questions such as how much work needs doing to feed, water, clothe and
house our communities safely (and generally look after our families)
and what percentage of world 'GDP' this would be - my guess is it's
under half the work in time and effort being put in and maybe a third
of what counts as GDP. I'm guessing and am not an economist (though I
teach it at university). What's certain is we aren't doing a lot of
this essential work and are involved in a lot of dross.
I don't know if you saw the rugby league on Saturday - it was a rough
match and clearly couldn't have been played without the rules, referee
and the rest. The competition operates with a global salary cap too.
I don't think it's beyond us to organise global economics with such
basics written in. They have, after all, managed a cap on all but
elite earnings! I believe, unless we can find a rallying point,
'they' will prevent the generosity of your view through war. Though I
think the solutions are simple, we can't be simple-minded in getting
them to practice. My current neighbours (Bulgarian) are full of the
spirit you imply.
On Nov 13, 1:05 am, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "I want to reject it. Simple answers follow."
> It is an interesting crossroads when a large portion of society learns
> that they've been gamed. When we see that there is more to gain
> financially as well as morally in helping our neighbor more than
> playing economic shell games. What an effect if many people knew it is
> a big resource shuffle, that can be undone with a simple human trait,
> freely partaking of generosity and the aid of their fellow as we did
> long ago. We could make another go at it, our technological and
> intellectual capital are built and ready. Such a thing could even
> operate within states and offer better competition for progress.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 11:14 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.
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário