I have to admit that there is a certain kind of "economy" (in the sense of
parsimony) in the fact that you have managed to amuse yourself for half a
century with a single solipsistic word game. A contemporary of Henry George,
Lewis Carroll, described this word game in "Through the Looking Glass". You
may recall that for Humpty Dumpty, words meant precisely what he wanted them
to mean (this might fit under the proposition that "desires are unlimited").
But here's another proposition:
"revolution" means going around in circles;
when you go around in a circle you eventually get back to where you started;
isn't that revolting?
>At 03:06 PM 10/20/1997 -0700, you wrote:
>>Harry Pollard wrote,
>>
>>>"Man seeks to satisfy his desires with the least exertion".
>>
>>Not if exertion is 'his' desire (e.g. rock climbing, skateboarding, etc.,
>>etc., etc., etc.). Of course, if one _defines_ exertion to include only
>>exertion that is "undesired", then the statement is a meaningless˙
tautology
>>and not a "basic assumption".
>
>He doesn't desire to exert, he desires to climb rocks. The more exertion he
>saves rock climbing - the more desirable rock climbing he can do. The less
>he exerts, the less tired he gets - which means more climbing.
>
>The more exertion a weight lifter applies (such an exerter!) the less he
>will have for the later lifts that could win him the championship - so he
>had better use as little exertion as he can - and so on.
>
>Gong!
>
>>>"Man's desires are unlimited"
>
>>Buried behind this "basic assumption" is the figure of speech "man the
>>microcosm", in which the part is taken for the whole and vis versa. The
>>surest path to infinity is to muddle distinctions between the general and
>>the specific. Again, a tautology -- this time built on an _absence_˙
(rather
>>than an excess) of definition. By this sleight of hand, asceticism is pure
>>desire in that it is a desire to be free of desire. Ad absurdum, ad
>infinitum.
>
>This is a wonderful paragraph that doesn't address the Assumption. Perhaps
>you prefer something like "Each person on the planet has unlimited
>desires". Is that both general and specific enough for you?
>
>Oh, yes - the ascetic, we mustn't forget him. Right away we can see that
>his primary desire is unattainable, so his desires will never be absent. In
>fact, I suspect that no matter how holy he becomes, he will never reach the
>ultimate - which he desires. However, I also suspect that he will find
>ways to pursue his nirvana that save him effort - in the hope that he will
>get there sooner. (Perhaps an electric motor on his prayer wheel?)
>
>Oh, yes - the absurdum bit. Remember, you came up with the example - which
>you then considered absurd. Don't blame me for your example.
>
>Gong!
>>>"Come up with two examples of people not described by both Assumptions"
>>
>>You and I, for two. Any other two people for four. The two assumptions
>>haven't "described" anyone.
>
>We've never met, though I've enjoyed your posts for a long time. I
>guarantee your behavior is described by the two Assumptions.
>
>I wonder if you want your projects to succeed? I wonder if you want to get
>away to the mountains this weekend - before winter rolls in? I wonder if
>you are going to eat tomorrow, and the next day, and the day after that.
>
>Other than the very basic desire - such as survival - each persons desires
>are going to be different (not all that different, but that's another
>area). If you are an artist, a composer, I wonder if you will ever attain
>you desire for perfection? If you write, I wonder how many times you go
>over a page to get it just right?
>
>And the less time you are able to spend on each desire - the more desires
>you will satisfy.
>
>So, we seek to satisfy them with the least exertion.
>
>Next year when I'll be in your neck of the woods, I'll come in and see you
>do your E-Mailing. I want to see you send 50 meeting notices out out to 50
>people - written one at a time. Of course, I won't see it. You'll do your
>mailing with the least amount of exertion you know.
>
>Time is also a factor - but that's a matter for other discussion.
>
>I was in Seattle last month, but couldn't get up into BC. Shame!
>
>>>The whole science rests on these two assumptions.
>>
>>Back to the drawing board.
>
>Not yet, Tom. Classical Political Economy rests on a firm foundation -
>which cannot be said for the economics that Jay criticized.
>
>I was in Seattle last month, but couldn't get up into BC. Shame!
>
>Harry
>
>*****************************
>Harry Pollard (818) 352-4141
>Henry George School of Los Angeles
>Box 655
>Tujunga CA 91042
>*****************************
>
>
>
>
Regards,
Tom Walker
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
knoW Ware Communications
Vancouver, B.C., CANADA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(604) 688-8296
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
