But why is this all beginning to sound like "original sin?"
REH
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. wrote:
> A given quantity of stuff is not a constant. That's the
> point I was trying to make. Technological advance
> (advance in knowledge in general...)
> enables us to do more/better
> with the same amount of "stuff".
> To a denizen of Salem MA in the 18th
> century, a bit of bread mold was nothing more than
> occasion for hallucinating. To Arthur Fleming
> in the 1940s it
> was occasion for saving millions of lives. (That's
> not exactly "correct", but it's close enough for
> my purposes...)
>
> The reintrojected projection of "reality" continues
> to be one of the strongest brakes on humanity's
> and persons' prospects in life. Again, Castoriadis
> states all this quite well, e.g., in _Philosophy,
> Politics, Autonomy_ (although Alain Resnais' film
> "Mon Oncle d'Amerique" is easier and quicker to
> "digest", and Edward Hall's _The Silent Language_
> is a made in the USA version of the same thesis
> if one wants to avoid "continental philosophy").
>
> \brad mccormick
>
> --
> Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but
> Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world.
>
> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA
> -------------------------------------------------------
> <![%THINK;[SGML]]> Visit my website ==> http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jay Hanson
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 1998 5:50 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Sustainablity Plan B (and -- perhaps -- meta-plan C)
> >
> >
> > >>Jay Hanson wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Is there not confusion within the ranks of our allegedly erudite
> > >> > economic scholars who see only increased production as
> > solution to
> > >> > Social Problems?
> > >>
> > >> Obviously, if one can not "grow", then one must
> > "redistribute". That is
> > why
> > >> it will be opposed to the very bloody end.
> >
> > >Brad McCormick, Ed.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > >There is a third option: to reconceptualize, reconfigure,
> > >reconstellate, rethink, renew, re-etceteraandsoforth.
> >
> > In a finite world, there is a finite amount of "stuff". I
> > assume that you
> > are suggesting that we talk people out of wanting more stuff?
> >
> > How?
> >
> > Jay
> >
