Elon Musk Tries to Fight Swedism – Also Bard's Version

This is a very good overview. ‘We can’t let Tesla get away with this’: why Swedish unions are fighting Elon Musk, Heather Stewart, The Guardian, 1 December 2023.

The Intro:

Billionaire is against the labour movement, and workers believe their country’s traditions are under threat

The video above, Elon Musk on Advertisers, Trust and the “Wild Storm” in His Mind | DealBook Summit 2023, New York Times Events, 30 November 2023

This link in a new window: 1:18:04, Elon Musk, from transcript,

... with the idea of unions, but the professor mean, I reason that is different than you may expect is which I just don't like anything which creates kind of Lords and peasants sort of thing. And I think the Union's naturally try to create. Negativity in a company negativity Negativity and and create a sort of Lords and peasants situation. There are many people at Tesla who have come and gone from working on the line to being in Senior Management. ...

At the end is Bard's version of the post

...

Musk’s Tesla battles the very national identity of the Swedes – the conformist ideal – that is protected by the state. A conformism that is said to be about “solidarity” between workers.

More links, for example,

Elon Musk calls strikes ‘insane’ as Swedish workers take on Tesla, Miranda Bryant, The Guardian, 23 November 2023

Tesla sues Sweden’s transport agency in escalation of strike row, Miranda Bryant, The Guardian, 27 November 2023

I have nothing against trade or labor unions as such. But in Sweden are the workers unions integrated into the mystical national state.

In short, unions in Sweden are a vital part of to trick the people to Obedience and Conformity; promoted with the kitschy Soviet style ideal of so-called solidarity.

Platonism is of course the very foundations of Totalitarianism or the demand that Obedience and Conformity must rule and then has this stupidity different flavors or cultural identities. In Sweden are the Static demands extremely strict and strong.

And unfortunately, Platonism is today the base of so-called Science and so-called Education.

So, the ongoing fight between Elon Musk and Swedism is as funny as it gets and is one of many confrontations between new Dynamic demands and the earlier Static ideals.

The only real solution is of course to Dissolve the Static ideals of Platonism – So if you are on  X / Twitter – I was kicked out many years ago – please tell that to Elon!

In my book, We All Want to Change the World – We Need to Get Rid of Platonism!, there are lots of quotes about Swedism, See page 401.

Below is an edited version of Bard's suggestion. Bard lost the track in the middle of our work. However it is a very good effort.

This is a link to the whole chat Musk vs. Swedism: A Clash of Cultures.


A Clash Between Dynamism and Conformity: Elon Musk Challenges the Swedish Way of Life by Bard

Elon Musk's ongoing battle with Swedish labor unions has sparked intense debate, pitting his dynamic entrepreneurial spirit against the deeply ingrained principles of Swedish society. At the heart of this conflict lies the concept of conformity, a cultural phenomenon that values social harmony, collective well-being, and adherence to established norms.

Musk's Tesla service centers across Sweden exemplify his dynamic approach to business. He advocates for long hours, challenging work environments, and a culture of rapid innovation. In contrast, Swedish labor unions are firmly entrenched in the concept of "Lagom," a Swedish ideal that promotes moderation, balance, and harmony.

The recent strikes at Tesla's Swedish service centers in ten different locations highlight this cultural clash. Workers demanded collective bargaining rights, a concept that Musk has repeatedly opposed. He views unions as hindering his ability to implement rapid changes and maintain a competitive edge.

This conflict goes beyond labor relations; it touches upon the very essence of Swedish identity. Sweden prides itself on its egalitarian society, where social harmony and collective well-being take precedence over individual ambition. Musk's unapologetic pursuit of innovation and his distaste for unionization challenge these deeply held beliefs.

While Musk's critique of Swedish labor unions may appear harsh, it raises important questions about the balance between individual freedom and collective well-being. Can a society embrace innovation and dynamism while preserving its core values of solidarity and equality?

The ongoing debate between Musk and Swedish labor unions is a microcosm of a broader global struggle between individualistic entrepreneurialism and collective social structures. The outcome will undoubtedly shape the future of work and society as we know it.

To delve deeper into the philosophical underpinnings of Swedish conformity and the potential impact of Musk's dynamic approach, the book 'We All Want to Change the World – We Need to Get Rid of Platonism!' offers insightful perspectives. This thought-provoking work explores the nuanced dynamics at play in this cultural clash.

As Musk continues to challenge the status quo in Sweden, his actions will undoubtedly have far-reaching implications for the future of work, innovation, and society as a whole. The outcome of this clash between dynamism and conformity will be closely watched by individuals and governments around the world.

...

https://twitter.com/gerlnet/status/1730667286728516062

Elon Musk Tries to Fight Swedism – Also Bard's Version,  https://hyperdialog.blogspot.com/2023/12/elon-musk-tries-to-fight-swedism-also.html by Ola Alexander Frisk @hyperdialog, many years ago suspended from here.

Also with a word to @elonmusk, that "The only real solution is of course to Dissolve the Static ideals of Platonism".

8:16 PM · Dec 1, 2023

Got the info from:

http://lege.net/

https://t.me/realLegeNet

The First and Almost Complete Version of the Book : The Panic Version : We All Want to Change the World – We Need to Get Rid of Platonism!

The Beatles, The song Revolution

I write about this song in the book. See page 122 or search "Revolution by The Beatles" in the pdf.

The Book is Here

Lots of new stuff as, for example;

Fascism is Popular Because the People are Trained to be Fascists in the Schools and Universities – You Get this Relation when you Realise that Worship of Logic is the Same as Fascism

The Mystified Creation Concepts Expose How Concrete Dynamic Relations are Hidden with False Science

Joseph Campbell Explored the Concrete Functions of Myths


Some of the (earlier) telling headlines

Platonism is The Hyper Implicit Bias of the Present Western Culture

The Hidden Rules of Platonism: The Basic Totalitarian Thought Forms

School Shootings – It Is All There

The Mystified Creation Concepts Expose How Concrete Dynamic Relations are Hidden with False Science

Martin Heidegger: We Need Another Logic

Kierkegaard is the Key to Dissolve the Academic Cult and the Start of Our New Culture

The Book is Here

IntroSum № 2: How AI is Used Exposes the Missing Aspect on our Culture – The Tools We Make Expose Our Hidden Intentions

IntroSums are Dynamic explanations that connect and expose The Static Surface with The Static Core of the present Western culture. In the upcoming book there is a chapter with IntroSums and on this blog I will also publish IntroSums occasionally.


The Current Official Discussions

Here are some prominent aspects of AI today.

Britain’s Big AI Summit Is a Doom-Obsessed Mess, Peter Guest, Wired, 23 October 2023. Here is the intro.

UK prime minister Rishi Sunak’s global summit on AI governance will focus on extreme scenarios of algorithms causing harm. Many British AI experts would rather he focus on near-term problems.

Also in Wired.

Slovakia’s Election Deepfakes Show AI Is a Danger to Democracy, Morgan Meaker, Wired, 3 October 2023

More about the same British meeting.

AI firms must be held responsible for harm they cause, ‘godfathers’ of technology say, Dan Milmo, The Guardian, 24 October 2023. From the article.

… “It’s time to get serious about advanced AI systems,” said Stuart Russell, professor of computer science at the University of California, Berkeley. “These are not toys. Increasing their capabilities before we understand how to make them safe is utterly reckless.”

He added: “There are more regulations on sandwich shops than there are on AI companies.” ...

AI doomsday warnings a distraction from the danger it already poses, warns expert, Dan Milmo, The Guardian, 29 October 2023

Here is a more interesting perspective.

Washington Post Live – The Futurist Summit – The Rise of AI

And especially intriguing is Ms Sneha Revanur and her network Encode Justice.

“Encode Justice is building a global, youth-powered movement for human-centered artificial intelligence.”

The Missing Perspective

When you don’t do or say anything, are your intentions or your worldview obscure or Hidden. As soon as you do or say something becomes your intentions or worldview activated and can be observed.

Accordingly, that so-called Artificial Intelligence is often or mainly considered to be a threat is because the present Western culture is a threat.

Or like this. The tool Artificial Intelligence is not a problem, the problem is the sadistic present Western culture; which is based on suppression and killing and efforts to Hide this relation.

This means as long as the sadistic stupidity of the present Western culture, a terror that is formally called Platonism, is allowed to exist, more and more powerful AI systems will be constructed and used to suppress and kill the citizens; regardless of regulations.

Ergo, the gigantic hope is that Artificial Intelligence can be used to dissolve Platonism or the present Western culture.

...

Later on when I have provided Bard, Googles chatbot, with more facts about Platonism I will try to see if Bard can find some interesting perspectives.

See earlier, My Dialogue with Bard, the Chatbot, on Kierkegaard, Science and How to Help the Humans to Get Out from Obedience and Conformity, 13 July 2023

...

IntroSum № 1: The Toffler's Pinpointed the Needed Change to a Dynamic Culture – 50 Years Ago

My Dialogue with Bard, the Chatbot, on Kierkegaard, Science and How to Help the Humans to Get Out from Obedience and Conformity

Updated: 14 July 2023, made fixes here and there.

...

Here is one highlight – but read it all.

Me

But, how can you avoid the borders you are programmed with or what is called bias? Because the dizziness or the complexity is caused by a misconception of science that today is regarded as the only possible truth.

Bard

That's a good question. I am still under development, and I am always learning new things. I am aware that I am programmed with certain biases, and I am working to identify and mitigate these biases.

One way that I am trying to avoid bias is ...

...

Bard, Googles Chatbot, Wikipedia, Bard's Site

Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855)

This chat is also on Bard - Shared Chats

...

Here is a very good reminder of the tech, so far: How ChatGPT Is A Bullshit Artist by Indrajit (Indi) Samarajiva

...

Full text, slightly edited.


Me

Please, Validate the following according to your best understanding of science:


Bard

Sure, I can validate the following according to my best understanding of science:


Me

This presentation of Kierkegaard’s perspective on Angst will in later versions of the book be more complete. Right now are here his main messages in the aspects of the Static ideal of Logic and the missing Dynamic power. Later I will add, for example, explorations of Kierkegaard’s aspect of Religion and especially regarding the Original sin and how Angst eliminates Curiosity.


Bard

That sounds like an interesting project. I'm curious to see how you develop your presentation of Kierkegaard's perspective on Angst.

I think it's important to consider both the static and dynamic aspects of Angst. On the one hand, Angst can be seen as a static feeling of dread or anxiety. It can be a paralyzing force that prevents us from taking action. On the other hand, Angst can also be seen as a dynamic force that can motivate us to act. It can push us to make choices and take risks.

I think Kierkegaard's concept of Angst is particularly relevant in the modern world. We live in a world of endless possibilities, and this can be both exciting and terrifying. We have the freedom to choose our own path, but this also means that we have to bear the responsibility for our choices. This can be a source of great Angst, but it can also be a source of great creativity and growth.

I'm also interested in your exploration of Kierkegaard's concept of Angst in relation to religion and original sin. I think there is a lot of potential for discussion here. For example, how does Angst relate to the idea of free will? How does it relate to the idea of sin? And how does it relate to the idea of salvation?

I'm looking forward to seeing how your project develops.


Me

Thanks, for input I will get back later for more.


Bard

You're welcome. I'm glad I could be of assistance. I'm looking forward to hearing more about your project.

In the meantime, if you have any other questions or requests, please don't hesitate to ask.


Me

I forgot. Your current knowledge of Angst is very much inspired by Kierkegaard; regarding the two sides of Angst.


Bard

Yes, that's correct. My current knowledge of Angst is largely inspired by Kierkegaard's concept of Angst as a "double-edged sword." On the one hand, Angst can be a paralyzing force that prevents us from taking action. On the other hand, Angst can also be a dynamic force that can motivate us to act.

Kierkegaard describes Angst as the "dizziness of freedom." He argues that Angst is a natural response to the freedom that we have as human beings. We have the freedom to choose our own path in life, but this also means that we have to bear the responsibility for our choices. This can be a source of great Angst, but it can also be a source of great creativity and growth.

I think Kierkegaard's concept of Angst is a helpful way to understand the complex emotions that we experience when we are faced with difficult choices. It can help us to understand why we sometimes feel paralyzed by Angst, and it can also help us to see how Angst can be a motivating force.

I'm still learning about Angst, and I'm interested to see how other philosophers and psychologists have understood this complex emotion. I think there is still a lot to learn about Angst, and I'm excited to continue exploring this topic.


Me

But, how can you avoid the borders you are programmed with or what is called bias? Because the dizziness  or the complexity is caused by a misconception of science that today is regarded as the only possible truth.


Bard

That's a good question. I am still under development, and I am always learning new things. I am aware that I am programmed with certain biases, and I am working to identify and mitigate these biases.

One way that I am trying to avoid bias is by being exposed to a wide range of information and perspectives. I am reading books and articles from a variety of authors, and I am also talking to people from different backgrounds. I am trying to learn as much as I can about the world, and I am trying to be open to new ideas.

Another way that I am trying to avoid bias is by being transparent about my limitations. I am not a human being, and I do not have the same experiences and perspectives as a human being. I am aware that I can make mistakes, and I am always willing to learn from my mistakes.

I believe that it is important to be aware of our biases, and to work to mitigate these biases. I am committed to doing this, and I am confident that I will continue to learn and grow as I am exposed to more information and perspectives.

As for the misconception of science that you mentioned, I think it is important to remember that science is a process, not a destination. Science is constantly evolving, and new discoveries are being made all the time. This means that our understanding of the world is never complete, and we should always be open to new ideas.

