|
|
21 May 2008 @ 06:34, by shreepal. Organizational Development
If we apply this defining feature of life to our surrounding universe, we find, surprisingly, all bodies – which are nothing but the systems of component parts – take birth, grow and finally die. Is there life in them? If yes, how evolved are these living systems? Can we communicate with them? They all are so near to us, almost in our midst. A cell in human body is a living structure; it is an independently living thing, though enabled by and thus connected to its surroundings network; it is as well a part of the whole system, which is human being. Can a cell communicate with nearby other cells? Can it communicate with its host, that is, the human being concerned who is highly evolved with the sense of a ‘self’ and whose simple component part it is? There are several kinds of pathogens, which are housed in our body (and now found that they pass on to our next generations through our own mutated DNAs); they are sometime component parts of our own life, our own DNAs. Can these pathogens communicate with the human being whose body houses them? No. Why can’t they do so? We know human cells and whole kinds of its activities but this cell does not know our evolved self. This is the problem that we face in this approach in our search of ET life that may very well exist in our midst, with all its capabilities beyond our comprehension (like fabricating devices a la UFOs, maintaining vigil over human activities on earth, intervening in human affairs by bringing their occasional destructions, which may look to us like innocent natural disasters, because in their estimation humans have gone astray in their activities of the desired course); this kind of life and their community, if existing, must be able, at least theoretically, to contrive things what we call UFOs, keep a watch over our thoughts and activities, while living in our midst and without ever being detected by us with our narrow outlook of life.
Could it be that there is life all around us and in abundance? Are we simply one of many kinds of life existing in material form? And, are we and these other kinds of life merely parts of a mega life existing in material form all around us? If it is so, how can we detect them? How can we communicate with them? What kinds of scientific tools would be required to communicate with our neighborly life? Can we employ mathematical tools to decode their k\life code? In this endeavor our knowledge of coding computer software and genetic coding may be a great help. We have to take their fundamental principles and apply them to our surrounding world. Even we may apply them to many phenomena present on earth, which in essence may be systems in operations.
In this approach to search ET life around us we assume that in a given case a particular kind of life program coded with the aid of concerned media is being executed through instructions. These instructions would be mechanism of elements involved propelling the whole system. In the life we have on earth, there is an intake of energy that comes from food. This energy propels the whole system geared to bring the programmed outcome, namely, the above mentioned three common properties of life.
Today we know that all other systems of bodies around us in universe behave in a way that amounts to taking energy from outside surrounding source and this energy keeps the system going on at the path of its programmed birth, growth and death. Are the component parts of these systems merely like cells of human body, which are simply executing a coded program? Definitely, all systems are nothing but programs in execution dependant on very many variants, which are akin to instructions. A system in action is akin to a cell in our body. But, we take for granted; these systems made up of inert matter are not living beings like our cells. Why do we associate life with ‘exclusively’ our kind of life? Why we are so narrow minded? We have come a long way on our scientific path.
We associate life with movement (trees do not move), with basic instincts (earth and its rivers try to repair damage done to them by humans), with procreation (there is constant cycle of birth, growth and death of stars, galaxies etc. going on in the universe and the differing time scale involved here in these different systems is not material. A life may very well have a span of time ranging from micro seconds to billions of earth years), with emotions like love, anger etc. and thoughts of humans. Are emotions like love and anger and thoughts possible of generating or expressing in the human-way only? Human thoughts correspond to something else independently existing in Nature; thoughts are the human mind’s version of inter-relations of material objects that already exist independently in Nature. Human way of thinking is not the only way of expressing these independently existing inter-relations of things. There can be very many ways to express them, though we would not be able to comprehend those ways because they would belong to a different kind of life. All working systems are equivalent to complex human thoughts. Or, rather, all systems are thoughts in concrete form, in material form, in visible form. Emotions like love and anger are, likewise, expressions in human-way of something else that exist independently in Nature. There could be very many ways to express them, which would be beyond our comprehension since they would be in the domain of a different kind of life. More >
|
|
|
|
 14 Jun 2007 @ 13:47, by ming. Organizational Development
"The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
What a great quote! Burkhardt was a Swiss social historian from the 19th century. He is credited with discovering (identifying) the age of the Renaissance. And for that matter also with the basic idea of being able to study and describe different periods as a whole, including culture, institutions, daily life, etc.
Life is complex, biologically, socially, culturally. The most awesome stuff that exists is complex. The universe, evolution, eco-systems, art, adventure, human culture in general, and the human mind.
That same human mind is at a crucial point in its evolution. We can consciously think abstractly. But not very well. The part of our mind we're conscious of, and that we usually identify with as "me", typically has an extremely inflated idea of its own worth and its own independent existence. That despite that it can only solve extremely simple problems, and it doesn't even know how. It over-simplifies everything, and it tends to think it is in charge.
That simple mind is also the wonderous faculty for paying attention and appreciating life, and for consciously discovering the mysteries of the universe and of human existence.
But when the simple mind gets stuck in the idea that it is in charge, and one of those simple minds end up commanding armies of millions of men, and huge economies, guiding the lives of billions, we're quite a bit in trouble. When the simple mind doesn't accept the complexity that brought it about, and it actually believes that its simple ideas are facts, and it tries to act accordingly, then we're in a lot of trouble. Yes, tyranny is when powerful rulers decide that the complexity simply is unacceptable, and it tries to control it, deny it, wipe it out. When a small group of people agree on a small list of small ideas as being the correct ones, validated by nothing much more than the voices in their heads, life is in danger. Doesn't matter much if their ideas are religious or moral or economical or political. It is the denial of the fundamental complexity of things that turns it into tyranny.
What saves us is often that those simple minds make many mistakes and miscalculations, so eventually their schemes fall apart. But it might take a while, and it is hard to predict what they take with them on the way down.
It hopefully sorts itself out in time, before it is too late. As the world becomes more complex, it gets harder to control big chunks of it without some understanding of complexity. One can still win in the short term by strategies of denying complexity, by forcing life into simple monocultural molds. But complexity has a life of its own, and there will inevitably be a certain evolutionary natural selection that takes place. The stuff that works will outcompete the stuff that doesn't work, given enough time.
And that in itself is reason for limitless optimism. Simple, rigid structures are subject to entropy. They fall apart over time, turn to dust. Wheras complexity, of the type that life is made of, regenerates, re-configures itself, it evolves, it transitions to higher orders of organization. I think I'm gonna place my bets on life. More >
|
|
|
|
 5 Apr 2007 @ 14:31, by jerryvest. Organizational Development
Dear friends and Team Members,
I want to thank everyone for your contributions to our Las Cruces Health Promotion Team with Elders during the past year (April 1, 2006-April 1, 2007). We certified 65 team members and gave 2,445 stressouts in our 4 health centers and nursing homes during this past year. This is very impressive and I'm sure that we have contributed to the health and wellbeing of our participants and wider community.
These figures do not include the 90 caregivers who participated in our stressout program during the City-wide Conference. Also, the LC In-home Care Program includes the stressout as part of their daycare program with Alzheimers so their clients receive the stressout regularly. Our BSW students gave stressouts every Tuesday morning during this Sp 07 term, along with Christy with these participants.
It is great that our College of Health & Human Services -social work, nursing and health science students-- are all represented and working together in our touch program. Our elder team members, Ann and Elizabeth, are the pillars of our organization and they are to be commended for giving stressouts every week at Mesilla Park and East Side Centers. Our goal is to have at least 2 team members in each diabetic clinic.
During the next few months, Francesca and her staff will be introducing and teaching our program with nursing home staff and in the Fall Semester, we are hopeful that nursing and social work students and others will continue to join with us in our outreach activities.
Finally, as one of our students mentioned today during our stressout program at Good Samaritan..." I felt as though I was receiving much more energy in return for giving the stressout." Integrative Health Forum
Cher, thank you for maintaining our records and for supporting our teams. Aurora, you are a great strength. Nice going.....best wishes to you all as we start a new year and continue to advance safe, skillful and nourishing touch with our elders, families, friends and others. You are wonderful.
Jerry
PS Please feel free to add anything you wish with this report as I love to hear about the many experiences our team members and participants have while giving touch. I have not included the skillful touch given by our global team members, but will add them as comments as they arrive.
