Thanks Mike,   well said.   If there are those who wish a longer version of
this thesis, you might enjoy the great poem of Nikos Kazantzakis called
"Odysseus, a 20th century sequel".     He examines all of the assumptions
around Alexander but embodied in the character of Odysseus.    Odysseus'
linear journey of self discovery goes through all of the great philosophical
systems of Kazantzakis' world, plays them out to their logical end and ends
with Odysseus in the Arctic after everything has collapsed as he muses with
the character of death who looks just like him.    He speaks of leaving
nothing for death since he played it all out.   But essentially it is a book
about "cutting" the knot through conflict and war rather than learning the
message and meanings by undoing and solving.   

Mike, you never seem to stop amazing me.   Thanks again. 

REH


-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Spencer
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 6:02 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW: Academic Economists to Consider Ethics Code


Arthur wrote:

AC> http://www.wikisummaries.org/Capitalism_and_Freedom
AC>
AC> here is a summary of [Friedman's] views as shown in his book.

Jeez, I understood that MF was an extremist bordering on fruitcake.
The summary of his book indicates that he was a religious fanatic.

REH replied:

REH>  Friedman's world seems made up of fishermen and shepherds.
REH> ....
REH> For the life of me it sounds like cancer.  It's a system within a
REH> system that has no connection or responsibility to the system
REH> beyond its own growth.

The Doctrine of the Free Market, a la Friedman, is reminiscent of the
late primordial "soup" containing single-celled organisms, colony
organisms and primitive multicellular critters.  Of course we don't
know exactly what was going on then but we have respectable guesses.
Unrestrained competition for lebensraum, energy, nutrients
etc. between all -- eukaryotes versus prokaryotes, swarms versus
colonies. Exchange of information as, e.g. in the endosymbiotic origin
of mitochondria.  Growth was success.  Cooperation was risky and
happenstance, a matter of chemical statistics. What a wonderful,
productive system/environment that was -- the entire world of modern
global biota nascent in the free market soup.

Fast forward a billion or so years to "fishermen and shepherds".  It
was still commonplace, AFAIK, to respond to a real or perceived threat
by slaying the men, enslaving the women and children and ploughing
their land to salt. But notions of ethics -- that humans had intrinsic
value and living like primordial organisms, well, just wrong.  A patchy,
glimmering awareness of

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
    equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
    unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
    pursuit of Happiness.

didn't begin ex nihilo in 1776.

Fast forward again a few millennia to a modern understanding of
cancer.  Cancer is a reversion of the homeostasis and deeply
integrated cooperation of highly evolved life to the winning strategy
of imhabitants in the primordial soup.  But ancient bacteria didn't
really care about each other, their families, their neighborhoods or
their progeny.

Friedman & company think that the evolution of culture, of society as
an emergent phenomenon of human biology, should revert to the
mechanisms and yes, the ethics, of the primordial soup.

This barefaced failure of intellect offers this advantage: Everything
can be reduced to a single-valued equation function.  As students
learn about simple algebra, they see single-valued functions.  Then
they meet square roots. Sqrt(x) has two values. X^2 + Y^2 = Z^2
engenders a circle only if both values of Z are included. Too, too
confusing, eh?

In many scientific and theoretical disciplines, it's becoming
increasingly obvious that difficult things can't be understood with
single valued linear equations.  The mathematical constructs needed
are knotty and gnarly and, often, refractory to analytic solution.

But if you make an ex cathedra dogma of single-valued self interest,
of cash value of anything, of net profit or net share holder value,
you can simply dispense with all the complexity, ambiguity and debate
and get on with things.  In such a frame of reference, Alexander's
cutting the Gordian knot was a bold stoke of decisiveness.

Alas, what Alexander did was to reduce the problem at hand to a
single-valued function, effectively destroying the whole context of
the problem.  Left as an exercise for the reader is imagining Gordian
solutions to social problems that arise from embracing pure
free-market dogma.  For added credit, explain how "pursuit of
happiness" will be implemented in the resulting social structure.

-- 
Michael Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada       .~. 
                                                           /V\ 
[email protected]                                     /( )\
http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/                        ^^-^^
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Reply via email to