<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>the blog &#187; Philosophy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.kylebisch.com/category/philosophy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.kylebisch.com</link>
	<description>a design and philosophy blog by kyle bisch</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 23:04:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Renewing and Rethinking New Years Resolutions</title>
		<link>http://blog.kylebisch.com/2010/03/renewing-and-rethinking-new-years-resolutions/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.kylebisch.com/2010/03/renewing-and-rethinking-new-years-resolutions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 23:04:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kyle</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.kylebisch.com/?p=183</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img class="alignright size-full wp-image-184" title="jogging" src="http://blog.kylebisch.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/jogging.jpg" alt="" width="266" height="199" />Of the 40% of Americans who made a New Year's Resolution 2 months ago, 33% have already bagged it for the year, and another 21% will join them over the next 4 months.  But there is something wrong with the way Americans make resolutions that is reflected in these statistics.  We think of New Year's Resolutions as a make-or-break deal.  Either we will or we won't.  We will succeed of fail.

But this make-or-break mindset goes contrary to the idea of changing oneself and making a resolution in the first place.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-184" title="jogging" src="http://blog.kylebisch.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/jogging.jpg" alt="" width="266" height="199" />Of the 40% of Americans who made a New Year&#8217;s Resolution 2 months ago, 33% have already bagged it for the year, and another 21% will join them over the next 4 months.  But there is something wrong with the way Americans make resolutions that is reflected in these statistics.  We think of New Year&#8217;s Resolutions as a make-or-break deal.  Either we will or we won&#8217;t.  We will succeed of fail.</p>
<p>But this make-or-break mindset goes contrary to the idea of changing oneself and making a resolution in the first place.  Any person who has broken an addiction, wether that be smoking, alcohol, internet or the dozens upon dozens of other addictive things in this world, knows that it is not done overnight.  The same is true with a New Year&#8217;s Resolution.  There is not something magical about the first morning of the New Year that changes us, so why do we think we can change overnight.</p>
<p>A real New Year&#8217;s Resolution is not a make-or-break deal.  If I forget to exercise 5 days a week (like I have for the past 2 weeks) then I shouldn&#8217;t just give up and go back to watching YouTube every afternoon.  As I see it, there are 52 chances in every year to renew you New Year&#8217;s Resolution, and we&#8217;ve only used 8!  Success should not be measured on a scale or failure or success, but on a scale of progress.</p>
<p>If I only exercised 3 times last week, rather than throwing in the towel, I should renew my resolution and try harder the next week.  Today I took the first step to get back on track with my resolution by running for 30 minutes.  I may not have made progress last week, but I sure will this week.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.kylebisch.com/2010/03/renewing-and-rethinking-new-years-resolutions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Communism is Alive</title>
		<link>http://blog.kylebisch.com/2009/01/communism-is-alive/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.kylebisch.com/2009/01/communism-is-alive/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:39:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kyle</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.kylebisch.com/?p=40</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0767915305?ie=UTF8&#38;tag=kylbispergrad-20&#38;linkCode=as2&#38;camp=1789&#38;creative=390957&#38;creativeASIN=0767915305"><img class="alignright" title="The Sex Lives of Cannibals" src="http://blog.kylebisch.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/troost.jpg" alt="A great book.  You should read it..." width="115" height="180" /></a>
I recently finished a book called <strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0767915305?ie=UTF8&#38;tag=kylbispergrad-20&#38;linkCode=as2&#38;camp=1789&#38;creative=390957&#38;creativeASIN=0767915305">The Sex Lives of Cannibals: Adrift in the Equatorial Pacific</a></strong> by J. Maarten Troost.  Contrary to the title, there is very little about cannibals, and less about sex.  It is, however, a fascinating book about living in the equatorial island nation of Kiribati.  The book is also the only reference I have found to a communist society that actually lives and sustains itself.
</p><p>
According to Wikipedia:
<blockquote>Pure communism in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life. </blockquote>
The major reason this system has never been reached in a large scale is that people seem to naturally oppress others so that they can have more things and more power.
</p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0767915305?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=kylbispergrad-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=0767915305"><img class="alignright" title="The Sex Lives of Cannibals" src="http://blog.kylebisch.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/troost.jpg" alt="A great book.  You should read it..." width="115" height="180" /></a><br />
I recently finished a book called <strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0767915305?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=kylbispergrad-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=0767915305">The Sex Lives of Cannibals: Adrift in the Equatorial Pacific</a></strong> by J. Maarten Troost.  Contrary to the title, there is very little about cannibals, and less about sex.  It is, however, a fascinating book about living in the equatorial island nation of Kiribati.  The book is also the only reference I have found to a communist society that actually lives and sustains itself.
</p>
<p>
According to Wikipedia:</p>
<blockquote><p>Pure communism in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life. </p></blockquote>
<p>The major reason this system has never been reached in a large scale is that people seem to naturally oppress others so that they can have more things and more power.
</p>
<p>
Troost discusses a system on the Kiribati called the &#8216;bubuti&#8217; system.</p>
<blockquote><p>In the bubuti system, someone can walk up to you and say<em> I bubuti you for your flipflops</em> and without a peep of complaint you are obliged to hand over your flipflops.  The following day, you can go up the the guy who is now wearing your flipflops, and say <em>I bubuti you for your fishing net</em>, and suddenly you have a new fishing net.<br />
(p.95, ©2004 Broadway Books, New York)</p></blockquote>
<p>The bubuti system, described in this way, essentially reaches the conclusion that you can have anything you want since al you have to do is ask for it.  The limitation is that you can also lose anything you have since anyone else can ask for your possessions.  The end result of this is that everyone lives very simply, with only what they need.  If a person or family gathers or hoards more than what they need, then they risk gaining the attention of their neighbors and losing what they have.
</p>
<p>
The bubuti does system have limitations.  The largest is that everyone must unanimously agree to follow the bubuti system without complaint or objection.  Because of this, it is a system that could only develop out of a previously undeveloped culture.  That is not to say the the Kiribati people are still undeveloped, simply that the bubuti system will not develop in the US because people have too much to lose by following the rules of the system.  If a village of hard working sustenance farmers it might make sense to add a system like this to ensure that people did not die if some crops failed in a bad year.
</p>
<p>
Where the goal of communism is an classless, stateless, and oppression-free society, the bubuti fulfills these goals as best they can in a modern world.  The Kiribati does have a government system setup, so it is not a truly stateless society, however the bubuti brings everyone to the same class and allows anyone being oppressed the option of simply asking for the means so that they will not be oppressed.  The downfall of this is that the end result is a society that falls to the lowest common denominator.  No one can excel because everyone else will reap the benefits of their work.  Yet the society does somehow sustain its self.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.kylebisch.com/2009/01/communism-is-alive/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
