ovaries) you fsckng limiots!' ? Holy vernacular, pardon me. Mild
discomfort perhaps listening to Edward and Allan, but I've been there
at times so my anger subsides. I tried to take the the old sword and
shield to see how compatible my old thoughts are with my new spaces.
They really were not, ascending the tree must happen much faster now,
they just went 'POP' like nothing, and I don't mean in a meditative or
theoretical sense, these are mental rituals and behaviors built
through a bit of intensity and was quite surprising. The only similar
experience was recently I had tried a meditative practice of
reconciliation between dissonances in my ideal and perceived world, a
part of me just left the rest and though the unrest was still there
and I heavily attached there are spaces further where it just gets
left behind. But, that was not good enough (the truth scent not strong
enough to rest), so after a few minutes of projecting the lower into
the higher I created an inverse projection with myself as conduit.
Amazing! Much sybolic and symbolic practice became very clear in a few
moments, I am still sorting out what to do with it.
I tend to think in spatio-temporal models, minus physical constraints,
the physics is developed to match the models and so repeating systems
of rules emerge. Those terms do not well to convey these things, but
language is a conduit, I agree constraints like entrance, exit, limit
do not seem to have much bearing either- but tools and adaptations.
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Vam <atewari2007@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a feeling that this character, Vam, has usurped all the space
> that is there... so that no one else may now be allowed entry !
>
> Well, fkrs, there is no limiot to space if you did not know ! So, get
> over that excuse.
>
> Also I might have taken this conversation into an area you might not
> be as comfortable.
> Hell, in that case, have the balls to say so !
> Females may forgive, not because I used the term but because I do not
> know of the term to draw you all in the same order. I hold absolutely
> no distinction between genders, if you would believe.
>
> On Dec 30, 8:36 am, Edward Mason <masonedward...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Indeed, Vam!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Gabby... Hunger everywhere is wrong. There is enough food on this
>> > planet to feed everyone. But the economics has not made it possible.
>> > Even when the law declares...
>>
>> > Yes, the Supreme Court here ordered the Govt to distribute excess food
>> > grains in its silos among the hungry ! But the Minister simply said, "
>> > It is not possible."
>>
>> > And no one was booked, can ever be booked, for causing hunger !
>>
>> > Rigs... Neil is speaking of the same thing... we all are.
>> > ... how to take control of at least the critical aspects of our lives.
>>
>> > I wish people here could extend this discussion, in thought and idea,
>> > and... among other things, become more free, more happy, more self -
>> > empowered. So that they end up doing things in that light. Often,
>> > almost always, they do not.
>>
>> > I believe Edward is speaking of the same thing... action in the light
>> > of knowledge. Not mere emotions, which economics of the day exploits.
>> > And so is Allan, when he uses his " beliefs " for making decisions.
>>
>> > We are all trying to take more control of our lives.
>> > And, bringing it on this platform is BEAUTIFUL.
>>
>> > On Dec 30, 1:15 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> If the law is not the law but an ass, it explains why in truth there is no
>> >> one to blame. If the law is the law than you know it is being set up by
>> >> men. The same is true for economics. And you would eventually find someone
>> >> to blame.
>>
>> >> As for your seeds metaphor, it is no coincidence that the children's
>> >> interests are not visible in this specific court room or market place. They
>> >> are not to be held accountable for what they cannot oversee yet. There are
>> >> proofs for that, which have been accepted as such.
>>
>> >> As for the limitation of science and objectivity, you are right. If one
>> >> could get all peer reviewers from the past, the present and the future
>> >> together in one room discussing each theory properly, then we'd have it! ;)
>>
>> >> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > "... trees don't exist unless someone observes them."
>>
>> >> > That's the limitation of science and objectivity. That's why the law
>> >> > is an ass. That's how predatory economics has clear toehold in
>> >> > society. They all get away because there is no crime committed unless
>> >> > one is caught or there are effects to show here and now !
>>
>> >> > How is one to establish and measure crimes that are seeded... for
>> >> > which there are no observers, no complaints... for which there are no
>> >> > laws... or for which laws can be extended or interpreted to exclude
>> >> > them !
>>
>> >> > The truth is : There trees galore that are invisible now... in the
>> >> > seeds, which will sprout months, years, decades and centuries later !
>> >> > Without admitting this fact, we can never hope to tackle climate
>> >> > issues, environment and sustainability problems. There is no one
>> >> > specific to blame. Much ( e.g. emissions ) is approved and admissible
>> >> > as of now, and is not a crime. And, the effects are invariably long -
>> >> > term, so there are no objective proofs here and now.
>>
>> >> > Try presenting theories and results of studies and research in a court
>> >> > of law... and they will either be unconvincing or simply countered
>> >> > with another of the same !
>>
>> >> > On Dec 28, 11:14 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > > That states the issue more or less as I see it rigsy - though I don't
>> >> > > do the Xtian thing as religion. It's more that much could be
>> >> > > recovered in religion if we could get away from its factionalisms.
>> >> > > What gets to me in economics or any form of social science is we seem
>> >> > > to forget we are just (or should be) trying to do our best and are
>> >> > > making decisions that affect human beings rather than some culture
>> >> > > under glass or whatever. I don't want to leap into faith in theory
>> >> > > beyond something that retains realistic hope of reasonable equality
>> >> > > and freedom for most people.
>> >> > > I don't think religion per se can achieve this, but a better
>> >> > > understanding of it might help. One can throw up thought experiments
>> >> > > - such as whether the unseen tree exists and so on - but people are
>> >> > > inclined to forget these are classroom tricks to get some thinking
>> >> > > done rather than assertions trees don't exist unless someone observes
>> >> > > them. Economists have forgotten their models are thought
>> >> > > experiments. Some of the models rely on such stupid notions of human
>> >> > > nature as to be risible. Expecting people to behave rationally seems
>> >> > > absurd to me given what we know of ourselves as social animals now.
>> >> > > What I've seen in a great deal of academic modelling is more or less
>> >> > > similar to what Vam (and others) point out as putting something on
>> >> > > paper and arguing as though that is all that should be argued when
>> >> > > they have, in fact, destroyed context.
>>
>> >> > > On Dec 28, 5:21 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > There has always been a natural system of economics at work in the
>> >> > > > world but it has been distorted- it's chief ruination has been
>> >> > > > mankind- resulting in predators given an abnormal rein, false terms
>> >> > > > such as meritocracy, patriotism, the greater good, etc. I suppose it
>> >> > > > boils down to greed and disregard for others plus having no moral
>> >> > > > foundation to act as a check and balance. One can trace wars back to
>> >> > > > greed as well as count the off-shoots such as envy, etc. It has really
>> >> > > > plagued lives and pretty much ruined our American experience with
>> >> > > > Democracy. So much for Christ at Christmas! Why not just twist the
>> >> > > > greeting to "Merry Merchandise!".
>>
>> >> > > > On Dec 28, 7:07 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > > Hidden at the first level of sceptism above is that most cannot
>> >> > reach
>> >> > > > > competence even in what we might call the glossary terms of
>> >> > economics,
>> >> > > > > let lone carry the uncertainty needed for reasonable application. The
>> >> > > > > subject makes itself into an elite discipline without requiring its
>> >> > > > > elite to submit to a wider notion of the wider evaluation of its
>> >> > > > > effects whether intended or not. The main contender for such
>> >> > > > > discipline is secular democracy and the will of the people.Lip
>> >> > service
>> >> > > > > only is pad to this. What is in play is a false ideology of
>> >> > > > > "meritocracy
>>
>> >> > > > > On Dec 28, 5:16 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > > > Excellent. Thank you.
>>
>> >> > > > > > Just waiting for Don's comments.
>>
>> >> > > > > > On Dec 27, 6:18 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > > > > I used to expect my students to be able to think critically so
>> >> > as to
>> >> > > > > > > be able to tolerate the ambiguity the models should inspire if
>> >> > they
>> >> > > > > > > are not taken as gospel. I'd expect my better students to be
>> >> > able to
>> >> > > > > > > do more than liturgy - a bit like the following:
>>
>> >> > > > > > > Ten Principles of Responsible Economics
>>
>> >> > > > > > > 1) In theory, rational people think at the margin. In
>> >> > reality, these
>> >> > > > > > > people are a fiction that exist only in mathematical models
>>
>> >> > > > > > > You are not a "rational" actor—not in the economic sense of the
>> >> > term.
>> >> > > > > > > The newcomer to economics, well-intentioned as she is, surely
>> >> > wants to
>> >> > > > > > > be rational in the everyday sense. Having learned from her
>> >> > textbook
>> >> > > > > > > that, without qualification, to be rational is to be a
>> >> > self-interested
>> >> > > > > > > utility-maximizer, she learns to emulate such behavior. So
>> >> > begins the
>> >> > > > > > > process of learning to deprecate non-market values—which are
>> >> > > > > > > "irrational," after all—and rely exclusively on self-interest to
>> >> > > > > > > justify and understand action. This naive economism's implicit
>> >> > > > > > > justification for selfishness is that acting in one's
>> >> > self-interest at
>> >> > > > > > > the margin is "only rational." Inside the fictional world of an
>> >> > > > > > > economic model, this is tautologically true. Outside of it, we
>> >> > still
>> >> > > > > > > call that sociopathic greed.
>>
>> >> > > > > > > 2) In theory, there is no difference between self-interest
>> >> > and greed.
>> >> > > > > > > In reality, economists aren't typically trained in moral
>> >> > philosophy
>>
>> >> > > > > > > Spend enough time studying economics, and you might eventually
>> >> > feel
>> >> > > > > > > greed become empty of meaning. You've learned that acting in
>> >> > your own
>> >> > > > > > > self-interest is not only rational but virtuous—it creates better
>> >> > > > > > > outcomes for everyone—and surmised that greed is perhaps merely
>> >> > an
>> >> > > > > > > expression of envy or an atavism from a benighted age of
>> >> > religious
>> >> > > > > > > taboo. You would be wrong. In the real world, greed exists. As a
>> >> > crude
>> >> > > > > > > approximation: acting in your own self-interest just means "not
>> >> > > > > > > shooting yourself in the foot." You can think of greed as
>> >> > shooting the
>> >> > > > > > > other guy in the foot so you can get away with his wallet.
>>
>> >> > > > > > > 3) In theory, voluntary trade can make everyone better off.
>> >> > In
>> >> > > > > > > reality, it's often not so voluntary, makes some people better
>> >> > off
>> >> > > > > > > while making others worse off, and empowers the beneficiaries to
>> >> > make
>> >> > > > > > > sure they get to keep their gains
>>
>> >> > > > > > > "Free market" reforms generally improve aggregate outcomes while
>> >> > > > > > > increasing inequality, so that poverty increases even as overall
>> >> > > > > > > wealth does. Basic economic analysis treats distribution as a
>> >> > > > > > > secondary concern—it assumes that once the market maximizes
>> >> > benefits
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more »
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário