No problem. I can understand (and share) your impatience with the Doctor Pangloss myth about technology automatically bringing about the best of all possible worlds.
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Ray Harrell <[email protected]> wrote: > My apologies. **** > > ** ** > > REH**** > > ** ** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Tom Walker > *Sent:* Sunday, August 19, 2012 8:30 PM > > *To:* RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION > *Subject:* Re: [Futurework] NYTimes.com: Skilled Work, Without the Worker* > *** > > ** ** > > Ray, You ARE being too pugnacious. You are picking a fight with ideas that > Dean Baker doesn't have and didn't express. You are putting words in his > mouth and mine that aren't ours and then shadow-boxing with your > misconstrued opponent. **** > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Ray Harrell <[email protected]> wrote:**** > > Just because there is an art to all of the other domains doesn't mean that > they ARE Art. Economics is also a part of all of the Domains of society > and so is generic science and systems structures but that doesn't mean that > Musical Form and Analysis IS Science nor is the Agricultural Technology or > the Technology of the Sacred adequately described as reverse engineering. > People just seem to wander into each other's homes, go to the > refrigerator and take what they want with impunity**** > > **** > > Tom, I hope I'm not being to pugnacious about this but I'm really tired of > being pushed around by politicians and economists who just don't seem to > care about what the results of their advocacy does to the person laboring > in the field. In the army they used to call it "having each other's > back." Now I see people who are willing to elect uncultivated slobs > because they are mad at the choice they have. That's the way we went to > war and I see them having hurt feelings rather than going to the practice > range and working on their markmanship. When someone is afraid things > change. If someone hurts the people I love or my art, they will have to > deal with me. And as I get older I get much less patient. **** > > **** > > REH**** > > **** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Tom Walker > *Sent:* Sunday, August 19, 2012 6:32 PM**** > > > *To:* RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION > *Subject:* Re: [Futurework] NYTimes.com: Skilled Work, Without the Worker* > *** > > **** > > What I mean is one needs to distinguish between a technology and the > appropriation of that technology by people or organizations whose sole > interest is accumulating wealth for themselves. Pianos built by expert > craftsmen still employ technology. "Skill" and "craft" are elements of > technology. **** > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Ray Harrell <[email protected]> wrote:**** > > What is you argument about the piano? I have a lot of information about > how capitalism was just pulled up short of ruining America's premiere > piano, the Steinway and I have another personal story about that as > well. Pianos were, until the last generation, built by expert craftsmen > who owned their own formulas for the pianos. In the last generation the > companies took control and made them write everything down in a Manuel. > It took almost fifty years to settle that in such a way the quality was > restored. There were many big mistakes along the way because of the > complexity involved in making musical instruments. But I'm guessing what > you mean. What do you mean?**** > > **** > > REH**** > > **** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Tom Walker > *Sent:* Sunday, August 19, 2012 6:03 PM**** > > > *To:* RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION > *Subject:* Re: [Futurework] NYTimes.com: Skilled Work, Without the Worker* > *** > > **** > > So, you're against the piano?**** > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Ray Harrell <[email protected]> wrote:**** > > Actually Tom you didn't understand what I said. I spoke not only to the > heading which I disagree with but to the argument about "productivity" and > could have spoken to the disaster of the rise of the middle class for both > the complex cultural products, families and personal competence arising out > of Technical Rationalism and the rise of the "Professions." What I'm > saying is that "scalable" systems like "economie of scale" "education of > scale" etc. are built around a core value that is the opposite of "Leave no > one behind" and the value of each and every individual. That may not be > just humans as well. **** > > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christof-koch/consciousness-is-everywhere_b_1784047.html?utm_hp_ref=science > **** > > **** > > When you have winners and losers rather than potentialities, systemic > growth and the value of the individual, constituting the success of the > system, it will always be narrow self interest rather than reaching beyond > one's self to a greater potential. In other words the problem is the > goals of the capitalist system itself. **** > > **** > > We could call it the garden versus the wilderness, [Laissez Faire] or we > could call it the individual craftsmen versus the assembly line, etc. etc. > What to an Englishman was a typical uncontrolled English forest was to > an Iroquois a controlled and tended garden fired twice a year and planted > over fifteen year cycles for the good of all of the nations, including > humans. See Chapter 9 and 10 of Charles Mann's book 1491. I contend > that the "self interest" winner/loser model is inept and doomed to chaos > and licentious non discipline. The only