Re: [Mind's Eye] Re: getting to the positive

I think that Vam has made some very good points,  and I do not see people changing.. as there is a group that want control.. and see the military option to enforce their wills. Nor women going back to be home makers..  (lol  I am the home maker in our family  which is strange to me,,  I am retired and if I do go to work we would have to pay more taxes to the point it is not profitable to work)  hmm what house work do I need to do??)

Actually what in a way I do see is a ? sub culture ? of friends working together to build a world that is improved..  the  advantages of democracy  as well as corporations..  

Oddly  in the US it is easy to create a non profit church  (lots of economic advantages)  the "church of humanity"  with no set philosophy.. based off  "Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living."

In reality it could be set up to raise massive funds and develop areas to help people to a better life..  eventually bought back by the local people   say all but 10%  which would go to developing more projects..

One would not have to invest into the industrial military complex.

just a thought..

Allan

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:23 AM, rigsy03 <rigsy03@yahoo.com> wrote:

Machines/technology are replacing human labor. Children might do
better being educated via computer and leave socialization to play
groups and sports. The military can effect as much damage via remote
control. But- will women return to being stay-at-home moms/homemakers
thus freeing up what jobs remain for the men? I doubt it - it has
become an ego/security matter for Western women. There will always be
cheats and thieves, Archytas, who cause as much monetary losses as the
"elites"- it's all relative, depending on the number of zeros.

On Oct 24, 1:37 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.

--
 (

  )

|_D Allan

Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.