decent condition there is no chance for human beings to survive. At the second place there is the humankind: we are a lot! Probably too much to not over exploit the planet and probably we need a serious birth control for next centuries. That said all humans have the right to live decently and in freedom, but not the rigth to overhelm the neigbour nor the planet. After these points if there is room for personal profit, we can discuss about it..
..but not too much!
How this can be related to free software communities? It is and a lot. We want to be named as a naif interlude in the software era, finally and forever dominated by companies? Or maybe we will realize that we need a big effort to define a new ethic making our communities more and more stronger? I have already stated my points recently and autogestion is the key word for the solution I see. But a big theoretical and practical effort is needed to make some step forward, from the, sad, point we are.
Being sceptical about Internet Democracy applied to general politic ( we had bad experiences in my country ;) if we are talking about Free Software communities a lot can be done: representativeness can be achieved with easy: a survey about the cpan RT tool would have been a good idea, before announcing the intent to shut it down: maybe you can have more votes based on the total upstream value of your modules on cpan, maybe core module developpers can have +1000 vote, maybe the pumpiking can have 10000 votes.. or what we decided togheter.
That is the point: the little power we have has to be dissected, reasonably removing the possibility to be used to overhelm something or someone. Responsability will be toward the bottom of the community, not toward a boss or an abstract idea. Participation will be asked from a minimal kind of to something more challenging.
about Code of Conduct
> Back to the point of "Codes of Conduct", they are embelishments to the brutality we feel all around us..
Well.. I think CoC come from another mentality, in my opinion typical of the Anglo-Saxon (how do you say nowadays: Western?) colture. For peoples accostumed to Roman Laws (and Bizanthyne ones!) for centuries the Anglo-Saxon approach seems semplicistic, naif and somehow childish. I dont want to offend, I want only highline a different cultural approach.
I remember filling same paper to take a flight passing from Canada: I was very surprised by the question: are you a terrorist? and it made me laugh. The point is: they dont expect someone admitting to be a terrorist but the opportunity to slap your lie in your face during an eventual judgement.
So what is a Code of Conduct? Dont be an asshole.. It sounds not very different from the above terrorist question. But certainly we need a minimal, but shared and community born, framework to rule or circumscribe interactions. For example what communication channels are admittable? We have so much that it becomes a hairy thing to shave, but we have to.
So call it organizational colture or autogestion it is something we need desperately.
L*
There are no rules, there are no thumbs..
Reinvent the wheel, then learn The Wheel; may be one day you reinvent one of THE WHEELS.
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
Codes of conduct are embellishments of the brutality all around us, but I think they are more than that.
Human nature is not good at interacting kindly and effectively with people who are very different from us, so most or all human societies that ever existed -- and a programming language community is a society; it has a membership who interact and a culture that structures those interactions -- most or all human societies, I was saying, have been built by tiny unrepresentative samples of humanity, and have therefore defaulted to being unsafe, often mortally unsafe, for everybody else.
Granted, that does mean that most people could get a break from brutality, by hunkering down and really toeing the line within their own society, whereas now there's nowhere for anybody to hide. The mentality that is re-produced by our economic system is horrific. But ...
We've made progress in learning to build societies that can deal with difference. It sounds underwhelming in retrospect, but in the last few centuries we've been building a consensus against the genocidal way we responded to difference for tens of thousands of years before. We've conceived and started to enact egalitarian ideals.
Most recently, we started to take seriously the prime weakness of majoritarianism -- its susceptibility to a tyranny of the majority, and particularly of an uninvested and uninformed majority -- and begun uncertainly feeling our way toward ethics and habits where the majority who do not face an uncommon difficulty listen to the minority who do, take them as authorities on it, accept it as a problem even though it does not harm them personally, and work to solve it. And all of that started up before the Internet Age really kicked in.
The last 30 years, and especially the last ten, have forced us all to come to grips with the reality of difference like never before. We encounter more, orders of magnitude more, of the variety of human experience than we ever did before. I started writing Perl because I needed to munge various linguistic data. As accidental side effects of that, despite having spent most of my life in bland suburban Washington state and living (at the time) in the blandest part of suburban Utah, I received meaningful, authoritative introductions to both statically typed functional programming and the lives of the transgender, from a turbogenius in Taiwan who thereafter became a cabinet minister. Encounters like that happened as many times in a lifetime as they now happen at a single conference or in a couple months in an online community. We haven't been in these circumstances for very long, and we're still figuring out, as individuals and organizations, how to do society in them. Codes of conduct are a vehicle whereby we share what we (think we) know about that.
In that light, codes of conduct represent the inadequacy of styles of interaction that we took for granted, or at least allowed, in relatively homogeneous societies that easily enforced conformity. But they represent our coming to know about that inadequacy and trying to address it. They imply that we and the world we come from are not safe for everyone, but they imply that we are trying to make them so.
Now, I don't believe that a written standard of conduct can ever encompass everything we owe to each other. The Face of the Other is a living reality with infinite potentials. There's always a gap between that and any codification. But I'm a linguist long since reconciled to the fact that no utterance is unambiguous; codes of conduct have to be interpreted intelligently by an act of will, but so does everything else we say, sign, or write.
I am more concerned about the potential for a written rule not to sublimate into an ethos, but to calcify into useless legalisms. I graduated from BYU twice, yo? That's a failure mode I'm familiar with. But I think the world is becoming less conducive to rigid conformism, so I'm still cautiously optimistic about codes of conduct.
| [reply] |
|
|
In that light, codes of conduct represent the inadequacy of styles of interaction that we took for granted, or at least allowed,
in relatively homogeneous societies that easily enforced conformity.
But they represent our coming to know about that inadequacy and trying to address it.
They imply that we and the world we come from are not safe for everyone, but they imply that we are trying to make them so.
This topic is covered in much more detail in a later instalment of this series: Organizational Culture (Part V): Behavior
I remember being shocked by the aggressive tone on the Perl 5 Porters mailing list in the early years,
especially surprising given Larry's naturally gentle demeanour.
And, of course, Perl Monks had the infamous BrowserUk v SunnyD show. :)
The general tone of both these places feels much milder today.
And not just the Perl community:
I personally applaud the way the programming world has become a much friendlier and safer place over the years.
Some of my big bosses from the early years were extremely scary and I dreaded making eye contact with them in the corridor.
Perhaps they were trying to copy the macho behaviour of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs from that era ...
the gentler Don't be evil slogan at Google may have been a reaction to that.
Anyway, I feel the programming world is a much nicer and safer place today than it was thirty years ago.
| [reply] |
|
|
