Está excelente promover la lectura, pero creo que de vez en cuando uno se debería preguntar la razón del por qué lee. ¿Para entretenerse? ¿Para saber más? ¿Para fortalecer la importancia personal?
Uno de los valores más grandes que veo de la lectura es el cultivarse (de ahí viene el término "cultura"). Técnicamente, una persona cultivada es aquella que ha abierto sus horizontes más alla del entorno que lo vio nacer en sentido social y cultural (el cual en realidad tendríamos que llamar "tradición", ya que nacimos con ella y no fue algo que nosotros cultivásemos).
El cultivo no es solamente en términos de información o aprendizaje, sino debería tener como resultado una visión más amplia. Esto raramente pasa cuando uno sólo lee cosas que refuerzan nuestros propios prejuicios e ideas, lee autores que piensan igual a nosotros o dicen cosas que nos agradan. No hay cultivo en este tipo de lectura.
Entonces, para ampliar la visión, uno debe leer aquellos que nos confrontan, a aquellos que nos ofrecen ideas que jamás habíamos pensado, o incluso a aquellos que piensan de forma diametralmente a nosotros.
Con este tipo de lecturas son las que he notado que uno crece más, se afina nuestra capacidad crítica, se flexibilizan nuestras opiniones y tenemos una visión más amplia del mundo y de los demás. Nuestros prejuicios se aminoran, nuestra empatia por los extraños crece, dejamos de ver el mundo en términos dualistas de "buenos" contra "malos", vemos todo fenomeno como una compleja interdependencia, nuestra curiosidad y capacidad de asombro se multiplica y sobre todo, nuestro sentido del humor estalla y dejamos de creer que somos tan importantes al pensar que sólo nuestra opinión es válida. Eso es lo que creo que significa "abrir los horizontes".
Naturalmente, uno no tiene por que estar de acuerdo con todo lo que lee, pero es importante escuchar por qué el otro piensa de la forma en que lo hace. Y así, de vez en cuando, uno debe de ponerse a observar por qué uno mismo piensa lo que piensa, o lee lo que lee.
Sunday, June 9, 2013
Saturday, May 11, 2013
What I'm thinking #2
I believe it's necessary something akin to the Godwin's law to deter mentioning geocentrism as an analogy of an overcame paradigm ("...people used to believe that the sun turned around the Earth...").
There's something about the overuse of that paradigm in conferences, lectures and discussions that I don't really like: maybe it's too cliche, maybe I'm tired of hearing it, but my mission will be to find out what lies behind when people tend to use it so much, if there's something to be found.
[Godwins law tl;dr:
The larger grows a discussion, the probability of using an analogy involving Hitler or the nazi regime approaches 1.
Corollary: When an analogy with Hitler or the nazis is mentioned, it's a symtom that the discussion has been stagnated or wasted, and it should be stopped immediately]
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
What I'm thinking #1
In South Park's episode Die, hippie, die a group of "know-it-all college hippies" complain about the evil corporations, claiming many things should be changed for good and in order to make their voice be heard, organize a music festival in South Park. Although initially joins them, Stan later notices that those college hippies do nothing to take down the corporations or take actual actions to change the world: "Maybe instead of complaining about corporations being selfish, we should look at ourselves. I mean, is there anything more selfish than doing nothing but getting high and listening to music all day long?"
Companies are not evil/good. They're just full of people like you and me, driven by the same selfishness than you and me. So think about it a moment: are corporations the actual problem?
Perhaps it's something else.
Companies are not evil/good. They're just full of people like you and me, driven by the same selfishness than you and me. So think about it a moment: are corporations the actual problem?
Perhaps it's something else.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Meat, twinkies and steel
My knowledge on nutrition and biology is elemental at best, but the following insights have taken my attention in the last days and have made me think of the topic of nutrition and the concept of "health".
