thought and matter

Scrutiny of "objective truth", populistic degradetion of thought and poor ethics.  This blog attempts to be as apolitical as possible, rather challenging micro- to macro-scale questions on ethical and functional terms.

[thoughtandmatter]

The size of matter could matter

In the present the labelling of everything seems to be fetishized and given importance. Commercial interests use marketing to sell, and in the same process simplification takes place, and the nuances that take part in the more complex play of life are no longer so easy to consider. In most cases this is of little consequence. But classic and slightly entertaining examples would be the use of cocaine in toothing balm for infants around 1900′s. Cocaine, as quicksilver and silver, was considered a drug of wonderful healing powers, until they became aware of the implications. 

“Nano” is a descriptive word and is about scale, a very small one. Almost everything in the world, no matter how big, is on the nano-scale, except from for instance electrons which are too small. Now “nano” is being slapped on as a label representing “effective” or “good” on many products, the problem is that this is very new, and we have no idea what implications this could lead to. To introduce a wide variety of new matter could bring disaster when it enters the ecosystem. When the size is that small, it will enter animals, even tissue. There are already many examples of plastics in fish and other life forms. The introduction of nano-plastics is one of these new products being sold because it is a convincing sales argument, for a skin peeling cream (then not actually nano) or other consumer products. The problem with plastic is that although it might break into smaller pieces, it can take decades or longer for it to be removed. We have already introduced plastics into the biosphere, but we should prevent it from becoming worse than it already potentially is. Nano technology can have great benefits in some fields, but useless products such as those of vanity containing cheap nano-plastics to maximize profit are simply destructive. -A

[thoughtandmatter]

Apple on the one side, Nestlé on the other

Apple has been a life long companion, since my dad bought his first Macintosh in 1984. Since 2002 I have bought my own Apple products, currently the owner of an iPhone and a MacBook Pro, simply because I find them to be the most functional, intuitional and probably the products that sooth a certain vanity. These are my last Apple products, the same goes for Nestlé, both loosing me as a consumer for their hardline hunt for profil, although with different means, but it comes down to ethics. Apple hardly pays tax, thus avoiding their responsibility to contribute, and just their share size, being a bigger economy than some countries, makes their old fashioned greed even more vile. - Nestlé have a tendency to behave greedy as well. Their hunt for water, the abuse of resources and the lack of concern for theirs, and ours, environment is disturbing.

The campaign among owners and CEO’s giving away half their fortune is a nice personal gesture, but does not even count for a penny on a hundred dollar bill, in comparison to the tax evasion (technically maybe not evasion, but it should be) and the toll/loss implemented on communities and nature. The cost of restoration has never been accounted for, but that is a subject that can linger a little longer.

The list of companies involved in cynical business is long, and involves all products and services we use and rely on. The reason why these are on the wood block it because they are the gigants. If they are forced to adjust, then other will know that it matters. I do believe in business, but that should not contradict ethical behaviour. I might buy a new Apple product if they adjust, the same goes for Nestlé, but it is also an opportunity to support smaller aspiring businesses.

[thoughtandmatter]

simplifications and religions

This is complicated and potent territory for the very reason that religions are both part of, and span beyond, the realms of territory, societies, countries and traditions. Therefore it is simply idiotic to label a religion with “stamp” globally, encompassing and describing the religion as a whole. Such remarks, increasingly brought forth by populistic media coverage, are grotesque simplifications. Anyone suggesting one objective truth on these subjects cannot be further for the truth. Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, the Chinese religion, Judaism, Sikhism, Shinto and so many others all contain a wast network of variables, far too complex to be subject for generalisations and simplifications, specially while trying to identify an enemy or placing blame. To give an example of how flawed such simplifications are, and to show that there are many point of views, thus many “truths”: From an eastern point of view one of the most historically correct “truths” concerning Christianity is that it is/was an evil force, invading, plundering and enslaving millions. From a western point of view the same opinion muslim kingdoms can to some extent be argued for, specially for those in Spain and later in eastern europe when the Ottoman empire was a considerable force to recon with. For both the Muslim and Christian nations the hordes from the plains where worse, due to the Khan empires destruction of cities all through Asia, but also into the eastern parts of Europe. For instance did Hulagu Khan slaughter and sack Baghdad, and his cousin Batu Khan flattened the former Russian capital Vladimir, then he completely destroyed Kiev in 1240, leaving only 2000 survivors. Conflicts then, and now, are much more about nations and “collective constructs”/groups, and their desire to rule and control for stability, income and power.

Today in the west, Buddhism, not technically a religion, is looked upon as a good one, where millions of non buddhist use the fundamental thoughts as guidelines for a better way of life, as it is in large parts of asia. How ever, that does not mean that Buddhists are always kind and caring. There are some buddhist groups responsible for slaughter and mayhem, due to conflicts based of belief, politics and more. The same goes for Christianity, where groups commit horrible crimes in the name of the deity, as it is in some muslim communities. All this is how ever not a cause for generalisation, on the contrary, it is a reason for an articulate and investigating discussion, treating people as people. This is important because such generalisations are very often a war waged with words. Treat all articles and arguments with “christian/muslim/buddhist/and so on-fundamentalism” with a huge pinch of salt. Fundamentalism does exist, but that is not because of religion or origin, but due to other causes. Globally people have a strong tendency to be good, open and caring, and the globe seems to have much more urgent matter to deal with than constructing new reasons for warfare. -A

[thoughtandmatter]

Progress - regress

To give this a soft start.

Our society deals with a jungle of -ism’s, which all are simplifications, but they can lead us to thoughts and help observing tendencies that would be hard to see without terms like these. It is just important to keep in mind that they are simplifications.

“Progress” is today more or less as a global positive, meaning it is positive in all events, all forms. “Regress” is the opposite, but this is not by any means truth per say, it all depends of the perspective and what meaning/value the word in question is given. So much of what society takes for granted today stems from concepts introduced under very different circumstances decades ago. -A