NHS 'cover-up culture' to be tackled with fines
Hospitals that give misleading data on mortality rates face punishment in bid to prevent repeat of Mid-Staffordshire scandal
- - -
Plans to add yet another layer of 'disincentive' to those who are falsifying accounts to avoid penalties of applied disincentives!
What is needed is the restoration of trust. A punishment culture might seem to be a way to control and manage life into shape - but in and of itself it can only further undermine trust.
People are not machines and the people who run institutions on purely mechanical lines are also not machines.
We have as yet no language in which to articulate the heart, but have leant ever more into the dependency and tyranny of the machine-thinking - for loveless thinking is not actually connecting with reality.
Loveless thinking is deceptive, and the more who subscribe to it, the more its seems normal or nature, but it is a mental illness and calls for correction.
While the heart can be used as a term for emotional overlay or reaction, it is more properly a term for the wholeness of all the parts sharing one purpose.
If we run our world as if it were a business - in this corporate era of parasitical relations upon its 'consumers and support system', it will run as a program of private self interest.
No amount of incentives and disincentives applied externally, can substitute for the calling and value expressed in real relationships in shared purpose.
The thinking that we build on is sick and the world about us reflects this.
Perhaps things have to get a lt worse before they can be turned upon a new foundation - but individually, we do not have to wait for others before we ourselves align in a more conscious heartfelt communication of all that is "not allowed" to be spoken for fear of penalty or rejection.
'Ordinary people' (that's most of us) come across numerous examples of bad practice or lack of care and ways in which the system itself is set up that works against people with care and conviction doing their job - but once darkness has been declared the new standard, there is no one willing to change the (dead) light bulb.
Real presence and real communication means treating each other with honour and respect or 'actually relating'.
The presence of joy in conscious purpose is more than therapeutic - it is a symptom of true health!
The focus on the body and the mechanical is feeding an endless appetite that no amount of bio or hi-technology can do more than grow!
Yet the corporate interests of bio-hi-tech are a humungous power lobby that have replaced a culture that had a vocational caring with puppets to systems that use the word care without actually caring - because caring occurs within a relationship and is not a mechanically contrived 'delivery'.
Shift happens!
But the investment in what does not and cannot work has to be recognized.
Everything comes from our ideas of what we are and what life is for - all of it.
Change the foundation and all that comes from it will change with it.
Saturday, 11 May 2013
Tuesday, 7 May 2013
The folly of solutionism
Commenting to the ideas raised in the folly of solutionism, with a perspective that is not merely looking at political or techno-political solutions - but addressing the roots of problematic identity at the level of consciousness:
The design-intent of the human consciousness, is to 'solve' its problem 'outside itself' or externally.
It's problem is single - being its identity with conflicted opposition to itself and within itself - and yet the denial and obfuscation of this problem is the first 'solution', which brings with it a multiplicity of problems.
To attempt to articulate on this root level here might be fruitless as our human aculturation is conditioned to already 'agree' to all 'look the other way' rather than undermine our perceived separate self interests.
But the gist is that there is a heavy investment of such self interest - passing as protective advantage to a mode of identity that is itself held un-negotiable - which demands that attention from an inner conflictedness be displaced to external causes and solution.
So there is an aspect of problem solving that works as a smokescreen and diversionary tactic - and indeed an insistence that the problem be kicked out into long grass where it can NOT be solved because the problem is actually within our consciousness.
Consciousness might be a misnomer for something that is attempting to make a mechanism of control amidst what ultimately and only is a function of awareness and attention.
The identification with 'being in control' is a sense of 'power over' life and indeed that power, seen in others or externally is experienced as problematic! But it is also addictive as self reinforcing loops of experience and act.
'Thinking outside the box' is a phrase that can indicate THERE IS A BOX, in terms of an active running self-limiting and mechanical consciousness or conditioning. The default aim of the human mind in ignorance, is to survive and prevail WITHIN the BOX, and to thus keep unconscious, the awareness of the actual nature of the box by externalising its thought and identifying exclusively with those aspects that seem to be
most associated with a personal sense of control.
This is a Dalek's eye view of a Living Universe that cannot feel nor recognize its connectedness, but seeks to imposes its mind - of definition and function - upon life itself.
Yet this spark of life IS its life and yet applies this love-connection only to its own thought-constructs and their logical extensions.
Wanting solutions that keep the dream of a life from waking up (as if that were death or worse than death), is WANTING UNCONSCIOUSNESS to be maintained in the forms of a consciousness that actually does NOT join or truly share Life.
But this MUST disintegrate, because it is all based upon untruth, which requires ever more sacrifice of what IS true to feed its 'habit'. And even the ingenuity of imaginative reframing and redistribution of problems cannot substitute for joy, true rested peace, tangibly grateful loving - or any other quality of Life.
Now problems that are mechanical can be solved - such as how best to peel a potato. But these are blind (in that they presume the potatoes need to be peeled).
Asking real questions is part of getting real answers and the first part of that is a real desire to connect with a SHARED answer. Because the search for the solution in private self-terms is the first error or a mind that thought itself separate from all else that lives or has its being in the awareness of Life.
The design-intent of the human consciousness, is to 'solve' its problem 'outside itself' or externally.
It's problem is single - being its identity with conflicted opposition to itself and within itself - and yet the denial and obfuscation of this problem is the first 'solution', which brings with it a multiplicity of problems.
To attempt to articulate on this root level here might be fruitless as our human aculturation is conditioned to already 'agree' to all 'look the other way' rather than undermine our perceived separate self interests.
But the gist is that there is a heavy investment of such self interest - passing as protective advantage to a mode of identity that is itself held un-negotiable - which demands that attention from an inner conflictedness be displaced to external causes and solution.
So there is an aspect of problem solving that works as a smokescreen and diversionary tactic - and indeed an insistence that the problem be kicked out into long grass where it can NOT be solved because the problem is actually within our consciousness.
Consciousness might be a misnomer for something that is attempting to make a mechanism of control amidst what ultimately and only is a function of awareness and attention.
The identification with 'being in control' is a sense of 'power over' life and indeed that power, seen in others or externally is experienced as problematic! But it is also addictive as self reinforcing loops of experience and act.
'Thinking outside the box' is a phrase that can indicate THERE IS A BOX, in terms of an active running self-limiting and mechanical consciousness or conditioning. The default aim of the human mind in ignorance, is to survive and prevail WITHIN the BOX, and to thus keep unconscious, the awareness of the actual nature of the box by externalising its thought and identifying exclusively with those aspects that seem to be
most associated with a personal sense of control.
This is a Dalek's eye view of a Living Universe that cannot feel nor recognize its connectedness, but seeks to imposes its mind - of definition and function - upon life itself.
Yet this spark of life IS its life and yet applies this love-connection only to its own thought-constructs and their logical extensions.
Wanting solutions that keep the dream of a life from waking up (as if that were death or worse than death), is WANTING UNCONSCIOUSNESS to be maintained in the forms of a consciousness that actually does NOT join or truly share Life.
But this MUST disintegrate, because it is all based upon untruth, which requires ever more sacrifice of what IS true to feed its 'habit'. And even the ingenuity of imaginative reframing and redistribution of problems cannot substitute for joy, true rested peace, tangibly grateful loving - or any other quality of Life.
Now problems that are mechanical can be solved - such as how best to peel a potato. But these are blind (in that they presume the potatoes need to be peeled).
Asking real questions is part of getting real answers and the first part of that is a real desire to connect with a SHARED answer. Because the search for the solution in private self-terms is the first error or a mind that thought itself separate from all else that lives or has its being in the awareness of Life.
Who or what really runs Wikipedia?
On 'The Economist Explains' was the question and answer offered as to who really runs Wikipedia'. In passing I commented:
Though there MAY be personal executive decisions made, transparently or otherwise, and consciously or otherwise, the fact that comes to (my) mind is that the cultural presumptions of the 'age' are what set the values and goals within which and to which all else conforms.
Of course these are not set in stone and there is always a multiplicity of values and therefore purposes.
The ability to create a personal lens through which reality itself is apprehended, with its own set of meanings overlaid on and contra to the Meaning that Reality Is, constitutes a foundation of the human consciousness - not unlike the inheritance (from a yet living father) of the Prodigal Son.
It seems to me that where a loveless and private self serving intent is DENIED the right to impose itself upon the mind at large, the 'picture is brought into a truer focus with less distortion or filtering.
Yet where a voice is denied hearing, it is reinforced in its own sense of being denied expression. Like the fairy not invited to the party, it will, sooner or later spoil the party.
Finding ways to include expressions without propagandising for or against them is the way of relinquishing the investment in the personal sense and opening to a shared sense of value.
This is not available to the mentality that wants to be right in contradistinction to the wrong of another; who NEEDS the 'enemy' in order to vindicate their own personal identity-assertions.
Controlling reality is of course a joke. Yet controlling the interpretation and access to reality is taken as a very very serious matter - within our own mind and within the larger cultural aggregations of personal interests of such mentality.
Whatever else we my seem to be doing, we are learning about our own mind - or indeed have so 'personalized' or rationalized the issues that we are simply blindly reactive within our own mind-set. (The set in which we have temporarily identified ourselves as validated).
The reactive mind is an aspect of our thinking which tends to usurp a true perspective, though it does promote an ever evolving multiplicity of a defence/offence mechanism. Being willing to not use this mentality allows all sides or voices in any issue to be included at their essence - if not in the forms of its current expression.