First of all, there's an increasing awareness in society and media on what we eat and how it affects our diet and health. I believe that being aware of what we do -specially on things we often do compulsively like eating- it's really beneficial as we have an attentive way of life and raise perception on all internal and external factors of our actions and how they impact the world. For instance, factory farming solves the problem of feeding a large and very concentrated population, but industrial raising and slaughtering of animals brings them a lot of stress and suffering which in turn results in a high toxicity in the meat we eat, ending up in all sorts or diseases and ailments.* But there's a distinction between awareness and obsession, and I believe that for some people, their seek for "healthy food" has became the latter. Take for example this family [spanish only] or this article on the topic. While it's reasonable for a parent to pay attention to her children eating habits and intake of unhealthy food, I do believe there's a problem when you try to detoxify your children after one of them ate a single marshmallow.
Not only obsession for healthy food has been around, but also unhealthy means to get a good shape or weight. There's a rapidly growing industry of "healthy living" everywhere, and naturally aggresive marketing campaings to sell diet books, workout programs, organic products, etc. With so much propaganda, It seems like being healthy is becoming a new XXI century obsession, specially where no accurate information is available.
With it's shocking experiment "The Twinkie Diet", Professor Mark Haub has raised many interesting questions about the topic. Having lost 27 pounds without getting higher cholesterol or triglycerides levels by eating only Twinkies he know asks, "What does that mean? Does that mean I'm healthier? Or does it mean how we define health from a biology standpoint, that we're missing something?". Of course, Haub is not suggesting that the Twinkie Diet is healthy, but when it comes to only lose weight or have certain measures low, what does it mean to be healthy anyways? As he suggest, we need to revise our definition of what does it mean to be healthy.
When I think of somebody healthy, it comes to my mind factors such as resistance to illness, strength, physical energy and a good hair, skin and teeth appearance. And while many people suggest a diet based on vegetables or at least a balanced diet of all alimentary groups, it was surprising to find in one of my readings about Genghish Khan and his warriors that one of their advantages in comparison to rival armies was how healthy and strong was a Mongolian soldier: strong teeth and bones, not prone to illness, quick to heal wounds, and easily able to ride and fight for two days in a row without food. The secret of their diet? Only milk and meat.
I'm not suggesting that vegetarian or other diets are unhealthy (just as with the mongolian, you could also find examples of vegetarian people who have extraordinary health) but my point is, when talking about diet and food, what does really mean to be healthy and what are the means we are following to be so?
tl;dr: "healthy food" as perceived by some people, does not necessarily mean a healthier body.
*This is a very well known relation but there are many more, like the dissociation of city people with animal life and nature, where people no longer consider animals as living beings and rather treat them as objects. This dissociation can take up the form of cruelty and brutality toward animals, and in sever cases, scales up to psychopathy affecting other human members. Authors like Desmond Morris have explored this issue when dealing with violence in societies.
First of all, there's an increasing awareness in society and media on what we eat and how it affects our diet and health. I believe that being aware of what we do -specially on things we often do compulsively like eating- it's really beneficial as we have an attentive way of life and raise perception on all internal and external factors of our actions and how they impact the world. For instance, factory farming solves the problem of feeding a large and very concentrated population, but industrial raising and slaughtering of animals brings them a lot of stress and suffering which in turn results in a high toxicity in the meat we eat, ending up in all sorts or diseases and ailments.* But there's a distinction between awareness and obsession, and I believe that for some people, their seek for "healthy food" has became the latter. Take for example this family [spanish only] or this article on the topic. While it's reasonable for a parent to pay attention to her children eating habits and intake of unhealthy food, I do believe there's a problem when you try to detoxify your children after one of them ate a single marshmallow.
Not only obsession for healthy food has been around, but also unhealthy means to get a good shape or weight. There's a rapidly growing industry of "healthy living" everywhere, and naturally aggresive marketing campaings to sell diet books, workout programs, organic products, etc. With so much propaganda, It seems like being healthy is becoming a new XXI century obsession, specially where no accurate information is available.
