critical theory - a sort of post-Marx marxism. I am marxist in the
sense that I think one needs a dynamic sense of the material
conditions of existence to do much thinking at all. Whatever I used
to experiment with in the lab was only there because of material
conditions like pressure, temperature and so on, behaving as it did
for these reasons. This, of course, in only so much help and is
decidedly clerical science if applied as reductionism or the only
"engine" to view or take part in the world. Rigsy echoes WB Yeats in
saying that revolution only changes who is on horseback and who gets
ridden over roughshod. Most academic disciplines have a critical
component that doubts the foundations - there are plenty of
psychologists who believe personality is a baseless fiction. Even
management studies once declared 'don't send your kids to business
schools - they'd be better off living with nuclear scientists or
Bohemians'. Of course, you can be a sinecured figure in the critical
clique.
In economics you can be a behavioural economist, applying psychology
to the field - but why psychology when economics clearly deals with
societies? None of the social sciences has any bedrock like physics,
chemistry or biology. The very idea of a social science is a mistake
in my view - though surely we have to accept there are good, bad,
indifferent, sane and mad ways of going about our lives in some way.
Science and religion share the idea that much human product is all of
these things and more - and less. A key problem is that humans don't
relate that much on a factual basis. Education, at least directly,
has failed in this respect.
On Dec 24, 11:36 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Because you think Democracy will be fair- and it isn't. The Plutocracy
> within Democracy forms a brittle crust above the heap of the masses
> and set the ambitions and values.(The American consumer is not about
> to give up spending for the starving nor let banks and business fail/
> go belly up in a normal consequence, etc.) Moreover, radical
> government control simply creates a new set at the top. The rich are
> buying luxury goods at a steady clip- though now their sheared minks
> look similar to acrylic plush to the untrained eye and Zircon has
> become a cover for the real McCoy.// Virtue is not "silly" but cannot
> be enforced. The major changes come in the form of natural
> catastrophes, revolutions and wars but even these have a limited
> effect.
>
> On Dec 22, 6:00 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Vam is right (elsewhere) that I'm stuck in a rut on this - I often get
> > this way as there seems little to do other than bang one's head
> > against the walls of language. This isn't my particular rut as I
> > concluded long ago something not unlike Edward above. There are many
> > such critiques of economics - notably critical theory. Don is right
> > that lots of these "alternatives" seem to lead to rather silly
> > practice, demanding too much "virtue" and selfless activities.
> > I usually work until my head bleeds, take some space and see if I
> > understand anything differently. I only have glimmers at the moment
> > and suspect the big change may be that our own systems have led to
> > just the situation Don talks about above.
>
> > On Dec 21, 4:49 pm, Edward Mason <masonedward...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "In the context of history, religion has often been concernedwith
> > > economics and particularly freedom from debt."
>
> > > At least one particular view of history tends to indicate that the
> > > Builders ( like Nimrod, whose system is in practice and strongly
> > > applied today ), institutes religion and politics to mass absolute
> > > control. Economics is simply a heartless result.
>
> > > Which is why I advocate establishing a relationship with that creative
> > > force within us, by what ever terms we recognize it. That energy will
> > > evolve the human race beyond their needs as long as the individuals
> > > remain properly charged and teach Men (Humans) to do so. We get to
> > > this level by two simple Rules or Laws; i.e., Keeping this Energy ever
> > > before us and insure that our decisions are moral and just, especially
> > > in those heated and pressured moments. Societies have gotten lost in
> > > ancient attempts to test or defy these rules, because the language
> > > was lost, so to speak. Then what Knowledge was found was keep secrete
> > > from all but the few. The few gives the rest of the world Religion and
> > > Politics.
>
> > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 5:53 AM, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > We can only change ourselves, alas.
>
> > > > On Dec 20, 9:07 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> I was watching a program on the Mayans and the writings about the
> > > >> milkyway being on the horizon.
>
> > > >> What I am seeing is the guilt complex where people know what is going on
> > > >> is wrong with the waste of resources are looking for a super natural
> > > >> solution to these problems. It seems they are wanting to say they saw I
> > > >> coming rather than doing what they can to change it.
> > > >> Allan
> > > >> On Dec 20, 2011 2:32 PM, "Molly" <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > On second thought, I was thinking of Thomas Mann when I wrote this,
> > > >> > and it has been a few decades since I read him. It has only been a
> > > >> > decade since I read the Moore work and his ideas on soul. Refresh my
> > > >> > memory, I am thinking you meant there is not enough evidence of soul
> > > >> > in the world, as many are not in touch with it.
>
> > > >> > On Dec 20, 7:57 am, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > Thomas Moore was an interesting guy. Very poignant writing yet ended
> > > >> > > up following hitler in the end, and his art fell apart, having lost
> > > >> > > his soul maybe.
>
> > > >> > > On Dec 19, 1:05 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > > > I could not disagree with that Molly - though something of the
> > > >> > > > "invisible hand" spooks me in all argument. I'm as sure as Thomas
> > > >> > > > Moore that we lack soul, but want something that differentiates mad
> > > >> > > > people like Ayn Rand and reason.
