What if a hospital was a simply a very complicated version of a corporation that focuses on maximizing profits since they are both run in a parallel manner?
The corporation is owned by shareholders whereas a hospital is owned by a private company (which could be shareholders for all we know) or by the government. In either case, however, the Board of Directors is the governing body of the institution in question and is headed by the chairman, who might or might not be the CEO. In the corporation the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is in charge of setting policy and coordinates the day to day operations of the company with the policy set by the Board of Directors. The equivalent in a hospital is known as the Chief Medical Officer (chief of surgery). The CMO is also in charge of implementing policy set by the Board of Directors which he does not necessarily chair. He also supervises all surgeries. The Chief Operating Officer in a corporation is known as the President and his role consists of managing the day-to-day affairs of the company. In a hospital this person is the Chief Resident who is in charge of overlooking the residents to make sure that they are doing their job to the best of their abilities. In a company there are Executive Vice-presidents who report to the President on the state of every part of the company. They function as the president of each division of the company by which way they run the company by divisions. In turn, in a hospital there are also different departments of medicine which are run by a doctor, who is known as the Heads of such type of medicine in which s/he specializes. There is a leader of neurosurgery, plastic surgery, cardiothoracic, obstetrics and gynecology, pediatrics, among others. They also have to report to the Chief Resident about their deeds. The Head Nurse also falls into this category.
In the hospital the Fellows are those who are specializing on a certain type of medicine. This functions as a regular job to which they must apply first. Vice-presidents in a company run each further subdivision of each department in a company. They have to report to the Executive Vice-president on the state of the department of which they are in charge such as finance, marketing, accounting, information services, public relations, corporate affairs, law, and the various other operating divisions.
Residents in a hospital are the doctors who practice medicine there. They have already received their credentials. However, for the time being they can only practice general medicine. Usually they attach themselves to the Head of whatever type of medicine they are planning to specialize on. They must also have interns and interact more closely with the medical students. In a company the general managers must make sure that everything in a department is running according to plan in order for the vice-president to be able to run things smoothly. They have a big responsibility because they are the biggest connection between workers and the management.
The managers are those who technically help the general manager make sure everything is running smoothly on an everyday basis in order to ensure perfection. The interns in the hospital are those who have already graduated from medical school, however, are not yet accredited to practice medicine on their own. They help the residents as a manager does: great responsibility with little power. They thus must remain under the hand of a resident until they have passed their accreditation exam.
Supervisors and nurses also have a big responsibility, but their work is overshadowed by the manager and resident, respectively.
Workers and medical students: both are there one day, but they might not be there the next. Anything can happen. In this way, the corporation is a parallel to the hospital. Every step of the way is managed in a similar way. In addition, both have a legal department; which is there to defend them in case anything does not turn out as it was meant to be. They also share many other traits such as the pyramidal payment distribution.
Finally, there are the patients and the product, respectively. One makes profits through sales. The other assures the hospital income by remaining sick.
Next time you visit a hospital, whatever the reason, think about this parallel because you might become a tool for profiting.
xoxo,
Poison Drops
©Copyrighted 2008
Monday, May 26, 2008
Monday, May 19, 2008
Theory of Relativity (of Truth)
What would happen to the world if truth as it is understood today became recognized by the masses as a relative concept which would make certain things, values, beliefs and ideas truth and false at the same time?
The truth is already a very complicated concept as applied to the world and even the mind. We tend to forget things and at the moment they are not longer truth in our reality. Nevertheless, the forgotten are still truth because they correspond to some fact from the past. Alfred Tarski famously presented the problem that the idea itself of defining truth independent of anything is a problematic notion.
It is, in fact, difficult to define truth as an independent factor. One must always seek aid in material or immaterial examples. Four theories of truth exist. The minimalist theory simple states that true is redundant and does not add anything to a statement. The other three seem to be different components of one theory.
First, there is the pragmatic theory of truth which establishes that in order for something to be truth, that something must be useful. This seems to raise the question of ‘for whom must it be useful?’ Here is the first point of relativity. If in order for anything to be truth, this must be useful, one might ask what about the beliefs that are useful for some people to hold yet for others are a complete waste of time. Does this mean such beliefs are both true and false? Certainly not, I hope. This means that truth is relative to whoever holds a belief.
