blind obedience to rules that bothers me. I don't believe more fairly
distributed wealth would lead to much more equality - I'd rather a
life that appreciates why Laffer curves are rubbish and some of our
better films and know many can't have this kind of equality with me.
Crass greed is another matter, as are the pathetic excuses reeled out
to justify why a dinner lady gets so much less than a bankster. I'd
also like us to work out how to prevent future generations being the
serfs of accumulated capital.
On Nov 19, 1:28 pm, Francis Hunt <francis.h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Much of what all this is about is just basic honesty - and that starts with
> oneself, as Vam points out (by the way, thanks for the flowers, Vam :-)).
> Yet the way to this kind of honesty is an ongoing journey.
>
> Most, if not all of us engaged here, belong to the winners in the current
> regimen of the current mad, exploitative, skewed social Darwinism which
> rules the World Order. Even as modest working people in the so-called
> developed world we belong to the 20% of the richest on the planet (even if
> the 1% still possess far more than all the others put together). Much of
> our comfort and security is based on the exploitation and pain of others -
> we can buy cheap clothes, manufactured by children in Asian sweatshops and
> the very computers and smartphones we use to carry out our dialogues here
> are so cheap for us because they are assembled by quasi-slaves earning a
> few dollars a day and contain rare metals, the mining of which is drenched
> in African blood.
>
> The solutions, as Neil keeps pointing out, are relatively simple - it's the
> way towards them that is so difficult. We have much to gain but also,
> potentially, a lot to lose. Solidarity would be a start.
>
> On 19 November 2011 13:59, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Uniforms avoid the hassle of wardrobe for youths and they are better
> > able to concentrate on their studies plus it undermines showing off
> > and putting on the dog. Consider the various groups that have dress
> > codes from the military to sports to the clergy.
>
> > On Nov 12, 10:14 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I read some social epistemology over the last few days - in between
> > > not finishing painting the house and being dragged on long walks by
> > > the pup. The sad tale of non-scientific academe continues, mostly
> > > gleaning that ideas that just inevitably arise in reflection get
> > > cornered and mystified by an elite needing to claim expertise. There
> > > an SEP entry on the subject if anyone is interested (I only mention
> > > this because it's free and one could burn several hundred quid on
> > > books for the same information). At bottom is the question of how we
> > > can rely on anything anyone says, writes etc. On would think this
> > > might lead to some ideas on our lying politicians, but whatever there
> > > is is tangential. Once one applies the critical criteria it is sadly
> > > obvious most we report is not about truth and mutual understanding.
> > > Last time I looked, social research was into the quadri-hermeneutic on
> > > understanding or the verstehen problematic - what one hears from a
> > > social informant is already her interpretation and elaborations of
> > > that in terms of your own interpretation and theoretical
> > > perspectives. I've played these games to earn a crust, but always
> > > been disappointed My feeling is we live in a mad scheme of things
> > > and that theory is largely therapy for those of us bright enough to
> > > get it. One of the most laughable statements one gets to hear in
> > > academe is that common sense is the ability to see the world as flat.
> > > 'Flat Earth' was very much an academic theory - one can actually see
> > > the curvature. And if one deigns to really academic thinking, the
> > > universe may be 'flat' and distance an illusion.
>
> > > Most academics do little more than what a car mechanic does in
> > > exploiting her skill. The area of operation is just a bit different.
> > > We all have our ways of making sense of what goes on. I'm not
> > > convinced I have heard-read-experienced much that addresses this
> > > across academic disciplines - the problem, as Vam often comments - is
> > > to box off the argument to paper. The system of 'discussion' is now
> > > corrupt beyond measure - conferences are advertised more like holidays
> > > and most journals are unreadable dross.
>
> > > I believe the real reason for much of this is that the easiest way to
> > > rank a human population is through quasi-abilities in maths and
> > > language and that this is the reason for the failure of universal
> > > education where it has been practiced over the last 80 years.
> > > Whatever our education systems have done, they have not produced
> > > reasonable equality or democracies at peace with themselves. I walk
> > > my dog on a lead not because I want to deprive him of the joy of
> > > pounding off, but because of traffic and consideration of those who do
> > > not appreciate enthusiastic, slobbering Labradors. I fear this is the
> > > guiding metaphor behind education, though less enlightened. The free
> > > space where my dog runs seems unavailable for human practice other
> > > than thought.
>
> > > We seem to think we can "train" human beings in "essential" skills.
> > > The reason given in answer to the question as to why the kids had to
> > > wear uniform at my grandson's school the other night was it was to
> > > teach for to 'obey rules without question'. O my Lord! Some social
> > > epistemology in that! The teachers struggle to maintain discipline
> > > and out of school many of these kids are little better than louts
> > > (though by no means all of them) who litter our streets and start
> > > 'careers with the law'.
>
> > > I despair at our taken for granted in all this. We need a new
> > > society. I see no answers in academe and believe the issues we need
> > > to confront are practical and to do with "meritocracy" and people who
> > > believe they have worked hard for what they've got feeling
> > > "superior". Those of us given the right 'card' through money and/or
> > > education have a lot to answer for and most of it can be described in
> > > simple terms. We evade this at every turn by boxing off argument into
> > > rationalisation that suits us and 'backfiring' when evidence is put in
> > > contradiction. The religion of this is neo-classical economics, the
> > > uniform of the World Bank and IMF, though we don't even know any of
> > > this, needing only 'look after number one'. This basic issue spawns
> > > all the rest of social thinking. I want to reject it. Simple answers
> > > follow.
>
> --
> Francis Hunt
>
> *francishunt.blogspot.com*
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário