Intertwined (was Name Dropping)
Hi Harry, At 17:33 19/03/02 -0800, you wrote: Our ability to sustain ourselves rests squarely on our ability to reason. Unlike other animals, we don't rely on instincts. I don't agree. You're falling into the same taxonomic fallacy as religionists. We're not in a separate category from the rest of animal life. We have plenty of instincts (from suckling through to rank ordering), and animals have plenty of reason (ask any dog owner or elephant trainer or any scientist who studies cetaceans or chimps). In my opinion all lifeforms share an inexplicable something, itself shared with the basic fabric of the universe (of which 90% of its mass/energy constitution is still totally unknown to physicists). So, in order to retain our sense of wonderment, I respectfully retain my suggestion of a third self-evident truth when considering man's role in economics and history: 1. People's desires are unlimited 2. People seek to satisfy their desires with the least exertion 3. People have a curiosity beyond present needs for survival Keith __ Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in order to discover if they have something to say. John D. Barrow _ Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _
War against Iraq
FWers might be interested in a letter I wrote to day to the Daily Telegraph and also to the writer of an article referred to below. Keith Hudson Dr John Casey, Fellow, Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge Dear John Casey, There is no justification for waging war against Iraq I agree with your above article in todays Daily Telegraph. But have you not considered that the reason for the war-talk has less to do with Iraq but with the condition of Saudi Arabia? There is little direct evidence about the situation within Saudi Arabia but reports from the few who have been able to travel around the country agree on one thing: that the country is at the point of insurrection, either by the fundamentalists or by the frustrated intelligentsia (or both, initially). There are over a million young men without a job and besides being in a wretched condition are also without any possibility of saving for a dowry in order to get married. (A recent Channel 4 documentary talked of a brief uprising in Jeddah by 300 young men which was put down by the security forces.) State benefits to poor families have declined from $25,000 to $7,000 p.a. in the last few years. I believe that America is looking for an excuse to land a sizeable force in southern Iraq within the next few months in order to be on hand when Saudi Arabia implodes. Otherwise, if American troops in sufficient numbers are not nearby, Saddam Hussein would undoubtedly roll his tanks right through Kuwait to occupy the Saudi Arabian oil fields. He could probably do this within a couple of weeks. America could not employ nuclear weapons (or sufficient numbers of conventional missiles) against the Iraqi troops during the attack because they would be too dispersed, and they could not bomb the Iraqi troops when at the oil wells because because 13% of American imports come from Saudi Arabia and the US economy would thereby be in jeopardy. This seems to me to be the only reason for the recent turn of policy. Yours sincerely, Keith Hudson __ Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in order to discover if they have something to say. John D. Barrow _ Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _
Re: Intertwined (was Name Dropping)
Humans share have some reflexes (suckling, e.g.) but there are no biologically determined human behaviors that will allow them to survive without culture. What humans have that no other animals have is culture-a way of life of the people in a society that is learned, shared and transmitted from one generation to the next. Humans, through culture, have been able to change their environment whereas other creatures can only react to their environment. I don't know what is meant by the statement that people's desires are unlimited. Desires for ??? I certainly have no unlimited desire for a supply of poisoned arrows nor do I desire a mink coat or diamonds. Selma - Original Message - From: Keith Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 3:23 AM Subject: Intertwined (was Name Dropping) Hi Harry, At 17:33 19/03/02 -0800, you wrote: Our ability to sustain ourselves rests squarely on our ability to reason. Unlike other animals, we don't rely on instincts. I don't agree. You're falling into the same taxonomic fallacy as religionists. We're not in a separate category from the rest of animal life. We have plenty of instincts (from suckling through to rank ordering), and animals have plenty of reason (ask any dog owner or elephant trainer or any scientist who studies cetaceans or chimps). In my opinion all lifeforms share an inexplicable something, itself shared with the basic fabric of the universe (of which 90% of its mass/energy constitution is still totally unknown to physicists). So, in order to retain our sense of wonderment, I respectfully retain my suggestion of a third self-evident truth when considering man's role in economics and history: 1. People's desires are unlimited 2. People seek to satisfy their desires with the least exertion 3. People have a curiosity beyond present needs for survival Keith __ Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in order to discover if they have something to say. John D. Barrow _ Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _
Re: synergistic societies (was Re: Name Dropping)
