Tuesday, 6 August 2013

Success! Someone died.

As with Love there are many types [0] of success.

"Success!" can be a deceleration of achieving or a eureka moment.

A company/society/cult/army/family are all demonstrations of the collective limited by the constraints of the system that they are operating within.

The problem with military success is that it is usually built upon the deaths of others, (which no longer seems glamorous or glorious.) Though this is not that interesting to me, ("Do not speak to me of great men for their success is built upon the bodies of thousands"), it is my introduction to the idea of the board-room, (and other office rooms) as war. If we accept corporations as devices to make money rather than conquering people or territory, (though these two would not be totally alien to some corporations), it does seem to look a lot like a type of war.

The interesting thing is merging research into ethics, (another of my interests): As a hypothesis, "The more successful individuals within a corporation are inherently less ethical" seems to be showing positive results from tests. [1] So where success is simply the massive accruement of money or wealth, once again it seems to be build upon those that you can stand upon.

It does not seem to matter if you are "waiting for dead men's shoes" or "counting your chickens before they hatch" positive success should be built upon the achievements of others and not to the detriment of others.

The problem here is syncronicity. The light-bulb was 'invented' by two people at the same time. This is not the only example of things that have been invented twice, but in each case the success of one inventor is always going to be to the detriment of another. If a position opens up within a company and more than one person applies for it, then one or more people are going to fail.

I'm not suggesting that failure is a bad thing, but in the instances where it is maliciously detrimental, (patents that are not being exercised [2] other than to collect revenue or prevent others) should not be supported.

[0] Philos Amos Bergos bOS moss

[1] Joseph P Cangemi and William Pfohl “Sociopaths in High Places” 2009

[2] If you hold the patent for the perfect light-bulb and do not produce it, simply so that you can sell more of your defective bulbs, then I see no reason why someone else should not be allowed to produced the patented object.

No comments:

Post a Comment

About this blog

Sort of a test blog... until it isn't