I hope Eric Nilsson won't mind if I argue with a parody of his argument, rather than with what he has been saying. It is much easier to defeat a parody than it is to seriously consider a real, living argument. After I have disposed of the parody, I will return to the real thing. What Eric *really means to say* (click, parody mode on) is that we can divide the world into two kinds of things: facts and opinions. Facts can be proven. Opinions are subject to error. The way to change opinions is to 1. prove the facts, 2. compare the facts with the opinions. 3. change the opinions to match the proven facts. We can follow such a procedure to formulate policy. To formulate a policy, what we must do is first ascertain what are the facts, also known as "objective conditions". Once we have established what the objective conditions really are, it is a (relatively) simple matter to prescribe a policy that will allow us to move those objective conditions from state "a" (the current situation) to state "b" (an improved situation). Step three is to present our objectively correct prescription to the policy public for their ratification. Since public opinion is likely to be infected with error -- also known as "false consciousness" -- we should be prepared to back up our objectively correct prescription with references to our correct analysis. If that doesn't work we can move to the next stage, which is the objective analysis of false consciousness. So goes the parody. What is wrong with this approach? For one thing, it has been tried and it has failed in practice. The reason it has failed, the reason it will continue to fail, the reason it must fail, is that there is simply no way to systematically separate objective and subjective things into two neat piles. When someone asks the question, "is this policy based on truthful analysis?", they signal that what is to follow is critique (sometimes known as "sterile critique"), not a genuine policy alternative. If you're trying to develop alternative policies, you're more likely to be asking pragmatic things like "was this policy adopted?", "was it implemented as planned?", "did it produce the results it promised?", "were those results beneficial (and to whom, in what way etc.)?", "what unintended consequences did it have?", "did the policy advocates get re-elected, promoted or burned at the stake?". The same kind of questions can be asked in the subjunctive. Too many facts and too many opinions to even contemplate sorting them into neat piles. Now to return to Eric's actual argument. God, the devil and Kondratieff long waves are stories that some people use to help them understand how we have arrived at current social-economic conditions. Judging from recent electoral trends, the devil probably has a good lead over Kondratieff. We dismiss this information at our peril. Tom Walker Vancouver, B.C. http://mindlink.net/knowware/kondrat.htm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
