> There was philosophy once called logical positivism. \\it's people
> were well-intentioned, like Russell and Carnap. If you have a few
> hours to spare I could explain its basics - in the end it got so
> concerned with words they were all that was left. Strangely it was
> accused of being crude in its use of brute fact.
>
My sister was/is a fan of Logical Positivism. It certainly tried;
but, as you say, it got caught up in terminology so much so that it
found that it didn't have the language to discuss its own topics.
Thus, eventually becoming positively, logically negated. Isn't it
ironic...don't you think?
> The problem as I see it is that we want democracy but have not found a
> way to accept its biggest flaw - that of decisions made through the
> sway of ignorance, and further problems with the corruption of
> representatives. Attempts at a fix of this in perfection are doomed
> or the equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns.
>
The answer there is, as it has always been: offering a REAL education
to the next generation.
> One might try to produce communication free of ideology and this let
> Reason alone have power (Habermas) - but as far as I can see this
> never works - and Habermas only suggests his 'ideal speech situation'
> as an ideal type (following Weber).
>
The problem there is that most people don't see their own biases and,
therefore, pass on those ideologies anyway--sometimes without ever
seeing that truth.
> The best positive I can reach is that we could change our material
> conditions to produce less discontent. To get to an understanding of
> this we need to agree on some basic facts - and the move towards these
> is critical. People as old as Orn and myself can remember when it was
> possible for most in the West to get somewhere near this because there
> were plenty of well paid jobs about. Oversimplifying a lot this is
> not now the case and we need to establish what the new conditions are.
>
The problem there is that there is a veritable army of economists and
historians trying to prevent you/us from discovering the truth OF our
situation out of THEIR fear that, once we discover the truth, we will
want, demand and deserve better leadership. The result is worldwide
revolution, which, as we can all see, could get very bloody indeed.
But, do we hide behind ignorance or maintain ignorance in order to
avoid revolution out of the fear of bloodshed? Revolution and change
require courage. Is humanity Brave enough FOR a New World?
> Productivity is vastly enhanced from the times in which our work
> ethics arose. My guess is we could get by quite nicely on a 30hr
> working week and a 40 week year with retirement at 60 whilst
> increasing current production. I am only guessing, but the reason I
> have to guess is odd. Why don't we know? There are perhaps a dozen
> vital areas like this to which we have no accepted answers.
>
I've even thought of changing to a 5-day week in which we work 3 days
and are off 2 days. 365 is far more divisible by 5 than it is 7 and
it is only a religious concept that binds us to a 7-day week.
> The positive moves are all about establishing facts and the first of
> these has to be an explanation of why we are so bad at this and
> whether new technology can help break the 'spell'. Here, the paradox
> is we need the technology to start working to this end with most
> people not able to understand why and an existing situation in which
> dominant education and media will try to pervert any attempts.
>
Yup. Well spotted!! And not so easily avoided. Especially when there
is a 'sea of troubles' to oppose before we could end them.
> Many are discussing these issues in great detail. I'm sure a few of
> us could put a '101' together from Internet sources. Semiotics is a
> key discipline in the critique (Michael Betancourt), as is
> environmental science (as opposed to the Kymer Vert) and most
> economics that you don't get on Fox and the increasingly dumb BBC
> (Steve Keen) One can even argue the Tea Party and OccupyX have
> similar protest issues. You can get a radical smear of this on the
> Keiser Report (courtesy on Russia Today).
>
> The aim is already worked out - a return to economies with a link
> between toil (labour value) and reward and money in people's hands,
> not hoarded by an elite or subject to their looting- and meaningful
> democracy.
AND making that not sound too much like the communism that it is.
LOL!! I only say that because of the massive fear of communism by
America due to its ignorance OF it. People are greedy and that's why
communism--however altruistic it may be--simply doesn't work.
Humanity needs to change on a spiritual level before it can and THAT
is the main aim of my book: to get people to make that crucial
understanding that will lead to a spiritual revolution and, then, THAT
can lead to the kinds of economic and political revolutions from which
humanity could benefit.
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário