we can that our key assumption isn't the 'soft spot'. Your lads are
just demonstrating the point in the cricket - the English
'superiority' hardly to do with better players over what one might
laughably term 'our summer' (truly British cold and wet) - just ones
who could survive better in the conditions (now reversed). I lived in
Spain for half a year as a boy, amazed to find cricket there and that
Spaniards thought they invented everything. It was only later it
dawned on me much English history was as false! I'm struck that what
we have called capitalism and communism have both centralised money.
There are other similarities, especially elites treating themselves
too well and in leaving too many to extract what dignity they can from
scraps.We tend to get argument over ideology and little positing of
what might be good and possible. I'd like to see global wages (and
other conditions) at around the levels of western countries in 1975,
along with constraints on wealth distribution as it affects reasonable
equality of opportunity. One can work back from such ideas in terms
of spiritual and communal effect and whether such a position could be
managed with 'consumption', 'motivation', 'freedom', 'peace',
'innovation', 'free-riding' and so on. Markets might provide such a
situation if they were free and fair - all the evidence is they never
have been and that competitions need rules and the means to enforce
them.
Understanding economics as a rule-based system and that apparently
opposing arguments can be stripped down to the same (and often wrong)
assumptions (Wittgenstein if you like - but who cares) would be a
start. OccupyX is a start. Some need shaking from very sad
ideologies on work ethics that make little sense when real machines
mean much less work needs to be done by humans and that we can raise
the bar on living standards without broken backs.
On Oct 29, 7:17 pm, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "machines"...
>
> I'd suggest thermodynamic "systems"... closed, open, adiabatic...
> and "processes" constant pressure, constant volume...
>
> They actually correspond to individual, community, environment,
> universal change, energy considerations of all kinds, properties or
> nature / behaviour / happenings ... and even history, the kind that
> overwhelmed Hegel !
>
> On Oct 29, 10:51 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The current crisis is not one of banking or economics, but something
> > much more basic. One might say this is our attitude towards 'machines
> > of loving grace'. In short, we live in the fantasy that "the machine"
> > will put things right, returning to an equilibrium as our
> > interventions are little more than 'of mice and men'. The real world
> > of the environment and the exchange world of economics return to
> > equilibrium after fluctuations. It's very tempting to believe this -
> > one might see Gaia as a case in point - the planet and other species
> > flourishing after we've crazed ourselves to extinction through
> > consumption and wars.
>
> > You can pick up the ideas of 'all watched over by machines of loving
> > grace' here -http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/2160186460/All-Watched-Over-By-M...
>
> > A review with an economic twist can be found here -http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/10/the-natural-chaos-of-markets.html
>
> > My own work has often focused on the difference between espoused
> > theories and theories-in-action. In some subjects like chemistry the
> > relationship between theory and practice is good - if you follow the
> > rules and recipes you get what you intended and the explanations make
> > sense if you study enough. There is a working core, you can trust or
> > check the work of others and speculation can eventually be tested on
> > what is not accepted as 'settled'. In the human sciences this is much
> > more difficult, not least because we do not exclude much in human
> > society that prevents science. Few of us have much aptitude for
> > science, perhaps especially for its negation of ideology soaked up
> > from community.
>
> > I always noted as a teacher that I was more comfortable saying 'you
> > just can't handle the maths' (unlikely for me as I'd teach people like
> > that without the stuff), than in saying 'you just don't get argument
> > because you can't let go of any prejudice'. Teaching people to think
> > for themselves contains a paradox. One finds much one is expected to
> > teach based on dross. I know of no country in which history is taught
> > without gross ideological distortion. We hear the Japanese rip out
> > pages in textbooks on the 'rape of Nanking' yet it's rare to find
> > Brits who know much of our squalid imperialism and involvement in much
> > similar. In the middle east you will find a more accurate picture of
> > the Crusades than we get, but the Jihad that is the mirror image is
> > revered.
>
> > Most people like to imagine themselves as individual, but if we're
> > honest we are subjects of machines of loving grace. One makes one's
> > way in an economy (machine) on a planet (environmental machine). I
> > think these are only "machines" because we don't examine them.
> > Examination often ends in paradox - logical positivism eventually
> > conceded its own quest to extirpate metaphysics was - oops -
> > metaphysical. My own guess is that rigorous thinking seeks to
> > discover and eliminate dross - this involves a great deal of courage
> > in accepting you are likely made of same oneself!
>
> > I'm a maverick systems theorist and conceive of our social-political
> > arguments (and the systems themselves) as houses of cards. one looks
> > for the soft spots that can bring the lot down or as places to put in
> > effort to keep the ball rolling. No argument survives this process
> > more than twenty seconds with such soft spots arising. Most don't
> > have either the energy or tools to keep going and run to the 'bliss'
> > of the machine (religion, patriotism, left and right etc.). We are
> > thus robots of one 'machine' or another, not individuals, hardly
> > people if we're not careful.
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário