those protestors and occupiers?
On Feb 10, 12:32 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Britain actually bombed Kabul as late as 1921 and prevented a secular
> king who wanted to use the Turkish model to stabilise and modernise in
> 1930. Science would seek to stabilise the population and provide a
> war free environment for all. But most people won't make the effort
> to understand. Gandhi ended up in some weird rationalisations of
> sleeping with children to save the world through denial.
>
> On Feb 10, 3:11 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > It takes hard work to be/stay wealthy.
> > Define pleasure- individual or cultural.
> > Education builds character supposedly.
> > Define business versus huckterism.
> > Science is indifferent- can be good or evil.
> > What religion?
> > Politics has become a wasteful, dishonest game.
>
> > Gandhi reintroduced home weaving, plus non-payment of taxes, general
> > strikes, non-violent demonstrations (satyagraha) and there was some
> > improvement- maybe strengthened by Indian participation in WWII for
> > the Brits...but was killed by a Hindu so the nation was not unified-
> > plus think of the slaughter in the partition- India and Pakistan-
> > which still is a thorny problem. The entire Middle East and North
> > Africa are a mess and very dangerous. The Green Zone may not last in
> > Iraq, for instance. Really- very stupid American policy since the Gulf
> > War or back to the 1840's for the Brits in Afghanistan (a total
> > wasteland). Good reads are The Blue Nile and The White Nile by Alan
> > Moorehead- or Something of Value by Robert Ruark (?). Anyway, I don
> > think the internet is going to solve humanity's problems- there is too
> > much smoldering resentment. What's our contribution? Weapon systems or
> > idiotic merchandise? Plus the displaced will flee to Europe and cause
> > more economic pressure, etc. I wonder if our goal is to destabilize
> > Russia and China?
>
> > I am cooking Greek today- moussaka. A humble tribute.
>
> > On Feb 8, 12:42 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Ghandis 7 Dangers to Human Virtue
>
> > > 1: Wealth without Work
> > > 2: Pleasure without Conscience
> > > 3: Knowledge without Character
> > > 4:Business without Ethics
> > > 5:Science without Humanity
> > > 6: Religion without Sacrifice
> > > 7: Politics without Principal
>
> > > Allan
>
> > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 6:30 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > What intrigued me when I took science seriously was the way I had to
> > > > learn what others were finding, and that. at least after school and
> > > > university, I could check on what was going on and marvel in the
> > > > complexity and shared language. It was hard work I can't sustain
> > > > now. Some take science as a clerical method and sometimes, as Vam
> > > > points out, this is true. I take the method as one of
> > > > demystification, something of an anarchist view. The rest of our
> > > > lives are shrouded in mystification. The current England football
> > > > manager has 'earned' over £24 million in the last few years and most
> > > > of us seem to think this is OK (and all the bwanking rest), apparently
> > > > with no clue on of how this is paid for and who really does the
> > > > paying. The heir apparent is Harry Rednap, who admitted whilst on
> > > > trial for tax evasion not done through an offshore bank, that he can't
> > > > read, write or use a computer.
> > > > Human beings have been 'happy' with all kinds of madness, from the
> > > > divine rights of kings to lives dedicated to stone carvings that
> > > > required the destruction of their ecosystems (Easter Island). Most in
> > > > the West are so stupid they imagine a world of dynamic individualistic
> > > > capitalism when, in fact we are now dominated by State enterprise (see
> > > > the Economist at
> > > >http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/sponsorships/MM150/201...
> > > > ). The majority of our populations can't do science (school exams are
> > > > facile yet most still can't do them and choose not to).
>
> > > > This problem of a largely ineducable population is crucial in our
> > > > democracies. I don't see any solution in 'philosopher kings' or
> > > > 'Guardians'. The essence of the problem is that argument is no good
> > > > because most can't hack it. It entails personal admission of
> > > > inferiority that individualism can't allow because it can't give up on
> > > > identity or realise this identity is formed as a world-view. The
> > > > lacking ingredient is imagination - to think of throwing oneself off a
> > > > cliff and see the flight of a cannonball as a straight line - yet also
> > > > the presence of imagination that allows all kinds of brutal facts
> > > > about the world to be ignored or rationalised. In this trance we can
> > > > see a disabled family on welfare as a drain on the public purse but
> > > > not the soccer manager or bwankster costing us much more (because
> > > > somehow hard work justifies the welfare of the rich - even though for
> > > > the worker it may just lead to a broken back).