15-Minute StressOut Program More >
|
|
|
|
19 Jul 2006 @ 09:24, by armos. Organizational Development
In the millenia people dreamed of a new society, more fair, more free, more reasonable. They dreamed not simply of a material prosperity and safety - they dreamed, speaking language of my concept, about freedom of self-accomplishment (self-knowledge, self-development and self-realization), about freedom of performance of the Supreme Mission, about freedom of construction of Paradise on the Earth. At last, this time, time of realization of high dream of mankind, has come... More >
|
|
|
|
13 Jul 2006 @ 18:10, by swanny. Organizational Development
July 13, 2006
Canada
Thursday
I am wondering why it seems there is something about
the subconscious involved here. Somewhat that aspects of
the subconscious have evolved or been made manifest in
conscious reality or that the subconscious is different
than it was. Not sure what would be a example though???
Sort of a merger of conscious and subconscious to yield
a synergistic consciousness or noetic consciousness.
and that "this" or "this reality" is the "effect" of the merger.
Examples....
Well take this incongruency...
the landing on the moon and the woodstock 69 art festival...
What kind of conscious or subconscious can mitigate that
divergence.
Well anyway More >
|
|
|
|
4 Jan 2006 @ 14:07, by jmarc. Organizational Development
I'd been down in the basement a couple weeks ago,
wrapping Christmas gifts and filling christmas
stockings, when I noticed that a piece of D-Con
had fallen off of the high shelf that I keep it on,
and was on the floor. I picked it up and went aboout
my business finishing my wrapping. I'd left the
wrapping paper and tape and stuff down there on my
work bench, so a few days after christmas, when we
were packing away all of the decorations into boxes
to sit in the attic for another year, I went down
into the cellar again to retrieve the wrapping paper.
As I was cleaning up, I noticed that i had left two
herseys kisses on the work bench. They'd never made
it into a stocking. I also noticed that the piece of
D-Con was now missing off its shelf and was no where
to be found. So I decided to leave the candy there,
on the bench in a conspicuous place, to see if we
had mice or something. Checking a couple days later,
the kisses were gone. This being a fairly good
indication that we had a rodent problem, I scheduled
a day last weekend and went down there and gave the
place a thorough sweeping, filling suspicious holes
in the field stone basement walls so I would be able
to tell where they were getting in. While sweeping up,
I noticed that the air filter for the furnace was on
the floor. Since we'd had the furnace tuned up and and
a new fan limiter switch installed on it this summer, I
assumed that the guy who had worked on the furnace had
changed the filter and left the old one lying there.
I picked it up and threw it away. More >
|
|
|
|
 21 Jun 2005 @ 20:38, by rcarratu. Organizational Development
A geodemocracy is unique because it is based upon a natural geometry, the geometry of Nature, Synergetics, discovered in Nature rather than made up by people who thought the world was flat.
The geometric design of the Geodemocracy concept not only sidesteps the usual problems of hierarchic government/organization but has characteristics not deductible by the parts considered separately.
That is... a geodemocracy is not corruptible.
This is a very weird idea for people who have grown up with the idea that 'a single bad apple spoils the barrel' and other such sad cliches. In all other organizations, one idiot hassler can spoil the whole experience and the results of the experience simply by hassling everyone. A charismatic powermonger can con everyone and get agreement to be put in a position of power where he or she can spoil everything, ruin the effort of a whole group. Jeeze, I've seen that many times, dozens at least.
A Geodemocracy prevents such a 'hassler' or 'powermonger' from influencing anything in the organization, and since there are no 'power positions', they cannot work themselves into a position to mess up anything. They are equal by position, and that position cannot become a thorn in the side of the democracy.
One of the CIA's most basic control strategies for breaking up groups is to infiltrate two or more agents into the organization and the agents help work each other up into positions of power, where they then start separating people into subgroups which oppose each other, eventually destroying the unity of the organization through internal disagreement. I've seen that done also.
There are no positions of power beyond each individual in the Geodemocracy, so this also has no effect at all. And there is no way any outside group, or even government, could shut down a large geodemocracy, even if it has no function as a government but is just an organization to do good among humanity and the environment. A Geodemocracy would likely do things the governments should do but don't, and being a benefit to any government pretty much makes that organization liked by that government.
The geometry of a Geodemocracy would judo almost anything that might corrupt it, the way steel is not damaged by wax, even hot wax. The characteristics of the materials themselves prevent corruption, and the interaction causes no harm. Human Nature is every way humans can be, but the geometry does not allow interaction with the aspects of human nature which easily messes up all the other forms of government or organization. More >
|
|
|
|
 5 Apr 2005 @ 01:53, by ida. Organizational Development
More >
|
|
|
|
 13 Mar 2004 @ 05:35, by ming. Organizational Development
Wired has a good article about people working in computer companies in India, who do a lot of business that is out-sourced from the U.S. It can well freak out a lot of high-tech employees in the U.S. that what is a $70,000 a year job in their area is more like a $7,000 a year job in India. And it is today both technically and organizationally very possible for a large company to oursource big chunks of their work to a place like India. And what might freak out the guy in the U.S. even more is to realize that his counterparts in India are well-ecucated, professional, well-organized, and probably willing to work harder to get the job done.
I can certainly have the same fears. My expectation of how I will be paid is along the lines of the U.S. scale. But I also notice increasingly how there are programmers on the net from Russia or Asia who apparently can do large jobs for what I would consider impossibly small amounts of money. And they seem skilled and professional. I obviously can't compete on price with somebody who'll do for $200 what I'd need $5000 for.
But that Wired article makes it seem natural and positive. Which I'm sure it is. In a global free market, those who're best suited to do a job, and who can do it the best, for the lowest costs - of course it makes sense if they do it. It would be silly to try to use laws and protectionism to force people to needlessly pay 10 times as much for the same work. Efficient telecommunication tools allow high-tech industries and booming economies to grow and flourish in places where they otherwise couldn't. That's a good thing. That a lot of the business comes from other places than where the workers are does in no way have to be any problem.
So, the answer is of course to be flexible, and to do the things that ARE needed in one's local area, and which one can make a valuable contribution towards. So, maybe one might put the business together, or structure it, or sell it, or consult about it, rather than necessarily doing all the work locally. There are always things to do. Like, how Aparna Jairam, the project manager on the picture, quotes from the Bhagavad Gita:"Do what you're supposed to do. And don't worry about the fruits. They'll come on their own." More >
|
|
|
|
 6 Feb 2003 @ 16:35, by ming. Organizational Development
I'm tired of being a hard worker, rather than a smart operator. I don't know where I picked it up, but I've for years had the strategy of a workaholic in denial. If I just work harder, and put in more hours, and I try to keep up with everything that is thrown at me, I'll be alright. And that worked fine for a long time. At some jobs I've had, people were puzzled that I could get so much done. But my secret was sometimes not much more than that I worked 80 hours per week, and they only worked 50. They slept 7 hours per night, and I managed with 5.
But it is also the choice between whether you're the guy who does the work, or the guy who makes the work happen. I've been a supervisor, and led and managed teams of people, but I've somehow managed to always keep the attitude that I was the guy who'd do the work. Like, for one large programming project, I had five programmers, but it was still me who came in Saturdays, and who took the work home, and who ended up having written 90% of the code. Several times I've been given the choice on whether I'd be the manager or whether I'd be the techie, and I usually chose to be the chief techie.
But where it goes wrong is in the knowledge work of knowing what exactly you're doing, why you're doing it, and what the best ways of doing things are, including who best to delegate it to. Just oneself working harder is often a pretty dumb approach. What has sometimes happened to me is that I've been so busy with my nose to the grindstone, that I didn't notice that everybody else around me got really busy jockeying for position, writing reports, making presentations, protecting their territories, covering their asses, gathering really good information about what they should or shouldn't be doing. And suddenly I realize I have 15 bosses telling me what to do, and I'm the only guy who actually works, and there aren't hours enough in the day to do what everybody wants. And I had spent zero time on maneuvering around and negotiating things, so I have no political leverage.
Recently there was this one part of a bigger programming project I just couldn't seem to get around to. It was writing a very efficient SMTP mailing engine in C. Normally I do PHP programming nowadays. My C coding skills were extremely rusty, and I sort of needed to study up on what to do, and how to do a multi-threaded program. And I kept saying that I hoped to get to it next week. And they were very patient, but after about a year of that, they figured it wasn't going to happen, and instead of using my system they went out and spent 1/2 million dollars elsewhere, on another system doing roughly the same thing as what I had written for them, but which had solved that particular mailing problem. And the ridulous thing is that the piece I needed could have been coded in about a month by an experienced C programmer. And if I had told them that I needed another programmer, they would have said "Yes, of course". But I didn't. I just tried to work harder.
Enough. Time for a different strategy. More with less. More >
|
|
Page: 1 2 Older entries >> |
|
