> Ray again seems to be suggesting that I should not sell Henry George so much
No Harry. I realize from what other Georgists say about the wild man in California that you are doing a considerable amount of original thinking on your own. What I was saying was to cut him off in your thought and struggle to win over your own ideas. I am encouraged when you take the credit for them but discouraged when you join anything more narrow than your culture. In fact the most interesting thing for me about you has been in speaking about your own cultural journey and what your life experience has taught you. In such an atmosphere I understand what your profession is and you even build a platform of expertise that I can enjoy and learn from. Anyway, that is what I think, Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ""Brad McCormick, Ed.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 5:01 PM Subject: Re: Soaring works? > Brad and Ray wrote: > > Ray said: > > "Almost everything that Beethoven, Bach and Mozart wrote was world class > but to constantly quote them is derivative." > > Brad said: > > "May I respectfully suggest that you have not been a very good salesman > here on FW, at least as far as I am concerned?" > > Ray again seems to be suggesting that I should not sell Henry George so much. > > Brad seems to be saying I haven't been selling Henry George very much - or > at least very well. > > As far as I can remember, my single paean of praise for HG is the only time > I've spent much time on him as a response to Ray's suggestion that I forget > him. > > I've talked a lot about my ideas and pointed to how much they were > influenced by George, but that's all. Keith mentioned once, I recall, that > my "collectible theory" was Georgist. I told him it wasn't - it's Pollard. > > I've changed many things that George said as I pursued my own course. Yet, > it's true that George was a superior thinker, a master of logical writing, > yet also able to provide the "soaring works". > > Brad said in response to my description of George: > > > HARRY : He asked his readers to think for themselves. He told them they > didn't need > > great universities, and mammoth libraries. They could work things out for > > themselves. All they need do is to observe people and note how they behave > > - then extend their reasoning from there. > > BRAD : "Here, however, I disagree." > > And went on to discuss flawed personalities. This is very like the person > who says the bottle is half empty, while the other says it's half full. > > A TV program I try to see every Sunday morning is "This Week". Today, they > highlighted two top ranked economists explaining how the economy would run. > Their versions were diametrically opposed to each other. On no point did > they agree. Yet, they had the advantage of great universities and mammoth > libraries - and even of Google. > > Would this not insert the tiniest doubt about Economics into your mind? > > George offered hope to the masses with his soaring rhetoric - even as he > captivated the "intellectuals" with his reasoning. Not to mention the angry > opposition of the holders of privilege, for he was in the forefront of the > attack on privilege. > > He was a dangerous man. Much more so than Marx, for people could understand > him. He said essentially to them : > > 'You can do it yourself. Take no notice of those who tell you that the > problems of the economy and even the economy itself is too complicated for > you to understand. Work it out yourselves.' > > Here is another great excerpt from George - this from the Introduction to > "Protection or Free Trade". Note how simply he makes his point : > > "Near the window by which I write, a great bull > is tethered by a ring in his nose. Grazing round and round > he has wound his rope about the stake until now he stands a > close prisoner, tantalized by rich grass he cannot reach, unable even to > toss his head to rid him of the flies that cluster on his shoulders." > > "This bull, a very type > of massive strength, who, because he has not wit enough to see > how he might be free, suffers want in sight of plenty, > and is helplessly preyed upon by weaker creatures, seems to me no > unfit emblem of the working masses. - - - " > > "But until they trace effect to cause, until they see how they are fettered > and how they may be freed, their struggles and outcries are as vain as > those of the bull. Nay, they are vainer. I shall go out and drive the bull > in the way that will untwist this rope. But who shall drive men into freedom?" > > Ray and Brad, both of you bemoan your situations and they may indeed be > awful at times. Yet both of you are great people with reservoirs of > strength that you have only to tap. Most people would be happy to have your > qualities - your abilities. > > What do you have to complain about? > > The job of the scientist is to simplify - something many have forgotten. He > brings together observations and evidence and surrounds an hypothesis. The > hypothesis usually says that given this, then that. The manifold pieces of > evidence, the complications of observation, all are tied into a statement > that covers them all. > > Thus: "People seek to satisfy their desires with the least exertion." > > It's said that everything now is so complicated only experts can understand > it. Well, it may be that the experts complicated things in the first place. > We do have a society of specialization. An economist at a widget factory > will no doubt now everything there is to know about the economics of > widgets. And if he is good, he'll be able to set a course for widget > production for that factory. > > Yet, we couldn't care less about his complex calculations. We don't have > to, and they don't impact on us at all. > > Similarly, we may know nothing about the inner workings of our TV set. We > don't have to and they don't impact us at all. If the light goes out, a > specialist repairs it. > > However, when the whole economy, or whole society, or our entire life, > needs experts to explain it to us, we have a problem. Keith and others > often worry about such things as how we can handle the leisure time for the > coming generations. That's a really complicated problem, given what we > know, or suspect, about people. Yet it's none of our damn business. A > person may, or may not, have leisure time. What he does with it is his > business. "We" doesn't come into it. > > "We" doesn't come into a lot of things, yet that doesn't stop us. > > What could be more simple yet pertinent than George asking why with our > incredible increase in the power to produce is it so hard to make a living? > > Perhaps we can answer that first - leaving disintermediation and other > important things until later. > > Harry > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > >Harry Pollard wrote: > > > > > > Lawry, > > > > > > As you know, I'm not enamored of modern neo-classical economics. My > > > discipline is Classical Political Economy, which study has been strongly > > > influenced by Henry George. Ray suggested that I should promise to avoid > > > everything that Henry George said or thought. That would be difficult for > > > George had much to say that was excellent. There have not been many like > > > him, as said Albert Einstein: > > > > > > "Men like Henry George are rare, unfortunately. One cannot imagine a more > > > beautiful combination of intellectual keenness, artistic form, and fervent > > > love of justice." > >[snip] > > > As I pointed out to Keith, George said: "In nothing trust in me." > > > >Dear Harry [whoever you are out there in cyberspace...]: > > > >May I respectfully suggest that you have not been > >a very good salesman here on FW, at least as far as I am concerned? > > > >To urge persons to think for themselves is one of my leitmotivs > >[obviously, hopefully!]. I'm surprised here by what you wrote, > >and that may give you reason to reflect as an educator. > > > > > > > > He asked his readers to think for themselves. He told them they didn't need > > > great universities, and mammoth libraries. They could work things out for > > > themselves. All they need do is to observe people and note how they behave > > > - then extend their reasoning from there. > > > >Here, however, I disagree. > > > >Perhaps a child who was raised from birth to believe his or her > >own senses could "work things out for themselves" -- or at least > >do a better job of it than most of us. But most of us -- jewish and > >other -- have had our souls circumcised even more frequently > >and brutally than > >our bodies, so that our perceptions are mutilated. > > > >I have a friend who was raised to believe his senses. But he > >was raised by persons who knew little. His "instincts" are > >"right on". But he nonetheless has "limitations" when it comes > >do interacting with "high culture". Kant is not shit, but > >he is not equipped to interact meaningfully with Kant's work > >(or Husserl, et al.). > > > >So I would respectfully submit that in order to think for > >themselves most effectively, persons need *both* to > >think for themselves, and ALSO to be installed on the > >shoulders of giants -- you would say, perhaps, Henry George, I > >would say Edmund Husserl, but perhaps you would agree with > >me that the person who thinks or him or herself, starting from > >"zero elevation", has a lot of catching up to do compared > >with the person who both has the ability to think for > >themself and also starts out at a pinnacle of human > >cultural accomplishment on earth hitherto. > > > >No, I will not accept that autochthony is enough -- > >the stories of The Wild Child of Avignon and Kaspar Hauser > >[see, for the latter, e.g., Werner Herzog's film, the > >German title of which translates as: "Every man for himself > >and God against all"] -- The Wild Child of Avignon and > >Kaspar Hauser are tragic counterexamples of thinking > >for oneself being good enough. > > > >\brad mccormick > > > > > > > > His speeches were superb. Shaw heard him once and was converted. (There's > > > another single name celebrity.) His ideas and arguments spread across > > > continents to Europe, Africa, Russia, China, Australia. > > > > > > Not only will I decline to omit George from my thinking, but I think for a > > > brief shining moment he offered us the opportunity to build Camelot. It was > > > hardly his fault that we didn't take it. > > > >I say the same of Edmund Husserl (and perhaps also Robert Musil). > >[Hi, Ray!] > > > > > > > > Harry > > > > > > http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.htm#chapter1 > > > > > > Lawrence DeBivort wrote: > > > > > > >Good morning, everyone, > > > > > > > >Still struck by Ray's powerful language, "creating great soaring works of > > > >human imagination," I wonder whether we might not on this list take a > > shot > > > >a describing what such soaring visions might be in our view, and what that > > > >then might mean in terms of "building economies around such...." > > > > > > > >Would you be interested in doing this? > > > > > > > >Best regards, > > > >Lawry > > > > ****************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of LA > Box 655 > Tujunga CA 91042 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tel: (818) 352-4141 > Fax: (818) 353-2242 > ******************************* > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.393 / Virus Database: 223 - Release Date: 9/30/2002 >