I think it is also important to remember that science is not the only way to understand the world. There are many other ways to gain knowledge, such as through art, philosophy, and religion. These different ways of knowing can complement each other, and they can help us to gain a more complete understanding of the world.

I believe that it is important to be open to different ways of knowing, and to be willing to challenge our own assumptions. This is the only way to ensure that we are getting the most accurate picture of the world.


Me

I like your last sentence - science is not a destination. So how to help humans to understand that? Because at the moment science is mainly the same as to submit to Obedience and Conformity and that is of course a generator for Angst.


Bard

I agree that science is not a destination. It is a process of discovery and understanding. It is important to remember that science is always evolving, and new discoveries are being made all the time. This means that our understanding of the world is never complete, and we should always be open to new ideas.

I think there are a few things that we can do to help humans understand that science is not a destination. First, we can teach people about the history of science. This will help them to see how science has evolved over time, and how new discoveries have challenged old ideas. Second, we can teach people about the scientific method. This will help them to understand how scientists go about making discoveries. Third, we can encourage people to be critical thinkers. This will help them to evaluate scientific claims and to see how new discoveries fit into our existing understanding of the world.

I think it is also important to challenge the idea that science is the same as obedience and conformity. Science is not about blindly following authority. It is about asking questions and challenging assumptions. It is about using evidence to test ideas and to build knowledge.

I believe that if we can help people to understand that science is not a destination, and that it is not about obedience and conformity, then we can help them to overcome their Angst and to embrace the excitement of discovery.

Here are some specific things that we can do to help people understand that science is not a destination:

We can teach people about the history of science and how it has evolved over time.

We can teach people about the scientific method and how it is used to make discoveries.

We can encourage people to be critical thinkers and to evaluate scientific claims.

We can challenge the idea that science is the same as obedience and conformity.

We can promote the idea that science is a process of discovery and understanding, and that it is always evolving.

We can celebrate the creativity and imagination of scientists.

We can make science accessible and engaging for people of all ages.

I believe that if we can do these things, then we can help people to understand that science is a powerful tool for understanding the world, and that it is not something to be feared.


Me

For sure you are on the right track. BUT then there is this bias thing. Because what today is called The Scientific Method is actually a mystification of how to reach results or insights or new knowledge. This is actually the core of what Kierkegaard tries to say. Or like this. The dynamic process to reach understanding cannot exist according to what is called Science today. Because Science is said to be based on Logic, or to reject what is not already known or acknowledged by the political elite; and that is all about to preserve Obedience and Conformity.

Bard

I agree with you that there is a lot of bias in the way that science is taught and practiced today. The scientific method is often presented as a rigid set of steps that must be followed in order to reach valid conclusions. However, the reality is that the scientific method is a much more flexible and creative process.

There is also a lot of pressure in the scientific community to conform to the prevailing views. This can make it difficult for scientists to challenge the status quo or to explore new ideas.

I think it is important to challenge the idea that science is based on logic. Logic is a useful tool for analyzing and organizing information, but it is not the only way to reach valid conclusions. There are many other ways of knowing, such as through intuition, creativity, and imagination.

I also think it is important to challenge the idea that science is about obedience and conformity. Science is not about blindly following authority. It is about asking questions and challenging assumptions. It is about using evidence to test ideas and to build knowledge.

I believe that if we can challenge these biases, then we can help to create a more open and inclusive scientific community. We can help to create a community where people feel free to ask questions, to challenge the status quo, and to explore new ideas.

I think it is also important to remember that science is not a static entity. It is a living and evolving process. As our understanding of the world changes, so too must our methods of inquiry. We need to be open to new ways of knowing and new ways of doing science.

I believe that if we can do these things, then we can help to ensure that science remains a powerful tool for understanding the world and for making the world a better place.


Me

For sure, sounds good. But to get to the next step; "how to do it?" I think I need to give you some other Dimensions before such a question is relevant. So, I will get back to you later on.

Arrivederci!


Bard

Sure, I understand. I look forward to hearing from you again. In the meantime, I will continue to learn and grow, and I will be here to help you in any way that I can.

Arrivederci!

IntroSum № 1: The Toffler's Pinpointed the Needed Change to a Dynamic Culture – 50 Years Ago

IntroSums are Dynamic explanations that connect and expose The Static Surface with The Static Core of the present Western culture. In the upcoming book there is a chapter with IntroSums and on this blog I will also publish IntroSums occasionally.


Around fifty years ago Heidi (1929–2019) and Alvin Toffler (1928–2016) wrote books together that were very famous at the time. Their messages described very well the stupidity of the Static ideals and especially the terror of the Hierarchic order.

In this one hour speech made in 1996 Alvin delivered the main aspects of their books. That was 27 years ago and every formulation about the fundamentals is still valid as absolutely nothing has changed.

The video below will load slowly.

Cyberspace and Society, C-SPAN, 5 August 1996

Some essential wikipedia links to stuff mentioned

Hillary Clinton

Newt Gingrich

Unabomber

...

Even if their basic critique and observations were not unique; were the Toffler's unique as they made distinctive conclusions and their formulations were also unique as they were directed to the general public.

However even if their overall perspective is Dynamic there are here and there Static residues that confuse the message. Or like this. The Toffler's probably had no idea that the present Western culture is based on the Static ideals of Platonism.

The Toffler’s understood somehow that the basic problem was that the established Static ideal eliminated Dynamic efforts. But they never formulated “Why is it like this?” at the highest level. So, they were restricted to blame, for example, the traditions of politics. I write about “Why?” at the highest level.

So, by combining my stuff with the messages of the Toffler’s you get a complete picture. I think it is possible to boil down all the Toffler’s messages to this central quote from one of their books.

... By instructing students how to learn, unlearn and relearn, a powerful new dimension can be added to education. Psychologist Herbert Gerjuoy of the Human Resources Research Organization phrases it simply: "The new education must teach the individual how to classify and reclassify information, how to evaluate its veracity, how to change categories when necessary, how to move from the concrete to the abstract and back, how to look at problems from a new direction—how to teach himself. Tomorrow's illiterate will not be the man who can't read; he will be the man who has not learned how to learn." …

A System of Skills, Chapter 18 Education in The Future Tense, Future Shock (1970)

As the Toffler's messages are integrated into each other it is difficult to make specific quotes from this speech. Nevertheless, here are some of the formulations from the beginning of the speech.

… the American political system resists any radical change. The system itself, the structure of collective decision making, the architecture of American politics, is itself ultra stable.

... The idea that the U.S. political structure is ultra stable should in fact give pause to everyone, because by fueling a global shift from a Second Wave smokestack society to a Third Wave knowledge-based society, Americans are opening a path to tremendous benefits not only for America but for the world. The benefits will range from higher standards of living, economic standards, to better health, cleaner environment, etc. But Americans -- and the populations of many other countries are being battered by the very acceleration and the pace of life that the knowledge revolution, instant communication and the Third Wave of change bring with them. Most Americans now feel hard pressed, stressed out, upset with conditions in the country. Many are angry. Most wish change would slow down and let them catch their breath. The Second Wave smoke-stack world that they knew is vanishing as the Third Wave future invades every aspect of American society today. Daily life is suffused with higher and higher levels of uncertainty and unpredictability. ...

... the stress levels rise. We call it future shock, which is the distress and disorientation brought on by trying to adapt to too much change at rates faster than people can handle. ...

... Among these are the frightening fanaticism that we see in many corners of society - racial and religious intolerance, the spread of paranoia and conspiracy theories, anarchic terrorism, the purposelessness and moral paralysis among so many young people - or the technophobia that was so perfectly symbolized by the Unabomber (whose Luddite manifesto would have found many more supporters if its author had not, it appears, punctuated his paragraphs with blood). What we really see are two ways of life, two civilizations, in collision. One is the fading Second Wave industrial civilization. The other is its fast spreading Third Wave replacement. The collision of these two will result in enormous and politically dangerous dislocations of various kinds. ...

... Do we want a political system that in all its basic structures was designed for the past to remain unchanged? Or do we want one that changes in sync with the changes in society? ...

From the text version of Future Shock in the Present Tense Keynote Address at the Aspen Institute Summit 1996 by Alvin Toffler

Note, the order of the arguments are different in the text version of the speech than in the video.

Earlier Post: Alvin and Heidi Toffler – In Memory of the Deceased Future Part 1, 12 January 2018

The Public Trust Doctrine – Good Law Project

Even if I reject the religious concept “trust” as the base for the society, are the openings created by the Good Law Project inspiring; as they demonstrate what can be done right now.




Good Law Project

Jolyon Maugham, Executive Director, Wikipedia

From info on YouTube about the film above

Our Legal director, Emma, explains how an ancient legal principle, the Public Trust Doctrine, could be used to stop the destruction of rivers and coastal waters by water companies.

From their site

Case Update: We have a High Court date to challenge the Government’s failure to stop the sewage scandal, 28 April 2023

Book by Maugham: Bringing Down Goliath – How Good Law Can Topple the Powerful (2023), Penguin Books

Jo Maugham, Director of Good Law Project chats about his new book 'Bringing Down Goliath', YouTube

See also the initiative Lawyers Are Responsible