Selma Singer wrote: Ruth Benedict's work supplied evidence that societies range on a continuum of those that pit individuals against each other to societies that support structures that insure that both individuals and groups are satisfied most fully by supporting each other; that working in one's own interests is, at one and the same time, working in the interests of the group and of others; in such societies when an individual works in her/his own best interests, s/he simultaneously works in the best interests of the group and vice versa. The problem, of course, is that, the societies Benedict described that have structures like this were quite small and homogeneous and we don't know how to create those social structures in modern societies. I know some may say that it may not be possible to do that. However, what those studies show is that it is possible for humans to have societies like this. If human competitive and destructive behavior were instinctive and biologically determined, those kinds of societies would not be possible and they did exist as Benedict showed. She called them synergistic societies. It is just that synergistic societies DID exist, or DO they still exist ? IIRC, they only DID exist, before getting destroyed by the other type of societies (those that pit individuals against each other). What does this say about human (d)evolution ? Perhaps the synergistic societies went extinct and today we're left with only dog eat dog societies ? (I'm not only thinking of ancient cultures that were destroyed by invasions -- I'm also thinking of e.g. the Swiss synergistic society that has been slowly destroyed in the past decades by U$ (non)cultural influences...) Chris
Re: FW: [ffdngocaucus] NYTimes.com Article: Missing James Tobin
At 9:17 PM -0500 2002/03/12, Michael Gurstein forward a Paul Krugman article which concluded: I doubt it. When Mr. Tobin went to Washington, top economists weren't subject to strict political litmus tests - and it would never have occurred to them that the job description included saying things that were manifestly untrue. Need I say more? Yesterday I spoke with William Brainard, another Yale professor who worked with Mr. Tobin, who remarked on his colleague's faith in the power of ideas. That's a faith that grows ever harder to maintain, as bad ideas with powerful political backing dominate our discourse. So I miss James Tobin, and I mourn not just his passing, but the passing of an era when economists of such fundamental decency could flourish, and even influence policy. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/12/opinion/12KRUG.html?ex=1016956780ei=1en= Hi Michael, These most powerful and disturbing thoughts of Paul Krugman I believe to be true. Cogent ideas don't matter any more. Robert Theobald expressed a very similar concern to me when he came to speak at a colloquium I helped organize in 1996. We were talking about the CBC radio programme Ideas which has been running for 40 years or so. Theobald had participated in a series of 10 episodes back in the late sixties. He said he was surprised that the show had survived given that something much more sinister was obviously shaping government policy these days. A Ray of Hope? Michael Moore's Stupid White Men, number one on the New York Times non fiction bestseller list, attempts in Moore's own unique and very politically incorrect way, to bring us out of our coma. Take care, Brian McAndrews -- ** * Brian McAndrews, Practicum Coordinator* * Faculty of Education, Queen's University * * Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6 * * FAX:(613) 533-6596 Phone (613) 533-6000x74937* * e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]* * Education is not the filling of a pail, * * but the lighting of a fire. * * W.B.Yeats * ** **
FW Serfe of the new economy (fwd)
Date:Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:34:21 -0800 From:radtimes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Smiling serfs of the new economy MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed http://MondeDiplo.com/2002/03/16work Le Monde diplomatique March 2002 END OF THE NEW WORKPLACE Smiling serfs of the new economy ___ Will the crash of Enron, following the dot.com debacle, end the abuse of the 'new economy' employees in the United States, who surrendered their basic rights in the interests of company shareholders and even had to make voluntary 'contributions' to their firms' political friends? by IBRAHIM WARDE * * Research associate at Harvard University and author of Islamic finance in the global economy, Edinburgh University Press, 2000 ___ Workers in the United States work harder than their counterparts anywhere else in the industrial world, with the exception of the South Koreans and Czechs, according to the latest International Labour Organisation (ILO) statistics. In 2000 the Americans put in an average 1,979 hours in the workplace, an increase of 36 hours on 1990 (1). This is puzzling since in the last 10 years the US has enjoyed great economic prosperity and had a substantial rise in productivity, two factors that were always assumed to mean less work and more leisure (2). But, as Benjamin Hunnicutt, a historian of work and leisure at the University of Iowa, says, work has become a new belief system, a new religion. According to economist Juliet Schor, people work longer hours (or hold more than one job) to keep up with the steady decline in their purchasing power, and be able to afford to buy everything they feel they ought to own (3). Such overwork leaves little time for family, leisure, community or civic duty. Time is increasingly absorbed by the workplace. Sociologist Arlie