<center><h2><b>H O L O T O P I A: &nbsp;&nbsp; [[Holotopia:Five insights|F I V E &nbsp;&nbsp; I N S I G H T S]]</b></h2></center><br><br>

<div class="page-header" ><h1>Convenience paradox</h1></div>

The Renaissance liberated our ancestors from preoccupation with the afterlife, and empowered them to seek happiness here and now. The lifestyle changed, and the culture blossomed. What will the <em>next</em> "great cultural revival" be like?

<p>From scraps of the 19th century science, the <em>narrow frame</em> insight showed, our ancestors improvised a "narrow and rigid" way to look at the world, which was damaging to culture. <em>Convenience</em>—the "pursuit of happiness" by reaching out for what <em>feels</em> attractive—is a case in point. </p>

<p>When we look at the world through <em>convenience</em> ('in the light of a candle'), the <em>order of things</em> we are in might easily appear as the best possible world. But as soon as we realize that <em>convenience</em> is a deceptive and useless "value"—we also realize that we indeed have very little clue about what is <em>really</em> "good for us".</p>  

<p>We will here illustrate that by a few examples.</p>  

<!-- ;)

is one of the best examples of </em>  

<p>As long as we are mistaking <em>convenience</em> for happiness or <em>wholeness</em>—the <em>order of things</em> we are living may appear as the best possible one. When, however, the <em>convenience paradox</em> is understood, we become ready to ask:</p>

<li>What has civilization done to us?</li>  

<li>How can we live better?</li>  

<p>The <em>convenience paradox</em> insight ends the <em>reification</em> of the way we experience things—and opens up a vast frontier where we <em>create</em>  the way we experience things. It's a whole <em>new</em> way to "pursue happiness".</p>  

<div class="page-header" ><h2>Stories</h2></div>

<p>The [[vignette|<em>vignette</em>]] shared here will illustrate that (in the context of <em>holotopia</em>) this theme can be made extraordinarily interesting, even sensational.</p>

<ul><li>The way we got civilized has systemic defects ('cracks')</li>  

<li>The development of a culture that cultivates "human quality" has far more attractive dimensions and possibilities than most of us realize</li>  

</ul>  

<p>This points to a strategic opportunity.</p>   

<blockquote>We can substantially <em>improve</em> our condition—and <em>reduce</em> material consumption.</blockquote>  

<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Weston Price and Werner Kollath</h2></div>

<blockquote>Why do we trust that the lifestyle our civilization has given us will bring us to <em>wholeness</em>?</blockquote>

<p>Our lifestyle has evolved just like <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>—or better said <em>within</em> those systems.</p>  

<p><em>Wholeness</em> is such a wonderfully precarious quality: You may have everything in the world—yet if a single essential nutrient is lacking in your diet, it may all be in vain. Our senses have, of course, evolved to guide us to right choices—but <em>in a natural condition</em>. And in evolutionary terms the civilization has been but only an instant, during which very little of our genetic makeup had time to change. </p>  

<p>So imagine an experiment: A large group of humans from a single genotype and living on the same geographical terrain is divided into two groups. For a number of years the scientists let them live in two different lifestyle, so that one part of the population lives in the civilized way, and the other in the way this population lived before the civilization reached them. Then the scientists studied the differences. What do you think the conclusion of this experiment would be?</p>  

<p>Of course, this experiment is practically impossible. But it <em>did</em> happen in real life! Early in the 20th century a number of world populations were living on the borderline of civilization, so that part of the population lived in the old way, while another part got civilized. Weston Price undertook a ten-year journey, visiting those populations, and painstakingly recording the data. The results of this research were published in a book titled "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration".  Its message was that civilized nutrition is deficient; that it tends to cause physical degeneration. Consistently, Price reported, the people living in the pre-civilized way were generally doing better, as individuals and also socially.</p>

<p>Werner Kollath extended this line of work to laboratory experiments and statistical analysis of trends. He diagnosed that while the modern healthcare developed as a way to combat infectious diseases (where distinct "causes" and "cures" may be identified), typical contemporary health problems are lifestyle-induced. "Typical contemporary diseases", Kollath wrote, "are in the domain of the non-specific". He found that this new kind of problem requires a completely new <em>approach</em> to healthcare. He also realized that this problem had everything to do with the influence and the power of the large industries. Hence he conceived a new academic discipline, which he called "political hygiene". </p>

<p>The rest of the story we told [https://holoscope.info/2010/09/17/ode-to-self-organization-part-two-2/#Vignette_4 in a blog post].</p>  

<p>In 2005 we contributed to EAHMH a presentation "Healthcare as a Power Structure". Historiography, these <em>vignettes</em> or case histories. But we also offered a <em>circle</em>... and a <em>methodological</em> contribution...</p>  

<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Uncle Bob Randall</h2></div>

<p>There is a popular myth, about the "human nature"; that we are by nature egoistical and self-serving, and hence that the kind of society we have is its natural extension. We have, however, seen that there is another possibility—that the <em>power structure</em> made us the way we are. Which one is correct?</p>  

<p>To see the answer, let us do a <em>thought</em> experiment: Imagine that a civilization, living perhaps on some faraway island, developed the alternative—social welfare, but no war and strife, and no science and technology. What sortof culture would develop?</p>

<p>Imagine now that our civilization discovered them, and colonized their island. What would this meeting of cultures be like? What consequences would it have on the aboriginal culture?</p>  

<p>There is no need to imagine: All this <em>did</em> indeed happen.</p>  

<p>Bob Randall was one of them, and he lived to tell the story. One of the first things he observed in the boarding school was that those (white) people were preaching Christianity, but without living it; <em>we</em> were living it!</p>  

<p>Randall never again found his mother and family. What he found when he returned to his village was a population of destroyed and <em>desolate</em> people.</p>  

<p>Randall, however, also got to tell us about the <em>original</em> Aboriginal culture. His main keyword is "Kanyini", explained as "the principle of caring and responsibility that underpins the Aboriginal life". [https://youtu.be/6GdB1g5tG38 See him] explain it. </p>  

<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Paticcasamuppada</h2></div>

<p>We have now come to the most interesting part. We gave it a name, "Happiness between One and Plus Infinity", and made it a theme of one of our <em>ten conversations</em>. The question here is about the <em>extent</em> of human <em>wholeness</em>—what sort of abilities, what way of being, could it produce?</p>  

<p>So imagine a laboratory, where people experiment on themselves, trying a variety of lifestyle choices, practices...</p>