Competition & Convergence
Chaotic Experimentation

Peculiar. The taxonomy and nomenclature of chaos is an inherent element of most every artistic and scientific discipline and environment. But only rarely is the notion of chaos afforded any attention in politics, government or business where it is most manifestly evident.

As a result, we limit our linguistic use of the term "chaos" to those remote and incomprehensible events that happen somewhere out there in another galaxy just before it folds. Or in the micro-sense that we might have an ulcer somehwere in our gastro-intestinal system. Both these venues share a common trait: they're invisible to naked eye under ordinary conditions.

In fact, if it becomes collectively agreed among a sufficient number of observers that a human being's behavior is chaotic, we tag those individuals eccentric or insane... or possibly just in show business. Which is probably why we make allowances for insanity as a potential gift in the arts and sciences, while a dread disease in the other realms mentioned here.

By comparison, if a business entity (a corporation, conglomerate or mult- national firm, or even an entire securities exchange) behaves in a way we could identify as chaotic, we close them down for good as if it never existed, and the taxpayer bites the big one (bankruptcy), or we close it down, then open it back up under a new name, or use the chaos to sell it off so it doesn't have to be shut down, making a profit in the process.

We have laws for all nations to prevent them from becoming chaotic, despite the fact that most modern nations' founders seemed to think that "a little revolution once in a while is a good thing". In politics, you're allowed to be chaotic, within limits that change roughly as often as most of us change clothing. And in the American congress, if you get very chaotic with enough other fellow legislators, you can call it a fillibuster with perfect legitimacy and no excuses offered.

It appears that quite a few people all over the world are unwilling to allow this inequity to continue between business and politics, and the rest of us common folk. The resulting behavioral trend toward equality in standards among all human assemblages is part of this thing called convergence.

But wouldn't you know it... business and industry has an alternative application for this "convergence" thing. This is illustrated in the convergence of many elements of related industries, such as meregers among firms in telephone services, cellular phones and systems, Internet services, computer manufacturers, and software manufacturers. Those crazy white collar guys... they always find a way to avert rational humanism with a borrowed piece of terminology.

And of course, there's government... just utter the word "convergence" in geo-political terms in any legislative session on the planet, and you're likely to hear sphincters slam shut on the next continent. Why? Because globalism just means "think" global, but act local. Another way of saying nobody wants to experiment on a global scale just yet with the same type of experience in the former Soviet Union during the past few years.

On the other hand, as is typical of government, none of the nations undergoing alleged democratization during the past few years seemed to have anything resembling a transition plan. Another peculiarity. It seems everybody telepathically decided to democratize at the same relative moment in time after about 10,000 years of semi-recorded human history. For the moment, we'll call that convergence, too.

Converge Upon the Beginning