>
> > > >> > > > On Dec 19, 11:31 am, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > > > > Morals and ethics that are entrenched in right and wrong and exclude
> > > >> > > > > or separate are human indeed, but have not yet seen the light of
> > > >> > > > > spirit. Much of religion, the "religion" mentioned in this discussion
> > > >> > > > > is of this. The individual journey of the heart to the non dual
> > > >> > > > > experience reaps the knowing that spirit includes and is revealed
> > > >> > > > > between the opposites, uniting them. Once this becomes the
> > > >> > individual
> > > >> > > > > view, the world of the non dual and all who share it is revealed.
> > > >> > > > > Words can only point the way and always fall short if the reader
> > > >> > > > > cannot connect the opposites with spirit. It takes a transcendence
> > > >> > > > > that can then forever be remembered. It makes time and space and
> > > >> > > > > opposition poignant and irrelevant. They don't disappear, but are
> > > >> > not
> > > >> > > > > important (or more automatic to be precise). A different ethics, one
> > > >> > > > > that is innate but forgotten, emerges. One that is not concerned
> > > >> > with
> > > >> > > > > right and wrong as it has been unified in spirit, aspects of the same
> > > >> > > > > element. One that unites, and sees conflict for what it is, the
> > > >> > realm
> > > >> > > > > of death (that is integral to life.) All of this is already present
> > > >> > > > > everywhere. It is the view that changes our experience, relationship
> > > >> > > > > and dynamic of it.
>
> > > >> > > > > On Dec 19, 2:45 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > > > > > There's a tedium in academic writing we don't have to suffer here.
> > > >> > > > > > Rigsy is right that most words are hidden behind, though I'm not
> > > >> > sure
> > > >> > > > > > the smell is sweet! Academe seems to have entirely failed in
> > > >> > > > > > providing us with some general way of reliable interpretation of
> > > >> > how
> > > >> > > > > > the world works and how we can control this in a reasonable way. I
> > > >> > > > > > broadly agree with Hitchins on religion - dated stories with too
> > > >> > much
> > > >> > > > > > current influence when we could do better etc. I suspect, though,
> > > >> > > > > > this neglects something of religion as a challenge to much bad in
> > > >> > > > > > feudalism and debt peonage - and, of course, there is something
> > > >> > wrong
> > > >> > > > > > with assuming the spiritual means believing in talking snakes and
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > > rest of the fables. A book by David Graeber (Debt: the first 5000
> > > >> > > > > > years)touches on this several times and surprised me in that many
> > > >> > > > > > religious words and freedom words stem from 'debt freedom'.
> > > >> > > > > > I don't know about a happy medium rigsy (perhaps Molly is one -
> > > >> > LOL -
> > > >> > > > > > no I know that's not true) - but something happier is indeed
> > > >> > > > > > required. The moral aspect worries me because moralising so easily
> > > >> > > > > > closes to totalism - yet economics so often looks like the most
> > > >> > > > > > dreadful examples of cults that will do anything for what they
> > > >> > claim
> > > >> > > > > > is a greater good. "Austerity" is clearly a nonsense with sucker
> > > >> > > > > > appeal and is full of moral urging.
> > > >> > > > > > It all looks like a can of worms at the moment.
>
> > > >> > > > > > On Dec 18, 2:52 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > > > > > > Consider Steve Jobs and the stories that have surfaced about his
> > > >> > > > > > > "conflict" resolution style versus his contribution to
> > > >> > technology. And
> > > >> > > > > > > I could add many names from history/economic development that
> > > >> > > > > > > discarded drawing room manners for sheer autocracy-
> > > >> > > > > > > belligerance,included. Religion has been concerned with an
> > > >> > alternative
> > > >> > > > > > > to real life that the masses could cling to. There is a happy
> > > >> > medium.
>
> > > >> > > > > > > On Dec 17, 4:00 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > > > > > > > We have rules on ad hominem and such in here. It's only one
> > > >> > example
> > > >> > > > > > > > of an "ad" and in general such stuff is regarded as fallacy.
> > > >> > More
> > > >> > > > > > > > recent work on argument tends to say we need to recognise what
> > > >> > kind of
> > > >> > > > > > > > argument we are in as the rules vary in different forms. One
> > > >> > form of
> > > >> > > > > > > > argument is called eristic and its aim is to reveal deep
> > > >> > divisions. Ad
> > > >> > > > > > > > hom may be allowable in that. I'm writing a paper for a
> > > >> > conference
> > > >> > > > > > > > based on the notion that religion has a deep and generally
> > > >> > malevolent
> > > >> > > > > > > > influence in human behaviour - which has an implicit ad hom -
> > > >> > that
> > > >> > > > > > > > general religious stuff is the province of a kind of cowardice
> > > >> > (there
> > > >> > > > > > > > are lots of examples from the other side of course - such as
> > > >> > atheists
> > > >> > > > > > > > being immoral).
> > > >> > > > > > > > The main book I've been reading is by Walton (below) and a
> > > >> > digest
> > > >> > > > > > > > might be as follows:
>
> > > >> > > > > > > > Dialogue types:
> > > >> > > > > > > > Dialogue Type Initial Situation
>
> ...
>
> read more »
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário