I would be the last person to disparage the cultural value of music. But I'm afraid you fall into a kind of imperialism of music, Ray, when you claim that composers are the only people who know what they are talking about. It would be good if someone would read Chastellux or Ben Franklin before passing judgment on how much they knew or didn't know about politics and what they were ore were not trying to tell people with regard to how much government there should be.
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Ray Harrell <[email protected]> wrote: > I've begun to rethink all of these folks and their stories about numbers. > The issue of competency and personal mastery is far beyond the simplicity of > numbers. Jefferson's quote about government simply speaks to the fact that > he and others could not comprehend the resolution of complexity in mastering > the art of government. The problem is not to have less of something but to > be able to control virtuosically more, thus reducing complexity in numerical > values to zero. To have less to work with isn't gaining competency but is > the realm of poverty. I've become convinced that the only people who > really knew what they were talking about in the 18th and 19th centuries were > Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Brahms, Mahler and the students in the great > music studios, etc. Wars have not been fought over the value of artistic > virtuosity but they have been fought over the Art of politics. It would be > good if someone learned how to DO politics before they try to tell people > how much there should be. IMHO. > > REH > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sandwichman > Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 4:00 PM > To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION > Subject: [Futurework] Political arithmetic > > The wealth of nations implies some sort of political arithmetic - the > calculation either of an immense sum or of some descriptive ratio, a > distribution or per capita allotment. Adam Smith referred to "the > distribution of the necessities of life." Benjamin Franklin pondered a > four-hour working day that had been "computed by some political > arithmetician." Thomas Jefferson's friend, the Marquis de Chastellux > proposed a formula for ascertaining public happiness, which Jefferson > summed up as a cautionary tale: "If we can prevent government from > wasting the labors of the people under the pretence of taking care of > them, they must become happy." > > Would an alternative vision of the good society evince a similar > fascination with numbers? I will argue here that it must, if only out > of strategic and transitional necessity. The outline of the kind of > reckoning required was already implied in Chastellux's and Franklin's > speculations and has been a recurrent, if dissident and subterranean, > theme in political economy since the earliest days. Even Adam Smith > somewhat ambivalently upheld "ease of body and peace of mind" as "what > constitutes the real happiness of human life." > > But how does one measure ease of body and peace of mind? We will get > to the question of how presently, but first I would like to explain > why it is crucial to calculate it, not merely to exalt it... > > http://ecologicalheadstand.blogspot.com/p/time-on-ledger-social-accounting-f > or.html > > -- > Sandwichman > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > -- Sandwichman _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
