On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Allan H <allanh1946@gmail.com> wrote:
Neil how about listing the potential solutions as you see them? I would apperciate it as it is not something I have a talent for..Thank youAllanOn Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 5:47 PM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:
I think there is always a standing excuse on the greater good - that
'irrational capitalism' provides for it better than any rational
solution. Our thinking is puny at such levels and we have allowed
over-breeding into poverty just at the point we could have established
sensible regulation without cruelty. Much of the discussion is
barking - like Chinese oligarchs saying we will all have to work
harder and longer when There is actually not that much work to do
thanks to productivity (other than in making oligarchs richer).
We talk in moral argument only at simplistic levels - however abstruse
the language gets and have little grasp of how complex systems work
and how they might be controlled. Gabby is always right in my view to
point to the issue that control easily becomes the problem as even
legitimate authority is used illegitimately. Yet there is always a
default and this is what the oligarchs rely on. It's almost like
those pesky downloads that screw your browser settings Allan.
If one takes a concept like 'artifactuality' - roughly those things
produced as artifacts (which splendidly moves nothing) - we find works
of art, buildings, tools and so on - the mistake is to see this as
human and 'unnatural'. We find animals and plants doing the same in
their terms. I'd even suggest we find molecules doing it, even
water. It's in nature, so what might this mean? If one hands out
vaccines like Gates one can hardly say this is wrong and yet medicine
can be seen as producing poverty through overpopulation. A 'bigger
cake' meaning disproportionate wealth for a few yet still bigger
slices for all seems OK - but what if the bigger cake is burning the
planet (just another case of the tragedy of the Commons)? What if the
disproportion itself is intolerably cruel or inevitably anti-
democratic?
We have some potential solutions - but I don't see them in much of our
dialogue, even in here.
On Oct 21, 5:21 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems the term "for the greater good ." disappeared from the language
> especially from government.
> Allan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ...> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 2:32 AM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm stuck at another level too Chris - it was always little old
> > 'critical me' that got funding and such. When going to such things as
> > university creativity sessions and find them led by some clown with 50
> > bright ideas to get the business going what do you do other than toss
> > the book '!01 Bright Ideas To Get Your Business Going' on the desk and
> > leave? I found universities not to be centres of excellence but full
> > of dullards or clown rules that prevented real work. I sometimes find
> > a few people to work with, have heard the 'Molly experience' and never
> > seen it do anything but damage - though Molly has an edge I could see
> > getting through.
> > With sports teams and some students you have to stop the pre-selection
> > of defeat - but you also have to spot where the brick walls not to run
> > at are.
> > I had a fantastic chance about 15 years back with a firm that wanted
> > to abolish its organisational structure in favour of project teams,
> > and go paperless. The top level was a great success and the paperless
> > thing worked better than I hoped. There were load of positive payoffs
> > - but huge resentment in the groups doing routine and scut work. All
> > in all though it was a buzz but a lot of people got left behind. I
> > have no problem with this kind of efficiency move - but there should
> > be more consideration of how to work with those who can't cope other
> > than junking to the reserve army of unemployment. Without going into
> > detail, this is why I think we need social solutions not individual
> > ones. And I think the social is too broken to start with letting fear
> > fall away.
>
> > On Oct 20, 10:57 am, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > "I guess that fear is the load we are experiencing"
>
> > > My world changed immeasurably when the fear fell away.
>
> > > On Oct 19, 1:25 pm, 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
>
>
> read more »--
()|_D AllanLife is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário