Tom, It doesn't please me a little bit. In fact, I have a sense of loss.
You didn't leave the list. You left us, who enjoy reading you. Perhaps you can reconsider. FW is one of the best lists on the Internet and bulges with opinions and ideas. But, imagine if we all thought the same way. We would have just as many writers, but no messages. I would answer a couple of points, but until you come back they can't be part of the discussion. Harry _____________________________________- Tom wrote: >Harry, > >It will please you to know I've unsubbed from FutureWork. Not because of >anything you've said or anything Keith Hudson has said but because of a >pervasive failure of the list to engage on issues and a voracious appetite >to indulge an endless repetition of cliches and set piece argumentation. I >won't dignify them by calling them arguments. > >I actually have to apologize for the message you are replying to. I didn't >intend to send it. It was just a private response that I wrote and forgot >about. Unfortunately, when I later closed my email program a dialog box >popped up about sending an unsent message. I absent mindedly clicked 'Yes'. >I really don't think there is much point in saying what I said out loud. If >I had thought it would do you any good I would have said it off list. > > > What you sound like, Tom, is a Christian to whom I'm maligning the Bible. > >Coincidentally, the status of being a "Christian" is one of the things I >wrote about in the last message that I didn't send to FutureWork before I >unsubbed. Allow me the self indulgence of "quoting" a message I never sent: > >"A visitor from another planet might be surprised to find out that the >Detroit Tigers are baseball players and the Lions football players. After a >while, it will dawn on the visitor that the names of sports teams follow >naming conventions and are not literal. Similarly, our visitor would be >astonished at the juxtaposition of writers' names with entire policy regimes >that only occasionally give more than lip service to anything the writers >have written. We might even propose as a rule that fidelity to the thought >occurs in inverse proportion to invocation of the name, (which is why I have >established the "Harry Pollard Academy of Vancouver". ;-) > >"According to the Keith Hudson personality theory of history, as elucidated >on 12/29, Keynes' homosexuality no doubt explains the AIDS epidemic. As for >Keynes' posthumous conversion to Hayek, it may have turned out to have been >short-lived, followed eventually by a conversion to Zen or Rastafarianism. > >"I personally liked some of what Hayek wrote. I had two reservations. They >are big ones. > >"1. Hayekians don't buy the whole package, only the parts that fit in with >their prejudices. This should not be taken as an exclusive criticism of >Hayek or Hayekians. The same can be same for Keynes and the Keynesians, Marx >and the Marxists, Freud and the Freudians, Mars and the Martians, etc., etc. > >"2. Hayek's "there" is appealing, even comforting. His path for getting >there, though, starts from there. This is known as teleology and is the >fatal flaw of all utopias. Hayek's utopia may be a cloth coat and sensible >shoes middle class utopia but it is no less a utopia. Again, it would be >unfair to single out Hayek for this flaw. Marx probably spilled more ink >attacking utopianism than anyone before or since. The so-called method of >"historical materialism" was conceived as a way to answer the question "how >do we get somewhere else from HERE." The method unravels because there is no >way (short of papal infallibility) to establish a consensus about the >present historical conjuncture. Here is hard to find. One need only mention >the Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin-Mao-Hoxha lineage to discredit the notion of a >materialist Holy See. > >"It seems as though political desire abhors a utopian vacuum. Yesterday's >panacea becomes today's plague and the antidote for it is hailed as the new >panacea. Is there a problem liberalization of trade won't cure? If there is, >it couldn't be worth worrying about. Is there a problem public spending >won't cure? If there is, it couldn't be worth worrying about. Is there a >problem socialization of the means of production won't cure? If there is, it >couldn't be worth worrying about. Is there a problem liberalization of trade >won't cure? Everybody now, sing along, "Is there a problem? . . .it couldn't >be worth worrying about." > >"This would be paradise if it weren't for the problems caused by the >solutions. Is there a solution to THAT problem? I'm not sure, but I suspect >the way to find out is to challenge the excluded middles in the stories that >we tell about public policy issues. > > > You'll note that I went through her speech giving a contrary point of view > > about the subjects she brought up. Your subject was me. > > > > Now, I am so wonderful I can understand your attention to me, but I would > > advise that it would be better if you were to take one of my most >egregious > > errors and explain where I am wrong. > >I did take your most egregious error and explain where you are wrong. The >problem is I didn't name you in the message where I did it. Instead I titled >the message, "the joy of not listening". At the risk of appearing foolish to >you, I would like to point out the difference between hearing and listening. >Hearing is a passive response to stimulae. You hear what somebody says, >conclude that they're wrong and explain why they are wrong. Listening >requires an act of identification with the speaker. You may still conclude >they're wrong but at least you get some notion of what is motivating them to >say what they are saying and believe what they believe. Listening also >involves taking into account how people are responding to what you say or >not responding to what you say. It's not obligatory to listen to whatever >someone says, but it's pointless to respond to things you're not listening >to. Too much of that goes on from all sides. It's boring. > >As for the Bible . . . I've just returned from the university library where >I have been doing research on the story of the patriarch Joseph and >particularly on the 19th century American reception of the fable. I wouldn't >so much say that you are "maligning the Bible" as that you are unwittingly >repeating truisms that are, in essense, gross simplifications and >distortions of biblical material. Your projected world seems to be populated >by an erector set full of "self-made men", some of whom meet the required >standards of performance and some of whom don't. The path has been well >trodden, Harry. That's not to say there isn't any truth in it. Only that it >is not the whole truth and nothing but the truth. ****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
