Hello Archytas, Sorry for the late reply.... again.... Returning to the issue of censorship.... it looks as if I will leave another forum.... the "Revolutionary Forum... revforum.... I had particular difficulty with one "Wittgenstinian-acolyte" moderator, there.... the rest of the forum administration just followed in lockstep solidarity.... still and all, another pity.... just goes to show that even relatively intelligent people can act like lemmings.... Ah well.... on to other pastures.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_of_Sinope I'm 99.99% sure that you have heard of Diogenes and his "stunt" of searching for an "honest man" in daylight with a lantern... we may have already discussed this ground as well, you and I....It's difficult not being or becoming such a "cynic".... I just heard on the news that the latest GDP figures here in the U.S. shrunk by 2.9% in the first quarter of 2014. True that there was a very harsh winter... but I don't know if that accounts for all of the bad news.....How are economies doing in Britain and the E.U.?....With the hard-line Conservatives having lost ground, last big election go-around.... the Left parties had better demonstrate that they can "grow" their economies, I believe.... http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28012760 Picking up on your own point...."Our control by business is just one of them and the general insanestream of economics is part of this."".... I agree with this, but what can "government" do to direct or steer the control that business has on "us", by which I mean the "economy-workers"? Me, I keep getting back to the notion of stopping or shutting down "hoard" pools of unproductive funds..... Estate inheritance, tax it high?.....Gold.... can Gold be outlawed?... How about..."Commodity futures"....same thing, cut out the "middle man"?.... any other notions that you may have, Archytas?
On Monday, June 16, 2014 3:39:10 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: > > Hard to spot, perhaps, when we are being ripped-off by expertise. > Democracy has some interesting epistemological paradoxes. Our control by > business is just one of them and the general insanestream of economics is > part of this. > > On Thursday, 12 June 2014 16:25:02 UTC+1, nominal9 wrote: >> >> >> I regard the expertise issue in economics as a form of censorship. / >> Archytas >> >> Thank you, Archytas, for being "inclusive".... about expertise as a >> barrier.... but to a certain extent, expertise is also a requisite...Let's >> face it "ontologically" (by which I mean to say, as a matter of plain >> "fact"), "one" is better off asking an "expert" ( who definitely has a good >> chance at having the correct answer) than asking just a layman whose >> prospects of a probable (as in probability) successful diagnosis is.... >> less. >> So, I add that expertise also comes (or "should") with an "ethical" >> "professional" responsibility.... >> Can the "system" be turned more toward the "ethical".../ how.....More >> Sheriffs?....More Hangings? ... More Sheriff Hangings? >> >> On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 5:08:14 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: >>> >>> I can explain the hoarding in a more complex way. In history, people >>> used to hoard silver pennies. These days money is hoarded in stock >>> markets, bonds and property. This system might be OK, but has become a >>> Ponzi scheme. The returns from hoarding have been exceeding that from >>> productive investment like building factories or sowing seeds. This is >>> largely because banks do the investment. The issues seem much more >>> connected with social epistemology than economics or finance. In Nominal's >>> terms, we have forgotten what real is in nearly all economic discussion. I >>> regard the expertise issue in economics as a form of censorship. >>> >>> On Tuesday, 10 June 2014 16:13:42 UTC+1, nominal9 wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Archytas.... >>>> >>>> >>>> http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2090845-belmont-stakes-2014-breaking-down-most-shocking-results-from-third-jewel >>>> >>>> The #9 horse at Belmont came in "fourth", a tie with the #1 pick and >>>> prospective Triple Crown winner (who lost it), California Chrome... well >>>> so >>>> much for 9 being a lucky number.... it deems my luck goes up to #4, (HAR >>>> HAR HAR HAR)..... >>>> >>>> As for the rest of your post.... economics is not my area... it is >>>> yours. That's to say, the best I can do is ask you questions or for >>>> explanations. ... which I am quite willing to do, if you don't mind being >>>> the "brain trust" and ferreting out the... numbers and such.... >>>> >>>> Hoarding.... that's the main problem that I've been able to latch on >>>> to with any conviction about money... I saw it long ago... but most >>>> recently it has been spotlighted and demonstrated "economically" by a >>>> fellow named Picketty, I've been informed. >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Piketty >>>> I think that the general observation is valid... there is a lot of >>>> money in the hands of (90%) rich people that is being largely "hoarded" >>>> and is not being placed into circulation to create jobs, form businesses, >>>> spread about for general "economic" growth (as differentiated from, >>>> perhaps, "monetary" profit). >>>> What do you think of my thinking... Archytas.... and what can be done >>>> at any levels to try to rectify matters? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Saturday, June 7, 2014 5:20:47 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Statistics have been reminding more of an old theme of ours Nom - >>>>> censorship. We have a '9' connection by the way - it was my best >>>>> position >>>>> in rugby. As far as I can tell, scientists use numbers on a pretty fair >>>>> basis, at least until they become functionaries of business. Much of the >>>>> rest of number use strikes me as rhetoric connected with the abuse of >>>>> power. Numbers are often thrown about in argument that is really about >>>>> metaphor and myth. The censorship element seems to be that you can only >>>>> take part in the debates with the number skills, with such issues as why >>>>> we >>>>> should allow those 'with the numbers' control and even restrict >>>>> participation on this basis. >>>>> >>>>> We seem to have lost any grip we may have had on convention. Money, >>>>> foe Aristotle, was a convention because we could choose to ignore it >>>>> tomorrow. These days, we know money (97%) of it is brought into being by >>>>> banks lending it at interest. We also know this doesn't have to be the >>>>> case and government could issue it debt-free. Government, of course, >>>>> could >>>>> be us or a genuinely representative embodied form of us. There is some >>>>> prattle about on this called positive money or Modern Monetary Theory. >>>>> I'm >>>>> not much concerned with the literature as the ideas have been around a >>>>> long >>>>> time. The principle is really that we have ceded control of organising >>>>> capacity for no real reason. I currently think the mainstream insane and >>>>> don't know how to get the heresy across. >>>>> >>>>> The reasoning here is that we can do sensible stuff, like building >>>>> green energy capacity, or a new work ethic not related to fear of poverty >>>>> and real poverty. Numbers become lies in a virtual system with such as >>>>> unemployment at 6.8% but one in six men of working age with no job. This >>>>> is going on when we have technology (and real statistical method on >>>>> samples) that could let us report on what we are actually doing. Years >>>>> back, when we did the footslog version of what could now be online, we >>>>> found unemployment in Woking (leafy, well-to-do England) at 18% and 58% >>>>> in >>>>> Govan (crap Glasgow). So what's the role of bullshit numbers in >>>>> preventing >>>>> 'practical data'? A nominal problem ... >>>>> >>>>> On Saturday, 7 June 2014 17:33:37 UTC+1, nominal9 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_of_Nine >>>>>> >>>>>> The gal had a rough time of it, the gentleman in me thinks (don't >>>>>> know why) that she deserved better..... >>>>>> >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Christie >>>>>> >>>>>> reminded me of Julie Christie...... >>>>>> >>>>>> This"numbers" discussion gets into the distinction between the >>>>>> "representational language" and the "thing represented".....in >>>>>> Mathematics, >>>>>> as in most all other "language" systems... people have a tendency to get >>>>>> caught up in the "language-formal" seeming connections between the >>>>>> numbers, >>>>>> and forget about the actual work that they (numbers) are supposed to be >>>>>> doing in tracking the behavior of the "things", themselves.... hence you >>>>>> get "statisticians" ( mostly in the "social" or "human" sciences) who >>>>>> look >>>>>> for "number trends" or formulas that could "logically" be extrapolated >>>>>> as >>>>>> "predictive" of certain results.....Like in economics.....sometimes the >>>>>> "formulas" aren't all that "sound"... other times, the "things" being >>>>>> counted just don't "behave" as expected, for their own reasons.....which >>>>>> the "math practitioner" did not take into account.... >>>>>> >>>>>> I think you and I are in pretty much agreement, Archytas... >>>>>> >>>>>> Odds.... on a horse race.... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2088263-belmont-stakes-odds-2014-final-predictions-on-latest-vegas-betting-lines >>>>>> >>>>>> Maybe I'll get "lucky" on No. 9...... >>>>>> >>>>>> On Friday, June 6, 2014 6:12:26 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The answer can be found here Nominal - >>>>>>> http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/Digitsum0.htm - though we >>>>>>> await, in baited breath, for you to tell us what this has to do with >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> price of fish. Were you once 8 of 9 and hence on top of Seven (lucky >>>>>>> man)? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have been thinking of late on the relations between anarchism and >>>>>>> science; specifically why economics is such obfuscatory rot. Anarchy >>>>>>> at >>>>>>> its best seeks to remove mystification, and though science gets into >>>>>>> equations and numbers that get tough, these let us do things like >>>>>>> firing a >>>>>>> complex catapult build to Mars. Economics just seems to be a system >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> tell us we can't do this and that because money will be screwed and >>>>>>> should >>>>>>> shut up when we can't talk in numbers and approved bible language. >>>>>>> Perhaps >>>>>>> endlessly repeating sums that add up to 9 will turn one economist? >>>>>>> Unless >>>>>>> one needs the initial condition of nominal9? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thursday, 5 June 2014 23:17:44 UTC+1, nominal9 wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> examples: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 9x1=9...9+0=9 >>>>>>>> 9x2=18...1+8=9anrchu >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 9x3=27...2+7=9 >>>>>>>> 9x4=36...3+6=9 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> etc. .... ad infinitum (?)though >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is 9.... "nominal" number (?) .... HAR >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