>
> > > > In science I can speculate on whether space structures appearances and
> > > > on transfer of our information to planets nearby in information speed
> > > > terms (think of the play 'Andromeda') - in politics it appears to be
> > > > as fantastic to wonder of a society free from the grasping rich, or to
> > > > see this condition as a failure to understand our biology and the long
> > > > history of debt peonage.
>
> > > > On Feb 7, 12:17 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > E = mc2 is the most important upshot of relativity. Write a 5,000
> > > > > word essay. Well, don't worry too much, someone did one earlier -
> > > >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME/
>
> > > > > This is only one example, outside my sphere of expertise, I can think
> > > > > of concerning just how difficult thinking, experiment and proof can
> > > > > be. How different it all is from moroneconomics that makes
> > > > > assumptions of standardised human behaviour and outcomes that bless
> > > > > the rich. I wonder what physics would be like if it allowed such
> > > > > prejudiced thinking?
>
> > > > > When I walk Max I'm rather proud of him - he does his business in our
> > > > > backyard and is an all round nice guy. I can't but notice our
> > > > > neighbours have let their dogs foul and that local kids foul with
> > > > > litter. We need quite draconian measures to stop the worst in our
> > > > > society levelling everything down to the midden and jungle. It seems
> > > > > reasonable not to expect the best as standard human behaviour. When
> > > > > I look at the stealing going on under the name of economics, politics
> > > > > or whatever I get the same feeling.
>
> > > > > As a scientist, I realised most people know very little of the
> > > > > reasoning and skills involved. One tries to be charitable and assume
> > > > > this is because they don't get the chance, but to be honest I've felt
> > > > > for a long time this is more to do with dullardry, ineptitude and
> > > > > laziness. I don't believe the natural human condition is one of hard
> > > > > work and animals are not much of a model for this. The 'busy bee'
> > > > > usually isn't and spends more time incumbent.
>
> > > > > When one looks at such as the consideration of mass and energy in
> > > > > physics, one should wonder on such matters as 'work' in human
> > > > > interaction, and how that may 'break down'. We don't and still live
> > > > > in the Dark Ages. If I ask for a 5,000 word essay on work motivation,
> > > > > 95% of responses from those forced to comply for qualification
> > > > > purposes will be a regurgitation of textbooks on Maslow, Hertzberg,
> > > > > Lawler and other 'names' (all dross). The odd student might start in
> > > > > such contradiction as that of the wealthy manager sated with money and
> > > > > the poor farmer in India saddled with debt.
>
> > > > > The content of management textbooks has long been a scandal and the
> > > > > only change I've noticed since the 1950s is 'weight and gloss'. They
> > > > > just weigh more these days, glossing over the same old trash One can
> > > > > note the same in legislative documents. Glass-Steagal was 30-odd
> > > > > pages, whereas the 'Facilitation of Bankster Fraud Acts' of modern
> > > > > times run to thousands.
>
> > > > > What strikes me as a scientist is that questions like what kind of a
> > > > > world do we want ourselves and others to live in, what is the work
> > > > > needed to do and maintain this and so on is all excluded. If physics
> > > > > was like economics we'd only be able to describe earth, wind, fire and
> > > > > water. All that's come from science in this direction is unwarranted
> > > > > abstraction, usually of maths-based 'proof'.
>
> > > > > The farce of our system lies in allowing people to get rich and then
> > > > > control wealth and politics. This is obvious. We rightly worry that
> > > > > simply overturning this only produces another set of such 'worthies'
> > > > > likely to be worse. We may even worry that the absence of such
> > > > > libidinal wealth opportunity takes away all motivation. Whatever this
> > > > > is about, it's not science. Unlike science, which you won't be doing
> > > > > unless you can demonstrate some competence, general argument assumes
> > > > > you have some. Hearing this, many fear the message is a call to be
> > > > > ruled by scientists. All the scientist really wants is a break from
> > > > > superstition.
>
> > > --
> > > (
> > > )
> > > |_D Allan
>
> > > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário