Yes Neil, they are of the same ilk. However, I would rather sail with a Kennedy than attend a faux Bar-B-Q w/a Bush...and perhaps get shot by a Dick! ;-)
Of course, if we all decided to go into public life, it would be the end of capitalism. Many here would cringe at that thought! ....Perhaps this could be added to your thought experiment.... On Aug 31, 9:38 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I'll come back on that one BB - it does strike me we ought to be > considering the Kennedys and Bushes as the same thing. I guess I'd > have to vote Democrat, but it would be a lesser of two evils thing. > Karl Popper wrote 'The Open Society and Its Enemies' long ago - one > can clearly see 'dirty hands' is an enemy of openness. The mother of > modern Parliaments is English and stems from a very restricted notion > of representation and even who should be represented (following > earlier models from classic times). I think we can make a good case > our elections are not free and open and not geared to modern ideas of > freedom. Mentioning conspiracy is dangerous as one is instantly > branded a nutter believing we are run by lizards or such - often the > term 'deep politics' is used instead. The most loony conspiracy > theorist (other than boring UFO nutters) in my time was the CIA > Director in the 60s convinced Russia and China were only bombing each > other to convince the west they weren't communist buddies > (Angleton?). The underlying science is that of thought experiments, > which can be very wild indeed. Physics relies on them. > > I may as well yawn on a while. Magna Carta addressed the Freemen of > England, which meant not many people and no women. The Demos in > Athens was also restricted and had no problem ethnically cleansing > neighbours to increase grain production. The Soviets, with their > alleged Marxism had no such problems either, nor the Maoist China. > The eventual question is whether we are held in conspiracy - there > have been many religious ones and I don't see the capitalist-communist > ones as much different. Even in science, 'evidence' requires faith > and understanding of approximation (the Ludwig and Snell programmes). > I'd say the classic conspiracy theory takes the form of Bishop Usher's > notion that the world began in 4004 BC complete with fossil record and > memories. Such a theory is impervious to evidence as anything can be > made to fit it. We don't see UFOs because they hide them and lie to > us about sightings. There were WMDs in Iraq but we couldn't find them > when we got there because they moved them ... > > Generally in science we don't put of faith in the truth of theory, but > rather take the less risky stance of belief in evidence (even knowing > this is in spin with theory). In the history of science, theories get > falsified or amended as we understand the evidence differently. What > we are short of in a theory of political economics as if people matter > is an understanding of this. I can't explain in abstract in the space > here. > > I'd want a vote that put people in charge of relatively small regional > systems of fairness and representation in legal matters - almost local > law centres. These people could largely remain local and vote > electronically in national-international matters - we'd vote for more > centralised Parliaments too. The overall aim would be to control > people given power and stop us getting hung up on 'great leaders' and > get on creating viable, sustainable, local working and living > practices whilst working to wither away war. I can see many problems, > but this is what I would want to vote for and cannot. I tend to > believe we could have plenty in the world through more work for fair > pay, intelligent uses of technology and so on. I'd like to see this > as a world issue - groups of us committing to it and forming a > policing-military umbrella designed to protect the democracy entailed. > > This would be the beginning of my thought experiment. It needs > refinement. We could then look at what evidence fits. > > One could do the same with the idea that Blair, Brown and Mandelson > are 'CIA' . The idea might not be to prove they are, but just how > exposed to such infiltration our system is. > > We lack these debates in public discourse - they are stopped by forms > of ad hominem attack (often silent) and because we are so interested > in UFO drivel. We should know how are politicians get on and how > anyone or any vested interest might influence that. We should be > interested in other forms of representation - perhaps much more direct > forms in the daily detail of living. I think we if surveyed TV, film > and newspapers for a month we'd find only evidence of the absence of > ideas other than business as usual and opiate programming. A survey > of academic ideas would be a bit different (abolish poverty with one > cent income tax - in an accounting journal and so on). We might even > be able to understand the protocols on which people do vote and what > people do think is fact (we sort of know but it's frightening). > > What we generally get is arguments that are not intended for anyone > interested in evidence and those that are commercially attractive. > That and the patronising repetition of drivel by presenters too stupid > to think of anything other than their image and high salary. I'm not > arguing here - just putting a few touches out. There is a question > about whether we have any forum for real dialogue and how quickly > anything we could create would last if it showed glimmers of success > (Baudrillard's 'black hole'). > > On 31 Aug, 16:16, BB47 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Do you have any thoughts on conspiracy theories? > > > On Aug 31, 7:44 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I wonder what May Jo's family thought of the air time given to the > > > great senator? > > > > I go with Orn on what at bottom is a lack of honesty in our systems. > > > I go with Molly in that we have to believe in something to create > > > anything, though I don't see the dynasties as having any solutions - > > > they are very much part of the problem to me, preventing people being > > > connected for the right reasons. > > > > We conflate issues in 'dirty hands'. Knowing one has tracked down a > > > miserable kidnapping killer, it's hard to justify not using his foul > > > engines on him or his female familiar to find out where the victims > > > are to save them or bring closure for relatives, but it is rare > > > outside literature to be in such a position. More likely, the cops > > > and other agencies will screw up (as in Baby P or the recent US case > > > currently in the news) and not act on the evidence and criminal > > > records in plain view. In the Detroux case in Belgium, the cops > > > actually sealed the last victims to their fate by sealing up the house > > > they were captive in. When it comes to terrorism, the authorities are > > > clearly demonising (as does literature) whilst the only people we are > > > catching are either totally innocent or pathetic. We have seen one > > > bungle after another - and this is surely the longer case in a history > > > in which imperial plunder has continued. Here, even in military > > > terms, Europe (then including Russia) blundered in 1861 because it was > > > blind to the real threat (the USA) because we were more concerned to > > > plunder Africa, the sub-continent, China and the middle east. This > > > continued after WW2 with the US as the only major player, able to swat > > > the old European players like flies. Think of the lies about Vietnam > > > (in the UK this was a much more secret time of wars against Indonesia > > > and so on). What one would like to see before engaging in dirty hands > > > is real evidence of what the problems are. Given the record of our > > > authorities in small-scale stuff like criminal cases, it appears we > > > can't even see the obvious. > > > I've met 'Jihadis' around the world and in my classrooms - some > > > nutters, but generally decent people swayed by their own version of > > > the propaganda oused around us - the decency taken advantage of. Many > > > of these people were laughed at by their contemporaries. The Wahhabi > > > extreme is very frightening, but even this is a creation of British > > > atrocities in India (in large part) and the area generally. > > > I'd say the idea of trying to negotiate peace looking down other > > > people's gun-barrels is dumb. The is no point in conflating the ideal > > > of peace with forcing an absolute ideal of non-violence on oneself - > > > otherwise those women who choose to hate our soldiers could no doubt > > > convert the men who would stick them in Burkhas if it were not for our > > > soldiers. The notion of hordes of feminists in attack mode against > > > tribal sexism is intriguing, but I have seen no volunteers. They are > > > much more likely to beat up on those like me, who they must sense are > > > no threat to their freedom to be what they want and have a just sense > > > of what force can be used for. > > > The dirty hands argument is 'Catch 22' - we can't have it in the open > > > for 'reasons of national security' - yet without the true reasoning > > > and evidence we can't do rational analysis. Here I think Orn has long > > > pointed to a form of evidence in plain sight, yet behind the ouse or > > > kitsch of edutainment and the lies of pride we are dragged up with. > > > What literature I have seen (generally TV) on terrorism makes me > > > believe our security services now dominate the popular genre, probably > > > directly by using writers. James Bond, Sleeper Cell, Spooks and > > > almost any action film are probably most people's 'reality' - NCIS is > > > a personal favourite because it's so crude. I often hear the taught > > > morality of dirty hands from these 'lectures' in my classes, almost > > > exclusively from people who have never been anywhere other than a rock > > > concert. The paranoid version of this was 'Three Days of the > > > Condor' (title a bit wrong maybe) - even when you get the truth to the > > > New York Times you are still screwed because 'they' control that too. > > > There are counter-examples in book and film, but these don't have wide > > > appeal (years back we had 'A Very British Coup'). > > > > In all likelihood, the 'CIA' (several organisations really) has > > > penetrated our secret > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
