I'm beginning to wonder, with smartphones becoming more capable, whether I actually need to bother with laptop and desktop computers. Samsung had a mode called DeX on their flagship models, which gave a more desktop-like experience simply with a phone. That feature is apparently being replaced by Google's default options.
With my Samsung A54 I can successfully connect a keyboard and mouse, but have yet to try to connect a screen. For now, I'm interested only in traveling, and would not carry with me a screen.
I have is a (quite old) Rapoo bluetooth keyboard, which works very well with the A54, and also a bluetooth mouse. Together with a phone stand, I get quite a satisfying experience.
The next time I buy a phone, I may look for a high end flagship model with connectivity that will allow me to replace my other equipment.
With my Samsung A54 I can successfully connect a keyboard and mouse, but have yet to try to connect a screen. For now, I'm interested only in traveling, and would not carry with me a screen.
I have is a (quite old) Rapoo bluetooth keyboard, which works very well with the A54, and also a bluetooth mouse. Together with a phone stand, I get quite a satisfying experience.
The next time I buy a phone, I may look for a high end flagship model with connectivity that will allow me to replace my other equipment.
In the burned forest there is new growth, // its vibrant green in sharp defiance of the ash black powder shrouding the earth and enveloping the shoes in a charcoal memento of its suffered trauma. // This sprig of colour gives hope that the violence, unforgotten, may yet be transcended. // Nothing is permanent in the forest: neither its green mantle nor its death shroud. // Everything is on a journey.
2024-12-31_the_future
As we move into a new year I want to try to put into words something that I have been thinking about in recent weeks - what I see as a devaluation in human life. If I'm right about this, we should consider this to be a real and current danger in whatever country or region we live.
As primates we are social animals. Loneliness and isolation are almost deadly. So it's strange that our group behaviour is often appalling and that our sense of alienation is so strong.
Our governments mostly lack empathy towards the wishes of their citizens and readily permit large scale suffering to take place; facilitating or abetting genocides, profiting from arms sales, allowing private corporations to run amoc, impervious to growing social disparities and instituting planet-wrecking policies for short term gain.
Our billionaire-owned news media are full of lies, our social media platforms reward division and foster hatred, our religions are all corrupt and our cities are places of alienation. There are few safe social spaces.
None of this is inevitable, and the problem seems insurmountable only when viewed as monolithic. It can only be overcome by first becoming conscious of the ways in which we are manipulated towards building and augmenting it. By mindfully taking control of our interactions, by taking small steps, with great humility, we can begin to reverse the dynamic.
Group behaviour is a projection of individual ego. Ego is based on the false premise of actual division, whereas fundamentally our existence is based on wholeness and all-encompassing unity.
There is no isolation, no loneliness, when that is understood. All of our social interactions will automatically improve when we understand that the divisions are false. They will be based instead on respect and empathy.
The article reasons that our view of the universe as divided into separate objects is flawed in that it fails to acknowledge a fundamental unity. It states that it is this wrong vision that has led to the current crisis we are facing. It casts doubt on claims that the situation can be be changed through solely personal transformation and suggests the practice of dharma as a more practical method of tackling our problems and transforming the world. It claims that the practice of dharma is also a sadhana, i.e. a means to gaining an integral understanding that the “world of things” depends upon underlying unity.
https://labonneheure.ch/cloud/hosh8764/Documents/dharma.html
https://labonneheure.ch/cloud/hosh8764/Documents/dharma.html
I have been watching the (old) BBC series "The Genius of Photography" and it has made me think what appeals to me about taking pictures - I mean not just holiday snapshots and family portraits...
Read
Read
This article looks at the responsibility of Israelis towards genocide, or genocidal policies that it has perpetrated in Gaza. It consciously examines solely matters concerning Israeli responsibility and avoids a discussion of the moral responsibility of Palestinians and their leadership. That’s a different question, or a larger issue which is indeed relevant to the discussion, but it is not covered here.
First the question of the meaning of “genocide”: this is mainly relevant in terms of the legal definition, as established under the Geneva Conventions. Experts have looked at the question of whether what we have been seeing constitutes genocide, and the International Court of Justice has begun to examine it. The court’s role is to establish whether a state has broken international law by committing genocide. As we have seen, it is unable to establish this within a relevant time frame (i.e. a final ruling will be issued long after the incidents currently taking place), but has only been able to determine that it is plausible that a genocide is being committed. It has issued warnings and rulings that in so far as there is a danger that genocidal actions are being committed, military activity must cease, etc.
However the question of responsibility needs to be looked at not just in terms of criminality but also in terms of morality. Courts rule in terms of criminal culpability and can hold nations to account or individuals to justice only when these have direct culpability. But a wider group can be held to share moral responsibility, and even in the absence of a strict ruling that a crime as serious as genocide has been committed, moral responsibility for what has been perpetrated can be established.
Responsibility must also be looked at with regard to time: such as not just whether we are responsible for what is currently happening, but the degree to which previous decisions led up to it, and the degree to which what is currently happening affects outcomes in the future.
- victims
- perpetrators
- bystanders
- rescuers
Unfortunately the majority from the perpetrators' side are always bystanders, while rescuers - those who oppose a genocide or try to or save people from it - are few, because they need to be brave, endure personal risk, sometimes to the extent of placing the lives of themselves and their loved ones in danger.
Moral responsibility cannot easily be determined, so we should not be quick to pass judgment over others. It's a question that individuals or a group or a society must grapple with. There is a matter also of degree. Did an individual or group express their objection, take individual action, instigate or participate in organized action; were they willing to take risks in order to do so, etc.?
I don't think ignorance, spread by the lies or omissions of news media, is sufficient to excuse individuals or society, because it is the obligation of the individual to seek out information, even when it is being kept out of mainstream media (assuming that it is available somewhere, and not totally banned or censored). Threats against the individual from the state or those who act on behalf of the perpetrating group cannot be classed as preventing speech or action, because exigent conditions demand commensurately brave opposition.
In the disproportionate aggression towards Palestinians since October 7, not just Israel is to blame, but also countries that give direct or indirect military or diplomatic support to Israel. Therefore, in the same way that Israelis can be held morally responsible for the actions of their government, so can the citizens of those countries. Again, we are speaking of moral rather than criminal responsibility, but it exists in parallel to that of Israelis. However, there is the problem that the wider we cast the net of responsibility, the more diluted can be the charge of moral culpability. If everyone is responsible, then no one is responsible.
At the end of the second world war, the defeat and surrender of Nazi Germany and of imperial Japan forced both nations to institute deep changes, such as constitutional reforms, to ensure that these nations would henceforth live in peace with the family of nations. International frameworks (including the ICJ) were also established to try to prevent future conflict.
Various conflicts have, to a greater or lesser degree, been settled from the mid-20th century, either by international arbitration, mediation or internal processes. The end of the apartheid regime in South Africa is a good example of a home-grown mechanism. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, developed there, was partly successful in bringing about a peaceful transition of power. The process was based not on punishment but on acceptance of responsibility as a path to reconciliation. In other cases, such as the treatment of indigenous populations, concepts and policies like restorative justice have played a major role.
In all such successful resolutions to conflict there needed to be a strong consensus within the country that deep processes were needed to bring about change.
In the ongoing Israeli – Palestinian conflict, the difficulty is that we have yet to see an occasion as momentous as capitulation or surrender (by either party). For there to be a real change, there must be a firm majority conviction that previous patterns have to be changed.
Though it is unlikely in the current geo-political context, a watershed moment could arise if the International Court of Justice determines that a genocide has taken place, or if the International Criminal Court convicts Israeli military and political leaders of perpetrating genocide. In their current frame of mind, most Israelis would likely vilify these courts, reject their jurisdiction and ignore any unfavourable verdicts. So in order to be effective, the rulings would need to be backed up by the threat of stringent sanctions.
In parallel, there would need to be a plan to effect real change, such as international acceptance and imposition of the two-state solution, or even the imposition of a one-state solution in which Palestinians and Israeli Jews will enjoy political, judicial, religious and economic freedom within a single state framework.
These processes could also determine what previous patterns within Israeli society have contributed to the conflict and need to be changed, in the same way that Germany and Japan were required to make deep changes to their societies (which have served them well ever since).
The degree to which Israelis would understand and accept such processes could determine the attitude of the world towards them. Just as we could not, after the defeat of Nazism in Europe, accept any continued expression of Nazi ideology or positions from those who had lived under the regime, the international community should not accept Israeli statements of support for those who have been judged to be directly responsible for the genocide and should castigate and ostracize the bearers of opinions who do not accept the verdict or an imposed international peace plan.
So a clear ruling on the current genocide by the international courts, combined with a coherent program for change, imposed if necessary by the international community, could bring about real change and a moment in which it would be fair to hold individual Israelis to account regarding their acceptance or non-acceptance of these processes.
We have not reached that moment yet, so any examination and analysis regarding the moral culpability of ordinary Israelis towards the genocide, needs to be evaluated less formally, in terms of the earlier mentioned roles of perpetrator, bystander or rescuer.
First the question of the meaning of “genocide”: this is mainly relevant in terms of the legal definition, as established under the Geneva Conventions. Experts have looked at the question of whether what we have been seeing constitutes genocide, and the International Court of Justice has begun to examine it. The court’s role is to establish whether a state has broken international law by committing genocide. As we have seen, it is unable to establish this within a relevant time frame (i.e. a final ruling will be issued long after the incidents currently taking place), but has only been able to determine that it is plausible that a genocide is being committed. It has issued warnings and rulings that in so far as there is a danger that genocidal actions are being committed, military activity must cease, etc.
However the question of responsibility needs to be looked at not just in terms of criminality but also in terms of morality. Courts rule in terms of criminal culpability and can hold nations to account or individuals to justice only when these have direct culpability. But a wider group can be held to share moral responsibility, and even in the absence of a strict ruling that a crime as serious as genocide has been committed, moral responsibility for what has been perpetrated can be established.
Responsibility must also be looked at with regard to time: such as not just whether we are responsible for what is currently happening, but the degree to which previous decisions led up to it, and the degree to which what is currently happening affects outcomes in the future.
The present
Prof. Yair Auron (a retired specialist in genocide studies living in my community) says that when genocidal actions take place, people can be divided into four main groups:- victims
- perpetrators
- bystanders
- rescuers
Unfortunately the majority from the perpetrators' side are always bystanders, while rescuers - those who oppose a genocide or try to or save people from it - are few, because they need to be brave, endure personal risk, sometimes to the extent of placing the lives of themselves and their loved ones in danger.
Moral responsibility cannot easily be determined, so we should not be quick to pass judgment over others. It's a question that individuals or a group or a society must grapple with. There is a matter also of degree. Did an individual or group express their objection, take individual action, instigate or participate in organized action; were they willing to take risks in order to do so, etc.?
I don't think ignorance, spread by the lies or omissions of news media, is sufficient to excuse individuals or society, because it is the obligation of the individual to seek out information, even when it is being kept out of mainstream media (assuming that it is available somewhere, and not totally banned or censored). Threats against the individual from the state or those who act on behalf of the perpetrating group cannot be classed as preventing speech or action, because exigent conditions demand commensurately brave opposition.
In the disproportionate aggression towards Palestinians since October 7, not just Israel is to blame, but also countries that give direct or indirect military or diplomatic support to Israel. Therefore, in the same way that Israelis can be held morally responsible for the actions of their government, so can the citizens of those countries. Again, we are speaking of moral rather than criminal responsibility, but it exists in parallel to that of Israelis. However, there is the problem that the wider we cast the net of responsibility, the more diluted can be the charge of moral culpability. If everyone is responsible, then no one is responsible.
The past
All of the above relates to the present, or while genocidal actions are taking place. There is also historical responsibility and responsibility towards the future. The current situation came into being as a result of a long process. It followed from or was influenced by many contributing factors such as ideology, philosophical positions or movements (in this case Zionism), religious views, racism, educational bias, government policies, previous military actions, political choices, failed leadership, failures in civil society... the list is long. In order to reach an understanding of how we arrived to the present moment, all of these elements need to be assessed and individual soul-searching needs to take place.The future
Do our current actions feed into an endless cycle of violence in which future acts of atrocity or genocide will take place? Or are we taking measures to ensure a future in which the conflicting parties will be able to live in peace? Do we regard the conflict as a zero sum game or are we actively working for a future in which peace, equality, justice and security will be there for all sides of the conflict? Can we establish a genuine framework that will lead us forward to such a result?As we go forward
The net of responsibility has to be defined in terms of various criteria and according to degree. If we limit it only to political or military leaders, or to those who serve them, i.e. those with criminal culpability, this is clearly too narrow. On the other hand, as we have mentioned, to spread the net too widely and claim that all Israelis, or even all of those in countries in other countries who directly supported Israel and did nothing to oppose the genocide, are universally responsible, is too broad to be meaningful. The question of criminal culpability can be settled by the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. Moral culpability of the wider society is more tricky, but could ultimately be influenced by the same processes.At the end of the second world war, the defeat and surrender of Nazi Germany and of imperial Japan forced both nations to institute deep changes, such as constitutional reforms, to ensure that these nations would henceforth live in peace with the family of nations. International frameworks (including the ICJ) were also established to try to prevent future conflict.
Various conflicts have, to a greater or lesser degree, been settled from the mid-20th century, either by international arbitration, mediation or internal processes. The end of the apartheid regime in South Africa is a good example of a home-grown mechanism. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, developed there, was partly successful in bringing about a peaceful transition of power. The process was based not on punishment but on acceptance of responsibility as a path to reconciliation. In other cases, such as the treatment of indigenous populations, concepts and policies like restorative justice have played a major role.
In all such successful resolutions to conflict there needed to be a strong consensus within the country that deep processes were needed to bring about change.
In the ongoing Israeli – Palestinian conflict, the difficulty is that we have yet to see an occasion as momentous as capitulation or surrender (by either party). For there to be a real change, there must be a firm majority conviction that previous patterns have to be changed.
Though it is unlikely in the current geo-political context, a watershed moment could arise if the International Court of Justice determines that a genocide has taken place, or if the International Criminal Court convicts Israeli military and political leaders of perpetrating genocide. In their current frame of mind, most Israelis would likely vilify these courts, reject their jurisdiction and ignore any unfavourable verdicts. So in order to be effective, the rulings would need to be backed up by the threat of stringent sanctions.
In parallel, there would need to be a plan to effect real change, such as international acceptance and imposition of the two-state solution, or even the imposition of a one-state solution in which Palestinians and Israeli Jews will enjoy political, judicial, religious and economic freedom within a single state framework.
These processes could also determine what previous patterns within Israeli society have contributed to the conflict and need to be changed, in the same way that Germany and Japan were required to make deep changes to their societies (which have served them well ever since).
The degree to which Israelis would understand and accept such processes could determine the attitude of the world towards them. Just as we could not, after the defeat of Nazism in Europe, accept any continued expression of Nazi ideology or positions from those who had lived under the regime, the international community should not accept Israeli statements of support for those who have been judged to be directly responsible for the genocide and should castigate and ostracize the bearers of opinions who do not accept the verdict or an imposed international peace plan.
So a clear ruling on the current genocide by the international courts, combined with a coherent program for change, imposed if necessary by the international community, could bring about real change and a moment in which it would be fair to hold individual Israelis to account regarding their acceptance or non-acceptance of these processes.
We have not reached that moment yet, so any examination and analysis regarding the moral culpability of ordinary Israelis towards the genocide, needs to be evaluated less formally, in terms of the earlier mentioned roles of perpetrator, bystander or rescuer.