I like the whole story and I like the delayed reveal. An acquaintance sent along a video of a talk by Charles Eisenstein about the gift economy that I think is relevant to this discussion. It goes "out there" a bit. The core idea is that the objective world of buying and selling that we experience is an artificial construct based on the zero-sum notion that "what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours." So absolutely more for you is less for me, even if exchange makes us both relatively better off. In a gift economy, though, more for you is more for me because there is a social obligation of generosity.
http://vimeo.com/18513825 On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Harry Pollard <[email protected]>wrote: > Tom, > > > > The whole story is that as my Polish friend would look mournfully at his > position and make his comment, he would probably go on to beat me. > > > > I don’t know whether you have encountered Kriegspiel, but it’s chess in > which you have no idea of your opponent’s moves. You have to get information > from whether you can move various pieces or not. (The King can be an > attacking piece, but can get into trouble.) > > > > Harry > > > > ****************************** > > Henry George School of Los Angeles > > Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 > > (818) 352-4141 > > ****************************** > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Sandwichman > *Sent:* Thursday, January 20, 2011 12:09 PM > > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION > > *Subject:* Re: [Futurework] A robot stole my job > > > > Actually, Harry, it's a Popperian aphorism. I do relish your Kriegspiel > anecdote, though. I suppose the moral to that story is that you truly are > invincible! > > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Harry Pollard < > [email protected]> wrote: > > I think, Thomas, that the statement is an intellectual smirk – of which > there are many. > > > > Meantime, scientists of every discipline are trying to find what is so and > what is a simple way to describe what is so. They make mistakes and run into > blind alleys, but plow ahead with the tasks that allow them to be called > scientists. > > > > Umpteen years ago I used to play lunchtime Kriegspiel in the Gambit Chess > Rooms in the City of London. An old Polish opponent of mine would look at > his position and sigh “Nothing is any good anymore.” > > > > I suspect that while the scientists are struggling to find what is fact, a > hard path with much disappointment, the intellectuals are pleased to pursue > the idea that “nothing is any good any more”. > > Obviously, my criticism doesn’t apply to all intellectuals – perhaps only > to the poseurs of whom there are many, and who get the best Press. > > > > Harry > > > > ****************************** > > Henry George School of Los Angeles > > Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 > > (818) 352-4141 > > ****************************** > > > > *From:* Sandwichman [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Friday, January 14, 2011 12:41 PM > *To:* [email protected]; RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, > EDUCATION > *Subject:* Re: [Futurework] A robot stole my job > > > > Wasn't there supposed to be a third principle in there somewhere? > > "A theory that explains everything explains nothing." > > On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Harry Pollard < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Assume there is no order in the universe. How can there be science the job > of which is to find order. > > > > If two identical experiments produce different results again and again > there is no point to further scientific experiments. > > > > Nothing can be certain any more if there isn’t an order. > > > > Why irregularities? They are presumably the normal situation. We can > certainly speculate of various situations in the universe, but we do so as > if we can find the order that exists. > > > > “Man’s desires are unlimited.” > > > > There is no limit to our desires. I may desire a Cadillac, but haven’t a > chance of fulfilling the desire – but it doesn’t go away. If things change, > perhaps it becomes more possible for me to get the car and I might well move > it up my mental list. As earlier desires are satisfied, others spring up. > There are no environmental limitations, just the personal limitations to > satisfying the desires one has. > > > > I fear you haven’t “demonstrated above”. Artists may well find it difficult > to satisfy their unlimited desires – as do we – but they try to accomplish > their desires with the least exertion. They wouldn’t tie one hand behind > their back to increase the exertion needed to finish their work. When a > desire is perfection, no amount of exertion might be enough. > > > > If painting your house is fun for you, go ahead, but I doubt you will make > it difficult for yourself to enjoy the fun. You will accomplish your desire > with the least amount of exertion – if you know the least amount. > > > > I essentially doubled the size of my house myself. But crawling around in > the space under the house to connect plumbing pipes is not fun. Adding gas > heating to the new parts is not fun when you know that errors might kill > your family later. Electric wiring is easier but takes much care. > > > > I think painting is drudgery but it has to be done. I’m happy it is fun for > you. > > > > There are many other things I would prefer to do than paint my house. > > > > But, in all the things I do, I try to minimize the exertion I use to > accomplish things and I can tell you now that you do the same. > > > > Harry > > > > ****************************** > > Henry George School of Los Angeles > > Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 > > (818) 352-4141 > > ****************************** > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *D and N > *Sent:* Sunday, January 09, 2011 9:09 PM > *To:* RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION > *Subject:* [Futurework] A robot stole my job > > > > Hi Harry, and all others enjoying this discussion around Harry's statements > > *The two major assumptions of all sciences may be;* > > * “There is an order in the universe.”* > > * “The mind of Man can discover that order.”* > > * The two assumptions of Political Economy are:* > > * “Man’s desires are unlimited.”* > > * “Man seeks to satisfy his desires with the least exertion.”* > > I'm happy to see that Harry qualified the first two assumptions with* 'may > be'*. I believe as of the last century it was determined that a touch of > disorder within our own universe made possible the universe we have come to > know. Irregularities in the fledgling familiar universe caused slightly > higher densities in some areas, thus locally slowing expansion and > increasing gravitational attraction. Gravity draws matter together, > collapses to form galaxies, then planets such as our own. In 2010 they > released data based on seven years study of microwave temperature > fluctuations dating back 13.7 billion years. A thousandth of a degree C. was > apparently enough to form life-teeming galaxies like the Milky Way. Perhaps > discovering this significant yet tiny fluctuation is on the path toward > discovering how our own universe came about, but this only pertains to four > measurable dimensions of discovery for now. If there are indeed seven other > dimensions, as speculated, all of which are so small and curled up that it > gives one's hair a perm just thinking about it, and science manages to > unfurl and integrate these into an "M" theory to explain everything, there > shall indeed be more information for our minds, though not necessarily > discernible order. In this universe. The trick is that in most other > universes, where fluctuations shortly after the big bang would have caused > completely different systems or life design, the mind of 'man' would likely > be incapable of any satisfying single set of natural laws to apply to it > all. > > The second two assumptions most of the list have responded to with fine > points and great personal style. The first statement, I think, is only > generally true because we are limited by certain aspects of environment. > Conceiving of a completely "remote" desire would be impossible without some > seminal framework for said desire. I would suggest that unlimited desire be > reserved for what you may consider to be the improbable, like perhaps the > immortal "Q" on Star Trek, or humans in the heavenly "afterlife" acquainted > with omniscience. > > The second assumption presuming to describe the conditions around > satisfying desire within the realm of production is easily undone if one > just stops to consider the artistic process, Harry's ability to create > distracting replies being no exception amongst such endeavours. Take an > artist's painting of a portrait, a landscape or abstract work. It is not > only a mental exercise, it is also quite physical. The very best artists > will make every effort to create something extraordinary--not just for > others to buy, but for themselves to experience in accordance with their > personal code of excellence before they can consider the work finished. A > great recording artist or opera singer will strive for the finest possible > performance created not by adequate practice or rendition, but by pushing > themselves to the greatest possible interpretation of which they are capable > within their own unique gift of presentation and physical ability. A great > writer cannot produce a lazy book, Antonio Gaudi did not come by effortless > masterpieces in architecture. Let's presume none of these examples mentioned > thus far would be better suited to make money in any other fashion (highest > and best use of talents), though of course they could have picked tomatoes > for Monsanto to help shareholders and CEOs and perhaps Harry's position. > > Exertion experienced within the process towards an end is often a big part > of the joy in doing. Painting one's house, for example, although not as > efficient as hiring pros, is not only productive--it's fun for many of us, > and instills a sense of pride and connection to one's home. Exertion like > this often teaches us skills, too, apart from possible future delegation of > said task. Home decorating contributes to the very important sector of the > economy known as real estate. Within that sector, we have not only > commodities that directly affect countless other industries, but also house > the very beings who dream the dreams. Exertion will never be only just > adequate where it comes to teaching, nursing, gardening, psychotherapy, or > even fly fishing, and getting these jobs done quickly is usually never the > goal in mind. Though many tasks or jobs are conducted to achieve results, > most things or goals for which we strive are not measured against time or > effort, though they are often judged for finesse. They are tasks or > occupations in which we lose ourselves in time in order that we eventually > get to stand back and say, "good job". > > I believe Harry has a point where one has to admit that just getting the > job done is all that counts, only efficiency pays, or they need a meal and > are too tired to prepare a good one themselves. But as demonstrated above, > there are many aspects to production or productivity in which this can never > be the case. > > Cheers, > Natalia Kuzmyn > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > > > > -- > Sandwichman > > > > > -- > Sandwichman > > _______________________________________________ > 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
