We clearly need to focus resources to ensure we don't just 'piss it up
the wall'. The billions spent on CERN is an example, though I'm far
from sure this is a good spend. Hospitals are a fair example - though
we probably need fewer for greater efficiency. And these days I'd say
even schools as we use them now are a waste - we should go higher tech
in learning and replace schools and universities with something more
directly communal and civic. Whatever we focus on I don't see this
being individuals when it comes to 'money' - or else we lose
democracy and incur a debt in future work.
the wall'. The billions spent on CERN is an example, though I'm far
from sure this is a good spend. Hospitals are a fair example - though
we probably need fewer for greater efficiency. And these days I'd say
even schools as we use them now are a waste - we should go higher tech
in learning and replace schools and universities with something more
directly communal and civic. Whatever we focus on I don't see this
being individuals when it comes to 'money' - or else we lose
democracy and incur a debt in future work.
In fact, I whole heartily agree with and share your frustration that reform is so slow and non-existent in education particularly. We're drowning here in America. Efficiency to avoid waste would make me much, much happier to pay higher taxes. We have the technology(texting, video confr., etc.) I also understand your point on the 1% getting much of the benefit of the 99% work ethic. However, it's my belief this is ok as long as the big boys are prevented from having monopolies. Idea being it should be possible to work your way to the top. It also wouldn't hurt to tweak the various rebates, tax loopholes and trust laws to make sure the very rich can't hide too much of their cash from the tax man. Problem is many of our elected leaders got there with rich money and influence or are rich themselves and are unlikely to champion the middle class with more then just empty campaign rhetoric anytime too soon. Perhaps requiring individuals to list any cases of utilizing corp. hotels or limos or jets or meals or any other 'perks' as income they must pay taxes on would curb some of the more egregious chicanery. If they deserve all these perks just raise their salary and let them buy them themselves. I don't believe we'd have half the opulence we see if it wasn't possible to dodge the taxes required to buy it. Thus the power of Government punish/reward and why I hold little hope it will ever shrink significantly. There's just too much profit in it.
dj
Oh yeah, there's one 'plastic fetish' that will never go out of style:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 3:58 AM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the link above Don - this is part of what I want to get
at. I have little doubt as a scientist that we are screwing the
planet, but public argument won't stick with the data and we get 'news
for simpletons' that becomes religious in interpretation on all sides
- all of which neglect any notion of full argument and evidence.
What I think religion does (in its non-Molly sense) is inculcate
something that prevents proper thinking and even more so, rational
dialogue in which fellowship and understanding could be the source of
productive action though people as people - rather than the over-
individual view. Descartes has thought peeping out at the world - a
consequence perhaps of the instruments of torture - but also of the
fear of heresy in the wider sense of breaching manners. -
My guess is it hasn't dawned on most people that massive improvements
in productivity have made our work ethic obsolete and a part of the
road to serfdom. There's a big difference between building more
secure and meaningful lives and more consumption of plastic fetish.
The idea that we have to have "economics" - which just happens to load
90% of what we work on into the hands of 1% - seems as absurd to me as
belief in talking snakes - and the language of "economics" can look
like a mass in Latin. Obvious stuff, like paying sports stars sums so
vast (and banksters etc.) they could retire after a dozen games on
more than most of us get in a lifetime of work - is justified without
any thinking of who pays for this and for how long. What portion of
hard work we do is supporting accumulated wealth and would we enter
into such a contract if it wasn't hidden in small print? It's true
there are disgusting welfare slackers but just as true that there is a
greater burden of rich and powerful who take a bigger share - and no
evidence they work fairly for it.
We clearly need to focus resources to ensure we don't just 'piss it up
the wall'. The billions spent on CERN is an example, though I'm far
from sure this is a good spend. Hospitals are a fair example - though
we probably need fewer for greater efficiency. And these days I'd say
even schools as we use them now are a waste - we should go higher tech
in learning and replace schools and universities with something more
directly communal and civic. Whatever we focus on I don't see this
being individuals when it comes to 'money' - or else we lose
democracy and incur a debt in future work.
My guess is religious-like thinking and practice is concealing this
potential debate. And I think simple anti-religionism throws the baby
out with the bathwater, not least because religions have been
associated with good stuff including anti-serfdom in their time - one
we might want to regain.
On Dec 19, 6:05 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 Participant's Goal Goal of Dialogue
> > > > > Persuasion Conflict of Opinion Persuade Other Party Resolve Issue
> > > > > Inquiry Need to Have Proof Verify Evidence Prove Hypothesis
> > > > > Discovery Need for Explanation Find a Hypothesis Support Hypothesis
> > > > > Negotiation Conflict of Interests Secure Interests Settle Issue
> > > > > Information Need Information Acquire Information Exchange Information
> > > > > Deliberation Practical Choice Fit Goals and Actions Decide What to Do
> > > > > Eristic Personal Conflict Attack an Opponent Reveal Deep Conflict
>
> > > > > What informal logic is seeking to explain and use:
> > > > > 1.an account of the principles of communication which argumentative
> > > > > exchange depends upon;
> > > > > 2. a distinction between different kinds of dialogue in which argument
> > > > > may occur, and the ways in which they determine 3.appropriate and
> > > > > inappropriate moves in argumentation (e.g. the difference between
> > > > > scientific discussion and negotiation);
> > > > > 4. an account of logical consequence, which explains when it can be
> > > > > said (and what it means to say) that some claim (or attitude) is a
> > > > > logical consequence of another;
> > > > > 5. a typology of argument which provides a framework of argument and
> > > > > analysis by indentifying the basic types of argument that need to be
> > > > > distinguished (deductivism is monistic, hence one of the simplest
> > > > > typologies; others will distinguish between fundamentally different
> > > > > kinds of argument);
> > > > > 6. an account of good argument which specifies general criteria for
> > > > > deductive, inductive, and conductive arguments;
> > > > > definitions of positive argument schema which define good patterns of
> > > > > reasoning (reasonable appeals to authority, reasonable attacks against
> > > > > the person; etc.);
> > > > > 7. some theoretical account of fallacies and the role they can (and
> > > > > cannot) play in understanding and assessing informal arguments;
> > > > > 8. an account of the role that audience (pathos) and ethos and other
> > > > > rhetorical notions should play in analysing and assessing argument;
> > > > > 9. an explanation of the dialectical obligations that attach to
> > > > > arguments in particular kinds of contexts.
>
> > > > > Walton, Douglas N., 2007. Dialog Theory for Critical Argumentation,
> > > > > Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
>
> > > > > What I'm seeking to establish is that economics and economic behaviour
> > > > > as we have it is a form of religious madness and uses religious
> > > > > coercion to get us to play its games. I actually believe this but
> > > > > want to do more than just assert the position. I'm not concerned to
> > > > > dismiss religion but rather demonstrate the dangerous madness of
> > > > > "economics" as a religious practice and threat to democracy
>
> > > > > In a crude sense one must bow to religious madness to take part in its
> > > > > fellowship. My contention is that economics works in the same way -
> > > > > under the maths belief in talking snakes is implied. The driving
> > > > > question is what a scientific economics might be and how this might be
> > > > > a moral matter because truth dialogue in science is not value-free but
> > > > > moral. In the context of history, religion has often been concerned
> > > > > with economics and particularly freedom from debt. What I'm searching
> > > > > for is something that breaks religion and politics from the dominance
> > > > > of power-interests and perhaps rediscovers more reasonable
> > > > > spirituality.
>
> > > > > It would help if I could build a truth-pattern analyser! Comments
> > > > > appreciated. Judging on the current draft I don't know what I'm
> > > > > talking about yet!
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário