far as honest self-reflection goes) and still think it's generally a
mistake and almost inescapably animal (though even here there is a
difference between Frodo and Freud amongst the chimps). What we need
to escape is a 'libidinal economy' and the ease with which rationality
is merely using cleverness to get one's way, even if through appeal to
gullible electorates. My conclusion is we need to do away with the
cult of richness and the great leader. Even the Lao Tsu notion of the
mark of a good leader being that the people will think they did things
for themselves can be perverted.
I don't think we can perfect much socially - yet we could establish
banking as a mere utility and recognise our factional politics aren't
democracy - and we could have counterveilling institutions and
organise work without work ethic fetish (we have to admit there are an
awful lot of slackers). This all entails authority.
Current economics and authority are Undead ducks and there's no point
in putting ourselves through 'Animal Farm'. The most telling phrase I
heard in the old Soviet Block after the wall fall was that the
'apparatchiks were become the entrepreneurchiks'. Some of the turds I
worked with at the World Bank promised that the conversion to liberal
capitalism would be over in 500 days -then 150 days. Meanwhile food
prices quadrupled and wages and employment crashed. I was, of course,
sacked (thank goodness I couldn't put up with the dross).
'All' we have to do is organise food supplies and wage-related wealth
distribution - and it seems strange that this still means breaking the
power of the rich - this may well only have slackened off in the west
after the world wars and now be back with a vengeance (it definitely
is in terms of what they own). I saw some Chinese dork saying the
west would all have to work harder and longer - why should anyone have
to given productivity rises in factors of ten since we all broke our
backs in toil?
On Oct 19, 7:16 pm, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> "Il faut cultiver notre jardin," said Voltaire's Candide, at the end
> of a chain of ghastly experiences in the world of the 18th Century, a
> world with many similarities to our own. In the end, a feeling of
> disgust at the corruption of public life at all levels, combined with
> a feeling of individual impotence, leads to a withdrawal from public
> life to dedicate ourselves to our small private worlds, where there is
> still a possibility of soldarity, concern, decency and human warmth.
>
> Yet, thirty years after the publication of Voltaire's masterpiece, the
> French Revolution (majorly inspired by ideas of many such as Voltaire)
> erupted in Europe, changing all the paradigms. The ghastly
> contradictions underlying much of what defines our modern societies
> are becoming more evident and are giving rise to increasing
> resistance; from the Arab Spring to the Occupy Wall St./Frankfurt/City/
> etc. movements.
>
> What worries me, among other things, is the lesson of history that
> when systems finally collapse (or are torn down) as a result of
> intolerable contradictions, the period of change leading to the
> establishment of new paradigms is generally accompanied by terrible
> suffering and death for millions - whether the Jacobin terror, or the
> events in the wake of the February and October Revolutions in Russia.
>
> And, of course, the fact that the same corrupt, cynical, corrupt
> bastards and criminals either retain power (Talleyrand) or that even
> worse clones of the same (Stalin) rise to the top ...
>
> On 19 Okt., 19:25, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I can't take it myself to be honest Chris. Derrida used to say we are
> > in spirit positive. In Anglo-Saxon terms he was just a liberal, almost
> > priestly as a bloke over a few beers. I was younger then, still able
> > to knock things over and feel it was worth the bother. I suspect we
> > don't understand "negation" very well. Gabby (bless) always has some
> > - or it seems that way (I remember very positive support of me some
> > years back) - and the question arising is when this becomes as much
> > censorship as all the other stuff we might brand as that. It isn't
> > "negation" or the sting of criticism that really gets to me, more
> > selfish attitudes in what I feel as madness, triumphed as positive but
> > perpetual children. I like kids and even childish behaviour as
> > entertainment. I can't stand the failure of education in making a
> > decent society of responsible adults.
> > I've done a lot more than most in playing the game - £7 million in
> > research/project grants doesn't come from admissions projects will
> > fail in the business plan. But the critical eye has to admit the
> > majority fail and I was often signing-off on lies. £9K for university
> > tutoring (outside of science and engineering) goes to fund middle-
> > class lifestyles of the university hangers-on not towards the
> > education of the young person. When last full-time, I was teaching
> > 100 FTEs at least (200 times £9K = £900K in fees leaving £810K after
> > my costs). I could have done a better job for the students with
> > properly organised distance learning and a 'university' organised
> > around local pubs, theartres and sports clubs done through social
> > media - the overhead costed at around £100K (electronic library
> > etc.). A better education with much more opportunity for small
> > business involvement and so on at under a third of the cost and one
> > not building onerous debt. What is negative in this? And sadly, the
> > answer is easy middle-class incomes. I can go on an explain how even
> > these would not be affected as we could expand more practical
> > education and work development. I'm talking here of a more social,
> > more tutor supported education better than the expensive, debt-
> > producing fantasy we're forcing kids into. And one with lots of local
> > creative possibilities with less bureaucracy and vastly increased
> > 'civic' involvement.
