Relations – Harmonia Philosophica

Sharing.

In the modern world, people cooperate with other people including strangers all the time. Researchers reporting in Current Biology who’ve studied Hadza hunter-gatherer people in Tanzania over a six-year period have new and surprising insight into why people work together. The findings show that it isn’t that people who like to share choose to live with others who also like to share. Rather, people adapt their own sharing tendencies so as to match that of the group they currently live in. In other words, sharing is driven by local group norms and behaviour. (1)

Typical modern scientific conclusion.

Typical modern scientific research.

Ignoring the real problem.

And just pushing back the solution.

Let’s agree with the result of the researchers and say that our behavior towards sharing is defined by the behavior of the group. Does this answer the true question which is why do we share in the first place? Surely not. It just pushes back the problem, since now we must try to find out why the group we are in is favorable to sharing. And this group is made out of people. So again, we are where we started from: To try to understand why people share.

Typical modern scientific conclusion.

Typical modern scientific research.

Ignoring the real solution: Our own free will is the source of all we do. We are the masters of the cosmos, not its slaves. Look at the problem. There is no solution. It is just that there is no problem in the first place…

There is no river.

There is no water.

There is no life.

In the beginning there was just everything. And still is.

e-Book. Not mine! Being here. Touching.

Decoding digital ownership: Why your e-book might not feel like ‘yours’. People feel very differently about owning physical books versus e-books, a recent study shows. While stereotypes suggest that younger consumers prefer digital books, that is not actually the case, researchers found.

Despite stereotypes that paint millennials as “all technology, all the time,” young people may still prefer curling up with a paper book over their e-reader – even more so than their older counterparts – according to a new study from the University of Arizona that explores consumers’ psychological perceptions of e-book ownership.

The study also found that adult consumers across all age groups perceive ownership of e-books very differently than ownership of physical books, and this could have important implications for those in the business of selling digital texts.

Participants across all age groups reported feeling a constricted sense of ownership of digital books versus physical books, based on the fact that they don’t have full control over the products. For example, they expressed frustration that they often could not copy a digital file to multiple devices. (1)

What is mine is here for me to touch.

Our sense of the world is limited to the reach of our hands.

We may feel like the masters of the universe.

But we are just people. Walking on the ground.

Touch that rose. Watch out of the thorns.

I told you.

Blood.

Red blood.

Dripping.

In the morning brisk.

Let me touch you. I love you. Yes.

I am the master of the universe…

Divorce. Separation. Matter. Soul.

Children of divorced parents are more likely to get divorced when compared to those who grew up in two-parent families – and genetic factors are the primary explanation, according to a study by researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University and Lund University in Sweden.

The study’s findings are notable because they diverge from the predominant narrative in divorce literature, which suggests that the offspring of divorced parents are more likely to get divorced themselves because they see their parents struggling to manage conflict or lacking the necessary commitment, and they grow up to internalize that behavior and replicate it in their own relationships. (1)

We tend to believe matter is to be blamed for everything.

And we are absolutely right.

Yes, it is your genes to blame. But not because they do anything. Not because they affect anything or because they interact with anything. But simply because they exist. Matter is what makes the cosmos be. And the same matter is what keeps things (and people) apart.

It takes a soul to see the unity of all things.

Happy kids. Sad kids.

Look at their eyes.

Only there can you see the cosmos glowing…

Empty. And yet full.

Arranged marriages or marriages out of love? A not so easy to answer question…

– Have your married out of love?
– Of course! What a silly question!

Is it silly?

While in our society and in any other “progressive” society the marriage out of love is the norm, there are still some societies (like India, S. Arabia etc.) where many marriages are arranged. The question is whether these arranged marriages are unacceptable and whether they are more successful or less successful than marriages based on love. Emotional cries of the type “We are not in the Middle Ages” do not fit into this debate. Anyone who has even the least contact with countries where arranged marriages exist, is able to certify that such marriages can be successful. Let alone the fact that few of us can say with certainty that his grandparents or his great-grandparents were not married via an arranged marriage.

A related conversation at Quora can be seen here. There exists a reference to a survey that states that while many love marriages gradually fail, love in arranged marriages is being built and growing over time. I have no opinion on whether the research is valid, I just mention this as a food for thought. And certainly when one takes into account the growing divorce trends in love marriages, the question seems even more timely and difficult than we would like to admit.

The religious question now comes to Christianity: What will a religious person choose? If one wishes to be objective, he must recognize that Christianity would theoretically prefer marriage from true love. (although we must note that arranged marriages have been the norm for thousands of years also in the Christian societies!) Christianity favors love, unconditional love and is against any attempt to rationalize the affection between two people. On the other hand, the most correct rational view is the one that wants the choice of couples after the logical analysis of all the parameters in order to find the optimal “match” – that is, the arranged marriage.

Difficult problems with difficult solutions – if there are any.

Because as in all human problems, there is no easy answer here…

Search deep inside yourself…

Who is rational about this? (arranged marriages)

Who is irrational? (marriages out of love)

Autism, statistics, numbers, Love.

Τhe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) raised eyebrows, and concern among current and prospective parents, with a report documenting that the rate of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnosis in the United States jumped 30% between 2008 and 2010, from one in 88 to one in 68 children. CDC officials don’t know, however, whether the startling increase is due to skyrocketing rates of the disorder or more sensitive screening, or a combination of both. (Forbes gives a nice rundown of the many reasons for this uncertainty).

The number of diagnoses “have been steadily climbing” from one in 150 since the CDC’s national surveillance system was put into place in 2000, “so I guess I shouldn’t be that surprised” by the new data, says Sarah Spence, a neurologist at Boston Children’s Hospital. About half of the children diagnosed with ASD in the new report had normal or above-average intelligence, compared with a third of children 10 years ago, suggesting that a significant proportion of the new cases are due to more sensitive diagnostic measures rather than increased incidence, she says. Still, “I think all of us in the field are a little frightened by the numbers”. (1)

The simplest way to distort the truth is to measure it.
Numbers cannot replace Love.

Every measurement is based on specific conditions and assumptions.
But love is unconditional.
Without assumptions.
Without limitations.

Nothing.
0.

Everything.
10.

You.
1.

I.
1, 2, 3…

We are all autistic!