Keith,
Thanks for sharing your life. I've always been a workaholic from the time
I was in Middle School. I would appear at school at 7:30 where I would go
with my parents who were both teachers. I would spend the first hour
before classes practicing then I would begin the day with Wind Ensemble
practice then work through the day including accompanying three choruses
along with the academics. After school we would have a two hour Marching
Band rehearsal for the weekly football half time activity. After that I
would go to a school room where there was a grand piano and practice until
eight or nine O:Clock at night. I also conducted music in the local
church four services a week plus rehearsal. Once in college I carried a
full load plus taught 21 hours a week and directed six choirs developing a
full graded choir program as well as doing educational research for the
Francis Clark Piano Library. From that time forward to the present I have
worked and do work from the time I rise into the hours of the morning.
The key for me is to connect everything into a network that feeds the intent
for my life. That means that even play has a usefulness for the things
that I work on. Since 1994 I have funded the Magic Circle with funds
from my own teaching in order to allow myself to work on things that
interest me instead of doing useless make-work that has no significance
other than to create jobs and pay salaries to people who don't care and
wouldn't work if they didn't HAVE to. I am in agreement with you in your
statements about how liberating the private sector is. That is why,
with the exception of the choirs and teaching at Manhattan School of Music
for seven years I have avoided institutions for the plague that I have found
them to be. But not because of the nature of Institutions but because of
the lack of interest and creativity in the culture of those who work there.
Life is a joy in its search for the eternal, in personal relationships, in
creativity and in sheer release. Getting the balance right has always and
is the issue for me personally.
REH
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 2:25 PM
Subject: Calvinism will beback! (was Re: Lucky Duckies
> Hi Ray,
>
> Until my mid-40s, when I'd 'worked' for local government, central
> government and a couple of multinational corporations, I don't suppose I'd
> ever done more than a couple of hours a day. It certainly wasn't expected
> of me either -- so long as I appeared to be reasonably busy. Which I was
> actually. Doing my own thing -- whatever it happened to be at the time. I
> didn't ever do a full days' work until I started my own businesses -- and
> then it was 10-12 hours a day for a year or two in each case. As I'd
> already done most of the reading I was ever likely to, this new life style
> was really quite refreshing.
>
> Since we've had access to cheap energy, modern civilisation has been a bit
> of a doddle for most westerners. It's all going to change within a
> generation though when all the oil runs out! Calvinism will be back with a
> vengeance. But if we get community back again, it won't be a bad price to
pay.
>
> Keith
>
> At 03:31 17/12/02 -0500, you wrote:
> >Well said,
> >
> >I generally agree with you about the lack of wholeness in current
economic
> >studies. As for whether Krugman is an economist or not I tend to look
at
> >that musically. Von Dittersdorf was a composer but in the ultimate
scheme
> >of things he was no Mozart who set the standard along with his
colleagues.
> >Salieri is always mentioned if for no other reason than he was the Milton
> >Friedman of composers of his day. So I tend to leave the judgment to
> >history. As for the other things I don't make the distinctions in the
> >three that you do primarily because I see the processes at work in each
of
> >the systems with simply a difference in emphasis, indeed I believe them
to
> >still be with us today. As for the wealthy? How many do you know?
> >
> >I guess it was all of that reservation Calvinism that I was around but I
> >just can't stand waste. Any family that builds seven mansions in
seven
> >countries, for no other reason than the party seasons, tempts me to think
> >that they are useless. In fact, the whole idea of Utility in relation
to
> >the super wealthy and the society as a whole makes no sense to me.
They
> >don't grow and the poor don't either for opposite reasons. What is
the
> >purpose of a society having either?
> >
> >I'm afraid the meaning of life for me is to be found in growth and
mastery.
> >Anyone who doesn't do something with their gifts doesn't make sense to
me.
> >But I came from the side of the tracks that most of these folks would
never
> >touch and when they had a President that was from a Trailer Park they
> >couldn't stand him and spent 70 million dollars to prove him inferior in
> >some way or another.
> >
> >Today, I see misery everywhere. I see people's lives who are
effectively
> >over as far as their talent and potential goes. And they are young.
We
> >don't grow wisdom we grow opinions in the young and then they come back
to
> >me and the other teachers after it is too late and try to revive
something
> >that was lost to old myths planted not by experience but by books and by
> >having been born to the wrong family. Not poor in money but in spirit
and
> >knowledge. They often speak many languages but don't understand the
> >meaning of any of them beyond knowing how to ask where the next meal
comes
> >from and how to find the toilet.
> >
> >Anyway, I enjoyed your piece and you are welcome. I was glad to find
it
> >myself and even happier to post it once I figured out that the server has
a
> >word limit on the posts.
> >
> >Cheers
> >
> >REH
> >
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 2:46 AM
> >Subject: Lucky Duckies
> >
> >
> >> Ray,
> >>
> >> I don't know precisely where you got Paul Krugman's article ("For
Richer")
> >> from but it's a substantial essay for which, many thanks for posting to
> >us.
> >>
> >> Harry's quite right. Krugman points the finger but makes no attempt to
> >> understand, least of all, explain, the phenomenon of inequality. This
is
> >> why Krugman is an economic journalist only -- albeit an excellent
one --
> >> but not an economist.
> >>
> >> Indeed, in my view, most present-day "economists" are not economists at
> >> all, but only econometricists. They attempt to describe and measure the
> >> economy but not to understand it in any fundamental way. All the
> >> "economists" we can think of during, roughly, the last century have
been
> >> either econometricists or economic journalists of greater or lesser
> >> brilliance, and have given insights of greater or lesser relevance.
None
> >of
> >> them actually got to the root of the matter, least of all Keynes who
was
> >> merely a Bloomsbury, quasi-Fabian elitist.
> >>
> >> For real economists, we still have to go back to the geniuses of the
> >> subject, to those who grappled with economics within the context of the
> >> other big issues of the human condition -- of demographics, politics,
> >> trade, disease, cultural differences and so on. They were polymaths
more
> >> than merely economists. We have to skip over many "economists" of the
last
> >> century who dwelt on, and burnished, one or two facets of the subject
and
> >> go back to Marx, Ricardo, Malthus, Smith, Say . . . all the way to
> >> Aristotle (though there must have been a few before him who have gone
> >> unrecorded). Even though some of the true economists of the past may
have
> >> gone wildly wrongly -- wholly or partially -- it is only these, with
both
> >a
> >> wide and deep view of economics within the whole field of human
activity
> >> who can be called true economists.
> >>
> >> Harry calls the pretenders of the last century "neo-classical
economists".
> >> He also has his own hero, George. However, none of these seem to be
> >> interested in the other great human sciences which have also been
> >advancing
> >> during the course of the last century. Or, if they are aware of them,
they
> >> haven't made any attempt to enfold their subject within the larger view
as
> >> the geniuses of the past would have done. None of them has considered
> >> evolution, for example. Certainly no current "economist" wants to talk
> >> about anthropology, of the relative productivities of the three great
> >> economic systems so far (hunter-gathering, agriculture,
> >industrialisation),
> >> of the genetic motivations within all of us, etc.
> >>
> >> Just as the subject of economics in its heyday was not called
economics,
> >> but "political philosophy", so I think that the "economics" of the
future
> >> will actually emerge via another subject, and another discipline. A
more
> >> balanced and deeper view of economics might well be supplied by a
future
> >> anthropologist or a geneticist, for example, or some brand new
discipline.
> >>
> >> You might well say: "But what has this got to do with the inequalities
> >that
> >> Krugman describes?". I would suggest that a relevant theory of
economics
> >> would involve more than a passing reference to the similarity of our
> >genes.
> >> Or, in simple, terms, let's not demonize rich people (even though some
of
> >> them may not be attractive specimens) because anyone of us would
readily
> >> accept the opportunity to be very rich.
> >>
> >> Instead, we need a deep enquiry into the way that inequality has waxed
and
> >> waned throughout the history and pre-history of man. It's not a new
> >> phenomenon at all. I get the impression that inequality rises steeply
> >> whenever there's a surge in productivity due to new energy sources or
> >> significant innovations, but declines in-between times. This hypothesis
> >> needs much more analysis than I can possibly give it here but I could
> >> illustrate this briefly in terms of the period Krugman describes by
> >> suggesting that the extremes of inequality in America at around the
> >1880 --
> >> the robber baron era -- was caused by the immense strides in industrial
> >> productivity that were brought about by rapid expansion of coal mining
and
> >> railway transportation. The more recent increase in inequality can be
> >> explained, in my mind, by the vast expansion in access to cheap oil,
and
> >> more recently gas, since the 1950/60s.
> >>
> >> The intriguing question to ask, of course, is what will happen to
> >> equality/inequality when oil and gas start giving out during the next
> >20/30
> >> years? It think we can't possibly answer that until we know what the
next
> >> energy technology is going to be. If civilisation is going to continue
in
> >> some form or other, the new technology will have to be a huge one in
order
> >> to replace the enormous role of oil and gas at present. I think it's
going
> >> to depend very much on what sort of investment is going to be required.
Is
> >> it going to need finance in the main (as needed today in, say, in
> >> developing an oil field), or will it be a mixture of finance and a high
> >> level of intellectual know-how? If the former, then the new energy
> >> technology will throw up yet another surge in inequality, I'm sure; if
the
> >> latter, then there's a chance that the new prosperity will be more
evenly
> >> dispersed (so long as the already-rich don't monopolise access to
> >knowledge
> >> by means of intellectual copyright).
> >>
> >> Keith
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> >--
> >> ------------
> >>
> >> Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com
> >> 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
> >> Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
________________________________________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> --------------
> Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
> Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ________________________________________________________________________