With it's shocking experiment "The Twinkie Diet", Professor Mark Haub has raised many interesting questions about the topic. Having lost 27 pounds without getting higher cholesterol or triglycerides levels by eating only Twinkies he know asks, "What does that mean? Does that mean I'm healthier? Or does it mean how we define health from a biology standpoint, that we're missing something?". Of course, Haub is not suggesting that the Twinkie Diet is healthy, but when it comes to only lose weight or have certain measures low, what does it mean to be healthy anyways? As he suggest, we need to revise our definition of what does it mean to be healthy.
When I think of somebody healthy, it comes to my mind factors such as resistance to illness, strength, physical energy and a good hair, skin and teeth appearance. And while many people suggest a diet based on vegetables or at least a balanced diet of all alimentary groups, it was surprising to find in one of my readings about Genghish Khan and his warriors that one of their advantages in comparison to rival armies was how healthy and strong was a Mongolian soldier: strong teeth and bones, not prone to illness, quick to heal wounds, and easily able to ride and fight for two days in a row without food. The secret of their diet? Only milk and meat.
I'm not suggesting that vegetarian or other diets are unhealthy (just as with the mongolian, you could also find examples of vegetarian people who have extraordinary health) but my point is, when talking about diet and food, what does really mean to be healthy and what are the means we are following to be so?
tl;dr: "healthy food" as perceived by some people, does not necessarily mean a healthier body.
*This is a very well known relation but there are many more, like the dissociation of city people with animal life and nature, where people no longer consider animals as living beings and rather treat them as objects. This dissociation can take up the form of cruelty and brutality toward animals, and in sever cases, scales up to psychopathy affecting other human members. Authors like Desmond Morris have explored this issue when dealing with violence in societies.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
A savage hypocracy
Existen muchos grupos de personas que, en dependencia de sus condiciones culturales, sociales, étnicas y sexuales, son considerados como minorías y son susceptibles al abuso, discriminación y agresión. En una búsqueda por proteger a dichos "grupos susceptibles", algunos gobiernos han tomado medidas tales como ofrecer autobuses públicos exclusivos para mujeres en la Ciudad de México, camiones de transporte de trabajadores palestinos en Israel, o el concepto de "crímenes de odio" en los Estados Unidos.
La falta de este entendimiento de la dignidad humana puede conducir prejuicios sustentados en visiones equivocadas, como en el caso de la vestimenta de las mujeres. Una persona que defiende la postura de que las "mujeres provocan a los hombres con su vestimenta" podría alegar que si una mujer se viste como "prostituta", entonces tiene bien merecido que la violen o maltraten porque lo "anda buscando". Esto me parece terrible, ya que incluso si la mujer fuese prostituta profesional, eso no significa que alguien esté en libertad de violarla o agredirla. Por eso creo que se debe enfatizar la dignidad de todos los humanos, independiente a los grupos de identidad a los que pertenezca.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Genghis Khan
Si hay alguien que necesita ser revalorado por la historia, no es ni Nikolai Tesla ni Porfirio Diaz, sino Genghis Khan:
- Erigió el imperio más grande de la historia
- Creó la primera ruta comercial entre Europa y Asia
- Estableció la libertad religiosa
- Creó un alfabeto
- Creó una constitución internacional
- Creó el primer sistema postal
- Destruyó el sistema feudal del privilegio aristocrático y por nacimiento, construyendo un novedoso sistema para su tiempo basado en el mérito personal, lealtad y logros
- Prohibió la tortura
- Bajó los impuestos a todos, exentó a doctores, maestros, escolares y religiosos
- En una época donde los gobernantes se consideraban por encima de la ley (¡incluso hoy!), él creia que desde el Emperador hasta el campesino eran iguales ante la ley
- Estableció un censo regular
- Su imperio no acumuló riquezas, por el contrario, distribuyó los bienes obtenidos en combate para que entraran de nuevo en circulación comercial
- Instituyó la tradición de otorgar inmunidad diplomática a embajadores y enviados, aún de naciones enemigas
- Dejó instituciones por todo el mundo, que incluso al día de hoy ostentaron títulos como sultán, rey, emir, shah y Dalai Lama
- Murió, tranquilamente a la edad de 70 años, rodeado de una familia amorosa, amigos fieles y soldados leales dispuestos a arriesgar la vida por él
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)