That information can be used as a weapon of coercion and control is true - but that truth can be itself illuminated.
The ownership and survival of that which inspires and embodies the communication, is usually what compromises its integrity, because any threat to its existence is felt to be justifiably blocked or opposed - and here will be the area where truth is made the first casualty to the 'managed' war of what then comes after.
Although Jesus (mythically or otherwise), provided a cultural basis for the age in terms of challenging the power of the mind-in-fear, he would not have been able to contribute to Wikipedia excepting on already agreed definitions. He spoke out of an authority that is not citable or referencing to external 'authorities'- but from a directness of observation that can be verified by any who hear in a willingness to observe likewise.
However, that doesn't mean he wouldn't be able to point to it for background reference.
The process of discernment is different from scepticism in that it pauses from reaction whilst listening within the heart - absent of its own (reactive) thinking. Whereas scepticism does not yield in trust to being itself but defends the point of view that IT has accepted as it own - as a result of thinking - which of course includes some measure of discernment - but only where it is felt less threatening to its own existence.
Misinformation or even unrelated or inappropriate information, is like noise that blocks the signal. Consciously aligned purpose is the nature of the sharing of the signal. It is life-affirming to withdraw support from that which undermines integrity of the unifying purpose itself.
Communication itself is more than information, for its flow or sharing expresses and embodies a willingness to share. This itself is a higher purpose and has its own communication - or rather communion or connection and sharing in a level of Meaning that cannot itself be rationalised into bits of information. (without simply being substituted for by 'bits of information').
Though there MAY be personal executive decisions made, transparently or otherwise, and consciously or otherwise, the fact that comes to (my) mind is that the cultural presumptions of the 'age' are what set the values and goals within which and to which all else conforms.
Of course these are not set in stone and there is always a multiplicity of values and therefore purposes.
The ability to create a personal lens through which reality itself is apprehended, with its own set of meanings overlaid on and contra to the Meaning that Reality Is, constitutes a foundation of the human consciousness - not unlike the inheritance (from a yet living father) of the Prodigal Son.
It seems to me that where a loveless and private self serving intent is DENIED the right to impose itself upon the mind at large, the 'picture is brought into a truer focus with less distortion or filtering.
Yet where a voice is denied hearing, it is reinforced in its own sense of being denied expression. Like the fairy not invited to the party, it will, sooner or later spoil the party.
Finding ways to include expressions without propagandising for or against them is the way of relinquishing the investment in the personal sense and opening to a shared sense of value.
This is not available to the mentality that wants to be right in contradistinction to the wrong of another; who NEEDS the 'enemy' in order to vindicate their own personal identity-assertions.
Controlling reality is of course a joke. Yet controlling the interpretation and access to reality is taken as a very very serious matter - within our own mind and within the larger cultural aggregations of personal interests of such mentality.
Whatever else we my seem to be doing, we are learning about our own mind - or indeed have so 'personalized' or rationalized the issues that we are simply blindly reactive within our own mind-set. (The set in which we have temporarily identified ourselves as validated).
The reactive mind is an aspect of our thinking which tends to usurp a true perspective, though it does promote an ever evolving multiplicity of a defence/offence mechanism. Being willing to not use this mentality allows all sides or voices in any issue to be included at their essence - if not in the forms of its current expression.
That information can be used as a weapon of coercion and control is true - but that truth can be itself illuminated.
The ownership and survival of that which inspires and embodies the communication, is usually what compromises its integrity, because any threat to its existence is felt to be justifiably blocked or opposed - and here will be the area where truth is made the first casualty to the 'managed' war of what then comes after.
Although Jesus (mythically or otherwise), provided a cultural basis for the age in terms of challenging the power of the mind-in-fear, he would not have been able to contribute to Wikipedia excepting on already agreed definitions. He spoke out of an authority that is not citable or referencing to external 'authorities'- but from a directness of observation that can be verified by any who hear in a willingness to observe likewise.
However, that doesn't mean he wouldn't be able to point to it for background reference.
The process of discernment is different from scepticism in that it pauses from reaction whilst listening within the heart - absent of its own (reactive) thinking. Whereas scepticism does not yield in trust to being itself but defends the point of view that IT has accepted as it own - as a result of thinking - which of course includes some measure of discernment - but only where it is felt less threatening to its own existence.
Misinformation or even unrelated or inappropriate information, is like noise that blocks the signal. Consciously aligned purpose is the nature of the sharing of the signal. It is life-affirming to withdraw support from that which undermines integrity of the unifying purpose itself.
Communication itself is more than information, for its flow or sharing expresses and embodies a willingness to share. This itself is a higher purpose and has its own communication - or rather communion or connection and sharing in a level of Meaning that cannot itself be rationalised into bits of information. (without simply being substituted for by 'bits of information').
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)