> > You have to 'deconstruct' to get to the above idea - and elsewhere in
> > terms of stuff like agricultural and manufacturing productivity we
> > have done this with little thought on the jobs lost by workers -
> > indeed we've run roughshod over 'them'. The point in the negation
> > should be positive - about the use of efficiency for general well-
> > being and the creation of wider prosperity, probably redefined.
>
> > What's hard, Chris, is facing-up to what life means to most people -
> > the economics I've never taught (but colleagues have from a single
> > text book) leads to a few very rich and the rest in debt-rent-mortgage
> > peonage and the arms' race. It must be obvious we barely have even
> > capitalism. It would be great to be able to ignore politics and the
> > status quo, but we need to build so we can. The old phrase from the
> > 50's (I only know from reading) was 'structuring freedom'. The human
> > population has tripled since I was born (I reject personal, intimate
> > responsibility!) - all very 'free' - producing planet burning and soon
> > 'competition for air'. Raising questions about how complex freedom
> > is.
>
> > The weight on us - if we think for improved practice - is complexity
> > that most use simple Idols on to make their sense. I played rugby and
> > was a cop. The whole Bradford Northern front row were less
> > intimidating than the mad munter of some low-life I might nick with a
> > bread knife. The rules and structure of the competition allow rugby -
> > but what rules and structure would allow a decent society. Not every
> > claim can count in trying to do that do should, in principle be heard
> > so we don't 'go total' like some Spanish Fascit (fair typo) stealing
> > babies from their ideologically unsound mothers.
>
> > I guess that fear is the load we are experiencing - maybe like that of
> > animals in hierarchies under all kinds of complex leader power - just
> > look what cockroaches and bees do to members in their 'reaching
> > consensus rules'. Even the really positive is negative - we can now
> > support human life without much effort - so why do we need poverty?
> > That would destroy the motivation of the rest of us now, wouldn't it?
> > The most obvious fact in the world is that most of what we claim we
> > want as moral individuals needs a change in what society is and what
> > people can aspire to as persons in it - otherwise we head to the usual
> > human solution, war.
>
> > Maybe I should 'out Dilbert' Scott Adams, you do some illustrations
> > and pics, and we should watch the fireworks from Bermuda? I like the
> > shadows in Bermuda.
>
> > On Oct 19, 3:56 pm, Chris Jenkins <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I've never had someone so casually create a crushing despair in me, Neil.
> > > Your writing has always affected me greatly, but the sense of general
> > > futility that is often expressed weighs a ton. As someone who still holds
> > > out hope for society's betterment, your words often feel like mountains on
> > > my head.The sense of truth in them, I think, is what gives them so much
> > > weight.
>
> > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:25 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > The smell of authority gets up my nose however disguised Gabby - we've
> > > > just seen an example in rugby union with a Welsh player sent off for a
> > > > decent tackle and then banned for three games to reinforce the
> > > > referee's authority. It all reeks of what people do given authority.
> > > > Sport hardly matters, but the example is good. I don't know what's
> > > > happening in Detroit. I do know that in Spain a ring of bastards
> > > > (priests, nuns, doctors) removed 40,000 kids from their parents and
> > > > adopted through mass baby trafficking beyond the Fascists. I was
> > > > tempted once to become an anarcho-existential organisational
> > > > practitioner and break some windows from the inside, but somehow
> > > > jargon remains with the same smell.
> > > > Molly's got a point - the problem is that words so rarely match what
> > > > happens. The gadfly of irony loses its sting too,much as increasing
> > > > lexicon (equafinality, artifactuality etc.) ... and paradigms of
> > > > synergy fade in the dust of asset strippers.
>
> > > > So where are the solutions we might express?
>
> > > > On Oct 18, 8:15 pm, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Puh, this is the flowery version of "I am against dualism" (compare: All
> > > > > power plays are based in these memes because they require opposition),
> > > > which
> > > > > is understandable if the writer gets payed by the line. Whereby the scent
> > > > of
> > > > > power being related to hierarchies is decently overtoned, now isn't that
> > > > > lovely. No mod here has the power over the ban button, this is me here
> > > > > trolling and spreading an unpleasant odor. Puh, could someone please
> > > > > let in some fresh air?
>
> > > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Power relations work only in a group with leadership who's view is
> > > > > > based on power and the idea that "i" or "we" can have more or less
> > > > > > than "you." There are views that realize that every group operates
> > > > > > holistically, and the flow of operation and pinnacle of achievement is
> > > > > > not dependent on power but synergy. A savvy leader knows the group
> > > > > > members potentiality, talent, perceived limitation, resources etc.,
> > > > > > and creates the conditions necessary for every and all to move beyond
> > > > > > them as a whole. It takes a big picture view of how each person
> > > > > > operates and where the group fits in the community (whole). A group
> > > > > > with such leadership can become a change agent. The leadership
> > > > > > understands that power is a misnomer, as it is not power that fuels
> > > > > > the group effort, but synergy.
>
> > > > > > Given, not all groups operate like this. Not everyone has realized...
>
> read more »
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário