Harry, In the arts there are two schools. One is classical and formal while the other is organic and called Romantic. Both have the same elements but work from different perspectives. One is about efficiency of form while the other is about the efficiency of expansion of growth. Both claim supremacy and both claim the other to be heretical. In reality it is like the digital and analogue views of physics.
You assumptions are pure classicism and are only a view not the view. Classicism is contractile while Romanticism is expansive. Reality is both and more. Continue below > Ray, > > You are right. After not mentioning the assumptions for many > months, I have quoted them once or twice lately. But, only > because they are appropriate. The assumptions like all > self-evident truths cover all cases. There is no self-evident truth. Mutual agreements are facts not truths. Truths are relative and are the support of individual universes. We don't even see the same circles since the human eye is incapable of it and we all different experiences and memories that create the circles we construct. Vision is made up of things that we cannot see together but must generally construct in our memory. My life is not about doing things for the least but learning the most. Efficiency of energy is one element of that but most plans around such are too incomplete and end up making a mess. So I would rephrase your assumptions for myself. My desires are based upon my perceptions and their projections and are not unlimited except in so much as I believe myself to be unlimited, which I don't. I strive to learn the most, focusing on what I must to do achieve that knowledge but rather than doing the least for it, I always do a little more because I can't know either my universe or the world well enough to truly have the mastery I need unless I operate from a principle of expansion rather than contraction. In the arts we call it "extension tension" which to the classical anatomist is a contradiction in terms but to a dancer is the only movement that avoids injury by being the greatest example of Mastery. Recently functional biomechanics has shown that "extension tension" does indeed exist give the most recent study on the muscular innervation. e.g. the I bands extend from the H bands in the act graded, skilled work while contraction has a distinct lack of control. In my fifty assumptions I spoke of everything emerging from the systems of the body. Your system is based in the old antagonist function structure of the body which was logically limited and which caused many injuries in sports and dance. Eventually the high cost of atheletes wouldn't tolerate the failure and they developed sports medicine and discovered how the muscles really did develop high level control. We agree about land ownership but your supply demand stuff is pure 19th century and has caused a disaster in the Arts and is doing the same now in education and the healthcare system. So, when you, or someone > else, delivers to us an instance as if it an important basic > truth, I must mischievously be impelled to point it out. The > advantage of natural laws is that they (should) handle all > instances. There are no natural laws. All laws are human constructs of the human mind. The world is an agreement based upon what works. Or doesn't. Thus, if we appreciate the Law of Gravity, when a > spoon falls off a table on to the floor, we are not dumbfounded - > we expect it to happen. Gravity is a word to define something that works for now with our mechanics but it could change tomorrow and be called something else. Disease was called the "vapors" for centuries and it worked. People didn't get sick when they were kept away from bad smells. But the underlying story was just a story. Now we have a better, more agreeable one since sulphur also smells bad but doesn't kill with the same process as human waste. > > So, with human behavior - we can expect people to behave in > certain ways. No we can't. That belief is totally limited in its application and grows out of the old "Every valley shall be exalted and every mountain and hill made low" and then God will come biblical beliefs. I like Mountains and Hills and different social and cultural constructs. They make my life rich and interesting. >When we know that, we are ahead of the game. Only if you are in a culture that agrees with you. If you aren't it makes a mess. > If we > refuse to recognize it - we are either dumb, or we want to make > things harder for ourselves. Harry, it is about fitting in the proper system. That is what music and violin would have taught you had you not decided that it would take too much effort to achieve the enjoyment. You have to get out of the envelope and see the options available in other circumstances. > Worse, we want to make solutions more difficult to find, but I > think that is evident even in the pages of FW. Now why would we want to do that Harry? > I should make clear that I don't teach high school, though I have > guested in classrooms hundreds of times. I teach junior and > senior high school teachers. So you are the SOB who taught the high school teachers who taught my son to expect more for as little as he could possibly get by with? Well, he's not done so well with that attitude but he is an artist and not a retailer. Maybe it works in retail. Remember that three hits out of ten is not bad in baseball but a disaster on the piano. > Most of my teaching life has been spent teaching adults, or > teaching teachers of adults. Same > So, when I see a need . . . . . I wish you had continued to study the violin. You should get the movie "together" about that violinist father and son from China. It is now available on DVD. > However, I must say I have a soft spot for your opinions. Several > years ago, when the assumptions came up, they were mostly > discarded out of hand. Sometimes, by people who spend reams of > writing on subjects of which we really know very little. And by > economists whose textbooks are chockablock with hundreds of > assumptions (whose truth rests squarely on their statement and > little else). I have a soft spot for you. But your opinions that work for you, don't work for me. That doesn't make you bad and me right or me wrong and you good. But we could learn from one another. > > You discussed the assumptions and asked questions. Bully for you! > If you accept them even tentatively, you will not be so surprised > at the behavior of people. I love to be surprised by the behaviour of people. > > If you, or anyone else, doesn't agree, simply come up with an > exception or two. I did, above and three years ago but you ignored them. That should knock them out of contention right > away. If you can't find exceptions, then stop the argument and > swallow them down. Every human statement has an exception Harry. Science makes its stories out of much fewer facts than a concert pianist has to control for interpretation. If computers were able to control the elements of music, scale, harmony, rhythm, and the layering of words then we would have universal translators but we don't. Instead we are like astronomy prior to the Hubbell just taking educated guesses most of the time. And you unfortuately are tied to blaming people for the failure of your laws. I think you should consider another option. It isn't nice or even humane to blame others for things that they didn't do or had no control over. REH > > Harry > > ******************************************** > Henry George School of Social Science > of Los Angeles > Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 > Tel: 818 352-4141 -- Fax: 818 353-2242 > http://haledward.home.comcast.net > ******************************************** > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ray > Evans Harrell > Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 7:49 PM > To: Christoph Reuss; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Re: Logic 101 for Georgists > > > You're living proof of where privatization leads to. > > > > Chris > > > Now, now Chris, you don't know that. I suspect you never met the > man. For > all you know he could be Selma in disguise on another e-mail. > That's the > fun of the internet. We could all be different from what we > say. > > You are the power of your argument. My problem with Harry is > that he seems > to be practicing quoting his assumptions much too much to know > them for > sure. Or maybe he considers that we are all his high school > class. > Take him on for what he says, not for what you believe he is. > > I made the same mistake with you not so long ago and got in over > my head in > your language even though I've worked in it for many years. One > has to > give the other person the right to be themselves and when it is > so difficult to know what is really being said underneathe it > all, in your first langauge, writing and a second langauge is > even funnier and more difficult > albiet interesting. I'll never forget when I found out recently > the > meaning of "Fanny" in British. God only knows what I've been > saying to Keith all these years. > > My wife just corrected me on three words for blacks that > originated in the > South and have lost their meaning in Oklahoma. We all say "Oh > Boy" as in > "hooray this is wonderful" but in the South it is a racial slur. > And that > is just English. Its a wonder that we can even type. > > REH > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Christoph Reuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 5:31 PM > Subject: [Futurework] Re: Logic 101 for Georgists > > > > Harry, > > > > If what you say is true, then the Canadian minister for > International > Trade > > spouted drivel. Else, a lecturer at a funny LA school that > cannot > > even afford its own domain name spouted drivel. The latter > seems > > more likely, especially if one logically examines the contents > of what was said. > > > > You're living proof of where privatization leads to. > > > > Chris > > > > > > Harry Pollard wrote: > > > I said: > > > > > > "You thought, for some reason the Pettigrew quote was > significant > > > when actually it says nothing." > > > > > > It was: > > > > > > "In Ricardo's time, however, the factors of production were > > > essentially immobile. This is no longer the case. In the new > > > economy, all the decisive factors -- trade, production, > technology, > > > distribution, finance -- are integrated. On a world scale > these > > > factors are extremely mobile. Consequently, the effects of > tree > > > trade are no longer necessarily positive for everyone." > > > > > > This is the sort of drivel that is designed for people who > have > > > taken Logic 101 and consequently are unable to think for > themselves. > > > This forces them to take bits of not altogether coherent > nonsense > > > and present it as a revealed truth. > > > > > > No wonder you support the corporate protectionists against > the > > > people. > > > > > > Harry > > > > > > ******************************************** > > > Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 > > > > Tujunga CA 91042 > > > Tel: 818 352-4141 -- Fax: 818 353-2242 > > > http://haledward.home.comcast.net > > > ******************************************** > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ~~~~~~~~~~~ > > SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it > contains the > keyword > > "igve". > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.541 / Virus Database: 335 - Release Date: 11/14/2003 > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