thing that makes the individual > seek beyond the banal is intrinsic motivation based in growth and the > passion for discovery. Have you read George Miller's old article on > human limitation called "The Magical Number Seven plus or minus Two?" I > would recommend it as a grounding in the fact that we are all inadequate > and that the local loser may actually turn out to be the seminal figure of > the age that makes idiots of us all. Happens all the time in the Arts. > Jerome Rothenberg demonstrated it in Theology when he went around the > world studying religious poetry and found that Indigenous Priests were the > most complex of religious thinkers and the purpose of religion in human > Domains. He termed the book of their poetry "Technicians of the Sacred." > It is never about freedom of the individual or groups but "Freedom to > do What?" Without the clarity of purpose and the Ultimate Values of that > purpose we are perpetual slaves to our ignorance. War is so inviting > because in war everyone knows that they need everyone else or they don't > survive. Peace is much more difficult and susceptible to who tells the > best story. Even tempting us to forget that we only really know that > which we have personally experienced. Everything else is a story to be > enjoyed but not considered worthy of emulation. My experience is that > theories are just theories until we experience the success or failure of > their action. But involving other people in the exploration of a theory > requires both agreement and some kind of insurance lest we become criminal > in our actions. The article that I read about Robotics and that I > personally experienced in my youth and in the destruction of the performing > arts in America by film, recording and television, is now being followed by > the regular industrial sector. We didn't find anyway out of the heavy > metal pollution and the destruction of family jobs. The Arts found > solace from automation only through the amateur structures of religious > music and the adolescent commercial entertainment that accompanied the > technology. The result, as I said, was a 98% decline in the labor force as > a result of economies of scale through automation. As for productivity. > I'll say it again. It's a fraud, just a way of transfirring money from > the competent to the speculative. > Economics, as an Art form, has not evolved yet so they think people are > "throwaway able." **** > > **** > > I believe that it is a stupid suicidal culture that thinks in such a short > term manner. I think that Baker's beginning is inaccurate. Your > environment teaches you and carefully preparing your environment is the > only way we have of controlling our future. Robots are the same math as > cheap slaves. They are even called "slaves" in the music business. > But if your slave doesn't bankrupt you and frees your labor to human > creativity, you can be Greece in the classical era. Otherwise you are > Greece in the 21st century. Better living through capitalism. (joke)** > ** > > **** > > REH**** > > **** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Tom Walker > *Sent:* Sunday, August 19, 2012 12:37 PM**** > > > *To:* RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION > *Subject:* Re: [Futurework] NYTimes.com: Skilled Work, Without the Worker* > *** > > **** > > Ray, > > I'm afraid you haven't read Dean Baker's response carefully. He's not > saying all that bad stuff won't happen. What he is saying is that it > doesn't have to happen. It isn't the inevitable result of technology but > the result of bad policy that responds inappropriately to the technology.* > *** > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Ray Harrell <[email protected]> wrote:**** > > Nonsense. Robotics destroyed my home town and destroyed the families and > the culture in the hometown. It destroyed the culture of the Arts in > America while making capitalists rich. There is a 98 % decline in jobs in > the Arts business. I make less than half what I paid my teachers in > 1970 dollars and I'm at the top of my profession. Productivity is a > mirage for people to hide behind while they steal the competent blind. > They are doing it now to the teachers in the schools and returning teaching > to the ghetto it was on the Quapaw reservation before my father changed > it. I don't know where you get this stuff Tom. I've lived through it > several times and the NYTimes is correct. **** > > **** > > REH**** > > **** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Tom Walker > *Sent:* Sunday, August 19, 2012 12:19 PM > *To:* RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION > *Subject:* Re: [Futurework] NYTimes.com: Skilled Work, Without the Worker* > *** > > **** > Dean Baker's response to that article is excellent:****Robots Don't Cost > Jobs, Bad Economic Policy Does**** > > > <http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robots-dont-cost-jobs-bad-economic-policy-does/print> > **** > > > > <http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robots-dont-cost-jobs-bad-economic-policy-does/print> > **** > > > -- > Cheers, > > Tom Walker > (Sandwichman)<http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robots-dont-cost-jobs-bad-economic-policy-does/print> > **** > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework**** > > > > > -- > Cheers, > > Tom Walker (Sandwichman)**** > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework**** > > > > > -- > Cheers, > > Tom Walker (Sandwichman)**** > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework**** > > > > > -- > Cheers, > > Tom Walker (Sandwichman)**** > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