Hothschild has found that, for many employees (women in particular), work is home and home is work. The workplace provides a sense of community, while the home is increasingly defined by dysfunctional relationships (4). Whether as a cause or consequence of this, the model of human resource management popularised by new economy giants such as Microsoft, Oracle, Cisco, Apple or Amazon companies that to the global elites, epitomise technological and social progress strives to fulfil all the needs (physical, psychological, emotional) of employees. The corporate campus the word suggesting a convivial cocoon, as well as a young, laid-back ambiance was a workers' paradise, with child care, exercise facilities, cafes, therapists, grief counsellors, laundry, post office, bookstore, break rooms stocked with soft drinks and aspirin, and even a concierge service attending to special needs (ordering flowers or buying theatre tickets). The objective has not been to decrease the workload of employees but to allow them to overwork in the best possible conditions, since well-being improves productivity. Such golden cages look glamorous, especially from the outside. In the rankings of favourite employers that have been a staple of the business press, old-fashioned criteria such as good pay and benefits or lifetime employment were out, and new perks in. At the height of the economic boom, favourite companies were those where work was fun. People in a recent Fortune survey singled out three criteria: a sense of purpose, inspiring leadership, and knockout facilities (5). These traits, says Dave Arnott, a Dallas Baptist University professor, mirror the three defining characteristics of a cult: devotion, charismatic leadership and separation from community (6). In such companies, obsessive workaholism has been justified by the sense of a grand mission (building the future, changing the world) and by an us versus them ethos (them being most often the competitors, the government or the trade unions) fostered by competition. The financial factor is simply a by-product of the great adventure. As the clich goes, It's not about the money, it's about the future (7). Salary may not have reflected the amount of work, but employees have stood to benefit, via their stock options, from their contribution to the bottom line, and presumably to the value of the stock. And in the new economy that for a while seemed to defy the laws of gravity, the sky was the limit (8). Commitment to the firm has been bolstered by devotion to the chief. It is not surprising that Steve Jobs (Apple), Bill Gates (Microsoft), Larry Ellison (Oracle), Jack Welch (General Electric) or Herb Kelleher (Southwest Airlines) became folk heroes whose superstar status was rivalled only by the biggest pop culture icons (in sports, movies or rock music). Their every deed was mythologised in hagiographies and fawning media profiles. And their presumed charisma (from the Greek: gift of grace) earned them the right to expect their employees to go the extra mile
Re: Andersen
[Crocodile tears for those pr millionaires at Arthur Andersen!] FWD Please Sponsor an Enron Executive! Now that the holiday season has passed, please look into your heart to help those in need. Enron executives in our very own country are living at or just below the seven-figure salary level ... right here in the land of plenty. And as if that weren't bad enough, they will be deprived of it as a result of the bankruptcy and current SEC investigation. But now, you can help! For only $20,835 a month, about $694.50 a day (that's less than the cost of a large-screen projection TV), you can help an Enron executive remain economically viable during his time of need. This contribution by no means solves the problem, as it barely covers their per diem, but it's a start. Almost $700 may not seem like a lot of money to you, but to an Enron executive, it could mean the difference between a vacation spent in DC, golfing in Florida, and a Mediterranean cruise. For you, seven hundred dollars is nothing more than rent, a car note, or mortgage payments. But to an Enron executive, $700 will almost replace his per diem. Your commitment of less than $700 a day will enable an Enron executive to buy that home entertainment center, trade in the year-old Lexus for a new Ferrari, or enjoy a weekend in Rio. HOW WILL I KNOW I'M HELPING? Each month, you will receive a complete financial report on the executive you sponsor. Detailed information about his stocks, bonds, 401(k), real estate, and other investment holdings will be mailed to your home. You'll also get information on how he plans to invest his golden parachute. Imagine the joy as you watch your executive's portfolio double or triple! Plus upon signing up for this program, you will receive a photo of the executive (unsigned -- for a signed photo, please include an additional $50.00). Put the photo on your refrigerator to remind you of other peoples' suffering. HOW WILL HE KNOW I'M HELPING? Your Enron executive will be told that he has a SPECIAL FRIEND who just wants to help in a time of need. Although the executive won't know your name, he will be able to make collect calls to your home via a special operator just in case additional funds are needed for unexpected expenses. YES, I WANT TO HELP! I would like to sponsor an Enron executive. My preference is checked below: [ ] Mid-level Manager [ ] Director [ ] Vice President (Higher cost; please specify which department) [ ] President (Even higher cost; please specify which department) [ ] CEO (Contribution: Average Enron janitor monthly salary x 700) [ ] Entire Company [ ] I'll sponsor an Exec most in need. Please select one for me. SPECIAL LIMITED TIME OFFER Already an Enron supporter? Don't worry, in this troubled economy, there are many executives who need your help. Ford today is laying off 35,000. The NASDAQ is deflated. Now you can show your patriotism and do something about it. The Invisible Hand will allow supporters to substitute executives from any downtrodden company listed on edcompany.com. You will never own a Bentley, wear hand-tailored silk shirts, or have a gentleman's gentleman; why deprive a worthy executive from ascending, and more importantly, from maintaining the lifestyle he so richly deserves? Imagine the feeling of satisfaction, the pure joy of knowing that your sponsor ex-executive at the former spiltmilk.com will be able to have his caviar and eat it too. *It's just that easy -- do it now!* Please charge the account listed below ___ per day and send me a picture of the Enron executive I have sponsored, along with my very own Enron Keep America Strong, Sponsor an Enron Executive: Ask Me How! T-shirt to wear proudly. Your Name: ___ Telephone Number:___ [ ] MasterCard [ ] Visa [ ] American Express [ ] Discover Account Number: ___ Exp. Date:___ Signature: ___ Mail completed form to The Invisible Hand or call 1-900-2MUCH now to enroll by phone. Note: Sponsors are not permitted to contact the executive they have sponsored, either in person or by other means including, but not limited to, telephone calls, letters, e-mail, or third parties. Keep in mind that the executive you have sponsored will be much too busy enjoying his free time, thanks to your generous donations. (Contributions are not tax-deductible.)
The World may be stranger than most imagine.
Here on FutureWork we debate and share information within certain specific assumptions. As Harry and others trot out their perspective of man the economic unit, we often discount many other factors - some of which we know, like culture and race and the history of other peoples. Ray, valiantly trying to bring into our awareness his people and their perceptions of reality and Ed Weiss with his long experience in the Canadian North tries to correct some of our misperceptions. Still, largely speaking we work with a model of what a human is as defined economically and culturally and politically. Outside the awareness and knowledge of many on the list are many more bits of information that continually get discounted as myth, improbable, religous, or not within the University model of Anthropology and Archeology. Still, information continues to crop up that does not fit into any models we discuss. This is not just our limitation, it is also the limitation of those who try to make the decisions of the world. And as we all might agree, good decisions often come out of good information. If we, as a society continue to deny and limit the information we find acceptable, we will continue to make decisions that somehow do not seem to work as planned in the real world. Take the world of drug use. The Americans are rabid (check dictionary for meaning) and have caused untold damage to millions of their own citizens, interventions in other countries, major political influence to bring in laws in other countries that support their paranio. Yet people keep using them!! Why? Well, for one reason, they make you feel good and many people enjoy feeling good. It's not rational to use drugs when you can go to jail, lose your job, become ostrasized by your family and yet daily, millions of Americans and Canadians defy their government's laws and toke up, shoot up, or ingest various substances for the experience they provide. Our medical Dr.'s daily proscribe tons of Prozac and other mind altering drugs - which are somehow deemed ok, because they fit within the accepted business model of pharmacutical companies. There is a major logical disconnect going on here that rationally is an impossibility if we were rational actors as some economic theories extol. I won't even go into the duplicity of our thinking when it comes to alchohol!!! Take experiences like those listed in the reposting below which is one of only thousands of pieces of information that indicate that our assumptions of human beings are severely limited. I, myself have been involved with models of human behavior that consistently produce results that science, history, anthropology would discount. How am I expected to discount my personal experiences because some 'expert' who has never had the experience but who has the bully pulpit states that what I have seen and experienced is false. Obviously, I discount the expert. Man is more than a political entity, more than an economic entity, more than a social entity. How much more we haven't a clue, for we allow the powers of economics and politics to limit what is admissable to the discussion. Does acupuncture work? Can people walk on red hot coals? Can some people recieve impressions of the future? Are we affected by a past that lies before our current birth? Are other intelligent entities able to communicate with us through chanelling? Does prayer work? Does faith healing actually heal? Can martial artists use a force called ki to achieve powerful effects? Are crop circles a hoax or a communication from another species. Are there flying saucers, UFO's, aliens? Is the Universe dimensional? Do other consciousnesses live in other dimensions? Are there such things as shape shifters? The puny efforts to define humans through two or three axioms based on the phony science of economics is a ridiculous exercise akin to discussing how many angels can sit on the head of a pin. We would be better off playing chess for all the effect such a discussion really has on the important questions of what a human is. Well, that is my morning rant. Read the article. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde In a message dated 3/13/02 10:14:38 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There is much movement incorporated presently, Mikah. Your reality is altering. This shift in consciousness is escalating. Your sciences are changing. Psychology is not immune, and you may be incorporating alterations in its expression also not in fixing. (Thomas: The above two paragragphs are 'channeled information' - obviously inadmissable and to most of you unknown.) Very interesting Lou, and to connect with that, I heard a radio program last night with Brian Weiss, MD. As a traditional psychotherapist, Dr. Brian Weiss was astonished and skeptical when one of his patients began recalling past-life traumas that seemed to hold the key to her recurring nightmares and anxiety attacks. His skepticism was eroded, however, when she began
Re: The Cult of Efficiency - the Radio Program
Title: Re: The Cult of Efficiency - the Radio Program I stand corrected. I was on the run and there was a similarity. However, most interestingly, the radio show covered almost exactly the same topics in roughly the same sequence as the book, The Efficient Society. It's almost like the radio program was taken from the writers notes before it became a book. Curious. Thomas Lunde on 3/18/02 11:33 AM, Steve Kurtz at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The book title is: The Efficient Society - Why Canada is as Close to Utopia As It Gets, by Joseph Heath Not sure about 'Cult of Efficiency' Just a little notice to anyone interested. The book The Cult of Efficiency is the subject of a two hour - one hour tonight - don't know the next hour on Ideas, a CBC radio program on Radio One. On the West Coast, we get it a 9pm but I don't know it's time slot anywhere else. There is some really original thinking in this book and Steve Kurtz has quoted from it several times and I have read it as well and been very impressed. Thomas Lunde
Re: Economics as a science (was Re: Double-stranded Economics)
Harry Pollard wrote: Tom, I'm doing some catching up of past posts I found interesting. You are right. That's why we must build our edifices on true assumptions. Harry Thomas wrote: Edifices built on false assumptions often lead to wrong conclusions which usually negate any possiblity of predictability. [snip] That does not, however, prevent them from defining ongoing and even expanding research programs, since iterative solutions to local problems can give the false appearance of progress toward an *overall* successful resolution, when it really is only getting further sucked into the hopeless endeavor. Wrong-headedness is far more dangerous than just being wrong. Yours in discourse \brad mccormick -- Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works (Matt 5:16) Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) ![%THINK;[SGML+APL]] Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Visit my website == http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
Re: synergistic societies (was Re: Name Dropping)
There is a wonderful book called *Freedom and Culture* by Dorothy Lee in which she explores the relationship between the individual and the group and describes a number of societies in which the synergistic relationship between the individual and the group is such that, not only is individuality not stifled, but it is enhanced. There are a number of principles that are illustrated in this gem of a book. One of the most important, IMHO, is that this is possible in societies in which there is no such thing as a concept of deviance. Morality can be seen as secular and inhering in the degree to which a social structure allows order and community; destructive individual or societal behavior is the result of a failure to attain that order. (shades of Plato here) The quotes are here because the sentence is from an unfinished paper of mine. It is not a simple concept but the essence of the relationship between the absence of any idea of deviance and the development of individuality is that in an ordered society, no matter what a child does, the child is not considered deviant-neither are adults. There are mistakes, there is unacceptable behavior, there is behavior that has to be restrained, perhaps (although there is almost no aggression in these societies), but there is no such thing as deviance that attaches to a person so as to in any way stifle that person's individuality. In this context, the need for formal social control or the use of force is seen as the result of a lack of community and a lack of social order. It is really not possible to understand this without discussing a number of other concepts related to it. But there is evidence that it is entirely possible to have societies in which individual uniqueness benefits the community and vice versa. Just think about it seriously and I think some of you will see that it makes a great deal of sense. Selma - Original Message - From: Brad McCormick, Ed.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Christoph Reuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 6:12 PM Subject: Re: synergistic societies (was Re: Name Dropping) Christoph Reuss wrote: Selma Singer wrote: Ruth Benedict's work supplied evidence that societies range on a continuum of those that pit individuals against each other to societies that support structures that insure that both individuals and groups are satisfied most fully by supporting each other; that working in one's own interests is, at one and the same time, working in the interests of the group and of others; in such societies when an individual works in her/his own best interests, s/he simultaneously works in the best interests of the group and vice versa. [snip] Gregory Bateson makes the same point. He also notes that in some of the cooperation-oriented societies the individual's self-expressivity is stifled. The challenge seems to me to have a society in which cooperation is based on the fostering of individual creativity and critical judgment. Jan Szczepanski argued for this in his magisterial essay Individuality and Society (Impact of science on society, 31(4), 461-466). To carry Bruno Latour's motif a step further: We have never yet really been human (Latour says we have never yet really been modern). \brad mccormick -- Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works (Matt 5:16) Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) ![%THINK;[SGML+APL]] Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Visit my website == http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
RE: synergistic societies (was Re: Name Dropping)
Nietzche (sp?) said something like truth is the lie that allows a society to survive. Or as a colleague of mine says, society cannot live without myths. Freud's Civilization and its Discontents is also of interest. Again he deals with tradeoffs between the individual and the larger unit. Society is about tradeoffs. That we can have it all: Individual freedom and creativity and social cohesion is at odds with most of what I understand about society and community. Somehow I think it about balance. Where that balance arrives is of course at the heart of politics. Arthur -Original Message- From: Selma Singer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 8:28 PM To: Brad McCormick, Ed.D.; Christoph Reuss Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: synergistic societies (was Re: Name Dropping) There is a wonderful book called *Freedom and Culture* by Dorothy Lee in which she explores the relationship between the individual and the group and describes a number of societies in which the synergistic relationship between the individual and the group is such that, not only is individuality not stifled, but it is enhanced. There are a number of principles that are illustrated in this gem of a book. One of the most important, IMHO, is that this is possible in societies in which there is no such thing as a concept of deviance. Morality can be seen as secular and inhering in the degree to which a social structure allows order and community; destructive individual or societal behavior is the result of a failure to attain that order. (shades of Plato here) The quotes are here because the sentence is from an unfinished paper of mine. It is not a simple concept but the essence of the relationship between the absence of any idea of deviance and the development of individuality is that in an ordered society, no matter what a child does, the child is not considered deviant-neither are adults. There are mistakes, there is unacceptable behavior, there is behavior that has to be restrained, perhaps (although there is almost no aggression in these societies), but there is no such thing as deviance that attaches to a person so as to in any way stifle that person's individuality. In this context, the need for formal social control or the use of force is seen as the result of a lack of community and a lack of social order. It is really not possible to understand this without discussing a number of other concepts related to it. But there is evidence that it is entirely possible to have societies in which individual uniqueness benefits the community and vice versa. Just think about it seriously and I think some of you will see that it makes a great deal of sense. Selma - Original Message - From: Brad McCormick, Ed.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Christoph Reuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 6:12 PM Subject: Re: synergistic societies (was Re: Name Dropping) Christoph Reuss wrote: Selma Singer wrote: Ruth Benedict's work supplied evidence that societies range on a continuum of those that pit individuals against each other to societies that support structures that insure that both individuals and groups are satisfied most fully by supporting each other; that working in one's own interests is, at one and the same time, working in the interests of the group and of others; in such societies when an individual works in her/his own best interests, s/he simultaneously works in the best interests of the group and vice versa. [snip] Gregory Bateson makes the same point. He also notes that in some of the cooperation-oriented societies the individual's self-expressivity is stifled. The challenge seems to me to have a society in which cooperation is based on the fostering of individual creativity and critical judgment. Jan Szczepanski argued for this in his magisterial essay Individuality and Society (Impact of science on society, 31(4), 461-466). To carry Bruno Latour's motif a step further: We have never yet really been human (Latour says we have never yet really been modern). \brad mccormick -- Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works (Matt 5:16) Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) ![%THINK;[SGML+APL]] Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Visit my website == http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