The coherence theory of truth dictates that true beliefs and propositions are those which correspond to the rest of the beliefs we hold. This simply cannot apply to life as we know it. It is absurd to think that one cannot hold any beliefs if these do not correspond to the other beliefs one already has. In the end, however, this applies to the theory I am advocating: relativity. In order to hold a certain belief as true at a precise moment in time one only needs to disregard the beliefs that do not cohere with it at that instant. Thus, that one belief would be truth relative to the point in time in which it is held as well as relative to what beliefs does it correspond to. While it is possible to hold beliefs that do not make sense together and which can be held as true at different times, it is not possible for different people to hold the same belief and have it be both true and false, which is what this theory seems to imply. A belief that is both true and false is, however, also possible under different circumstances.
Finally, the most widely accepted theory of truth: correspondence. This theory states that truth is that which as expressed corresponds to a fact in the world. To complicate matters, through this theory truth can be not only applied to beliefs and immaterial entities, but also to physical objects. Truth, then, becomes relative to reality whether this reality is an object or a belief. Although this theory seems very strong, there are also problems with it. Propositions and beliefs can correspond to facts in the world, but there are also those sorts of beliefs held by millions which do not conform in any sense to a fact, such beliefs are not accounted for in this theory as well as objects that after having been long disappeared are recovered.
The way I see it, truth as expressed in these three theories is a relative concept. It is relative to its utility in the first place. Meaning it should be useful otherwise we would be allowed to lie, which is also useful, but nonetheless causes problems when the ‘truth’ is discovered. Truth should also correspond to other beliefs, at least at the moment at which a belief is considered. Else it would not make sense to compare a butterfly to a flower based on the fact that someone beliefs them to be both beautiful. Finally, truth should also be relative to the fact in the world to which it corresponds. One cannot say, for example, that the table has legs and that an animal also has legs and consider both to be truth without understanding truth is relative.
Next time someone preaches you the truth, make sure it is relative to what you consider to be so.
xoxo,
Posion Drops
©Copyrighted 2008
The truth is already a very complicated concept as applied to the world and even the mind. We tend to forget things and at the moment they are not longer truth in our reality. Nevertheless, the forgotten are still truth because they correspond to some fact from the past. Alfred Tarski famously presented the problem that the idea itself of defining truth independent of anything is a problematic notion.
It is, in fact, difficult to define truth as an independent factor. One must always seek aid in material or immaterial examples. Four theories of truth exist. The minimalist theory simple states that true is redundant and does not add anything to a statement. The other three seem to be different components of one theory.
First, there is the pragmatic theory of truth which establishes that in order for something to be truth, that something must be useful. This seems to raise the question of ‘for whom must it be useful?’ Here is the first point of relativity. If in order for anything to be truth, this must be useful, one might ask what about the beliefs that are useful for some people to hold yet for others are a complete waste of time. Does this mean such beliefs are both true and false? Certainly not, I hope. This means that truth is relative to whoever holds a belief.
The coherence theory of truth dictates that true beliefs and propositions are those which correspond to the rest of the beliefs we hold. This simply cannot apply to life as we know it. It is absurd to think that one cannot hold any beliefs if these do not correspond to the other beliefs one already has. In the end, however, this applies to the theory I am advocating: relativity. In order to hold a certain belief as true at a precise moment in time one only needs to disregard the beliefs that do not cohere with it at that instant. Thus, that one belief would be truth relative to the point in time in which it is held as well as relative to what beliefs does it correspond to. While it is possible to hold beliefs that do not make sense together and which can be held as true at different times, it is not possible for different people to hold the same belief and have it be both true and false, which is what this theory seems to imply. A belief that is both true and false is, however, also possible under different circumstances.
Finally, the most widely accepted theory of truth: correspondence. This theory states that truth is that which as expressed corresponds to a fact in the world. To complicate matters, through this theory truth can be not only applied to beliefs and immaterial entities, but also to physical objects. Truth, then, becomes relative to reality whether this reality is an object or a belief. Although this theory seems very strong, there are also problems with it. Propositions and beliefs can correspond to facts in the world, but there are also those sorts of beliefs held by millions which do not conform in any sense to a fact, such beliefs are not accounted for in this theory as well as objects that after having been long disappeared are recovered.
The way I see it, truth as expressed in these three theories is a relative concept. It is relative to its utility in the first place. Meaning it should be useful otherwise we would be allowed to lie, which is also useful, but nonetheless causes problems when the ‘truth’ is discovered. Truth should also correspond to other beliefs, at least at the moment at which a belief is considered. Else it would not make sense to compare a butterfly to a flower based on the fact that someone beliefs them to be both beautiful. Finally, truth should also be relative to the fact in the world to which it corresponds. One cannot say, for example, that the table has legs and that an animal also has legs and consider both to be truth without understanding truth is relative.
Next time someone preaches you the truth, make sure it is relative to what you consider to be so.
xoxo,
Posion Drops
©Copyrighted 2008
Monday, May 12, 2008
A Tyranny behind Closed Doors
What if my family was not a common family but a political system secretly set up by my parents? The evidence suggests it is in fact a very unstable tyranny.
Demands are abundant from my sisters and I, but there are rarely any outputs from my parents due to the active gatekeepers, namely time, and space for demands to be heard, which also prevent the members of the collectivity from giving feedback, thus averting support. The environment is hostile when support is needed but feedback is not processed by my parents. Power is understood as a rational-legal system, yet there is a traditional system behind it which is the wheels of the system. However, there have been transitions that have taken the political system through charismatic, traditional, and rational-legal authority. The latter being only a mask to hide the traditional form of authority that has always been in charge after the charismatic authority was dismissed. At the beginning, when the society was forming, pure charismatic authority made the system work. As a young child, I saw my parents as divine beings that I was to respect and obey. Their power to rule over me was legitimate and I could not see the system for what it was, an ever changing, display of favoritism, and politically traditionalist. Ever changing because until the present day the office holders act according to what is best for them without thinking about the collectivity when it comes to allocating scare resources such as cars, cellular phones, and freedom. They are helping the collectivity, however, when it comes to needed resources that are not so much scarce such as food, housing, and clothing. The system is also a private display of favoritism because the members of the collectivity, in particular the one that has been around for the longest time, realizes that some members are regarded as better than others in the office holders’ eyes even when this is not necessarily truth to the general public. Finally, the system is traditionalist due to the ways my parents were taught the system should work without knowing any better. There is also the fact that the members of the collectivity have allowed the office holders to do as they please for so many years.
Force, material and psychological rewards as well as legitimacy have all been used. The latter of which has disappear completely through time due to the aging process and intellectual growth of the collectivity. The system continues to utilize the other two as a mixed source of power. Force is used when the environment becomes highly hostile making the collectivity only a tool for achieving. In the past, the psychological rewards were prevalent since the collectivity was always looking for approval and affection from the office holders. However, as the collectivity has grown older, it focuses on receiving material rewards. For example, when showing grades to the office holders instead of looking for a smile and a hug as approval, a member of the collectivity seeks to acquire new shoes, clothes or simply money to be used at her pleasure.
If the members of the collectivity comply, the allocation of scarce resources benefits them. If, on the other hand, the members of the collectivity do not comply, the only beneficiaries are the office holders. Compliance has always being a problem due to instability. First, office holders took advantage of their position by using normative authority. When the collectivity was young there was legitimacy and normative compliance; it was reliable, stable and efficient. Later, the office holders employed a mixture of coercive and utilitarian compliance still in use today because it inclines the system to benefit both office holders and the collectivity, at different times. The members of the collectivity have an extensive use of free “riderism”; that is they manage to benefit without complying. However, the office holders lean towards using coercive compliance which is costly and only useful when the office holders or their enforcement officers are present. Alienation is also present since the members of the collectivity have detached themselves from the office holders though they remain attached through a powerful traditionalist bond and fear of being expelled from society.
The system will continue to be unstable and oppressive until the members of the collective are old enough to liberate themselves from the rule of the office holders.
Next time you see your family, make sure it is a representative government which is said to be ideal.
xoxo,
Poison Drops
©Copyrighted 2008
Demands are abundant from my sisters and I, but there are rarely any outputs from my parents due to the active gatekeepers, namely time, and space for demands to be heard, which also prevent the members of the collectivity from giving feedback, thus averting support. The environment is hostile when support is needed but feedback is not processed by my parents. Power is understood as a rational-legal system, yet there is a traditional system behind it which is the wheels of the system. However, there have been transitions that have taken the political system through charismatic, traditional, and rational-legal authority. The latter being only a mask to hide the traditional form of authority that has always been in charge after the charismatic authority was dismissed. At the beginning, when the society was forming, pure charismatic authority made the system work. As a young child, I saw my parents as divine beings that I was to respect and obey. Their power to rule over me was legitimate and I could not see the system for what it was, an ever changing, display of favoritism, and politically traditionalist. Ever changing because until the present day the office holders act according to what is best for them without thinking about the collectivity when it comes to allocating scare resources such as cars, cellular phones, and freedom. They are helping the collectivity, however, when it comes to needed resources that are not so much scarce such as food, housing, and clothing. The system is also a private display of favoritism because the members of the collectivity, in particular the one that has been around for the longest time, realizes that some members are regarded as better than others in the office holders’ eyes even when this is not necessarily truth to the general public. Finally, the system is traditionalist due to the ways my parents were taught the system should work without knowing any better. There is also the fact that the members of the collectivity have allowed the office holders to do as they please for so many years.
Force, material and psychological rewards as well as legitimacy have all been used. The latter of which has disappear completely through time due to the aging process and intellectual growth of the collectivity. The system continues to utilize the other two as a mixed source of power. Force is used when the environment becomes highly hostile making the collectivity only a tool for achieving. In the past, the psychological rewards were prevalent since the collectivity was always looking for approval and affection from the office holders. However, as the collectivity has grown older, it focuses on receiving material rewards. For example, when showing grades to the office holders instead of looking for a smile and a hug as approval, a member of the collectivity seeks to acquire new shoes, clothes or simply money to be used at her pleasure.
If the members of the collectivity comply, the allocation of scarce resources benefits them. If, on the other hand, the members of the collectivity do not comply, the only beneficiaries are the office holders. Compliance has always being a problem due to instability. First, office holders took advantage of their position by using normative authority. When the collectivity was young there was legitimacy and normative compliance; it was reliable, stable and efficient. Later, the office holders employed a mixture of coercive and utilitarian compliance still in use today because it inclines the system to benefit both office holders and the collectivity, at different times. The members of the collectivity have an extensive use of free “riderism”; that is they manage to benefit without complying. However, the office holders lean towards using coercive compliance which is costly and only useful when the office holders or their enforcement officers are present. Alienation is also present since the members of the collectivity have detached themselves from the office holders though they remain attached through a powerful traditionalist bond and fear of being expelled from society.
The system will continue to be unstable and oppressive until the members of the collective are old enough to liberate themselves from the rule of the office holders.
Next time you see your family, make sure it is a representative government which is said to be ideal.
xoxo,
Poison Drops
©Copyrighted 2008
Statement of Purpose
Through this blog I will venture into making some of my thoughts of public dominion. I am aware that many of you, readers, will not agree with my ideas and that is perfectly fine with me. There will be also, I hope, those others who will enjoy my writings. With that said, I can now move on to briefly describe what this blog will roughly be about; which is, of course, subject to change.
I have chosen to philosophize or simply analyze the numerous trivialities of life from a different perspective. There are countless elements of the world which are taken for granted. Those elements have great potential if a little attention is paid to them. I plan to observe those neglected objects that might be material or not from an unusual position. I want to show that symbolism exists everywhere around us not only in literature. My blog will be somewhat out of the ordinary. Random things that exist in the every day life which have never been worth anyone’s time as a subject to be analyzed will be my focus. The random objects or ideas will be examined from another standpoint other that the norm. They will become something worth philosophizing about through being portrayed rather completely different than what they are, at least from the perspective I am advocating.
I enjoy questioning every single part of life and I thrive to find symbolism in the minimal details around me, which is the very essence of this blog.
I truly hope you enjoy my writings. If you do so, tell your friends about it: the more the merrier.
xoxo,
Poison Drops
P.S. This is the only week when there will be two posts. Enjoy!
©Copyrighted 2008
I have chosen to philosophize or simply analyze the numerous trivialities of life from a different perspective. There are countless elements of the world which are taken for granted. Those elements have great potential if a little attention is paid to them. I plan to observe those neglected objects that might be material or not from an unusual position. I want to show that symbolism exists everywhere around us not only in literature. My blog will be somewhat out of the ordinary. Random things that exist in the every day life which have never been worth anyone’s time as a subject to be analyzed will be my focus. The random objects or ideas will be examined from another standpoint other that the norm. They will become something worth philosophizing about through being portrayed rather completely different than what they are, at least from the perspective I am advocating.
I enjoy questioning every single part of life and I thrive to find symbolism in the minimal details around me, which is the very essence of this blog.
I truly hope you enjoy my writings. If you do so, tell your friends about it: the more the merrier.
xoxo,
Poison Drops
P.S. This is the only week when there will be two posts. Enjoy!
©Copyrighted 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
