I guess the new world order is just the best flowery speech of the day
On Aug 31, 10:32 am, Vam <[email protected]> wrote:
> This was a great read ( alongwith a couple of your other recent
> posts ), Neil ! You are finally shedding the politesse you instinctly
> dislike in the first place.
>
> Indeed, the vision must precede thought and talk, which otherwise
> bumbles forth without substance. Even evidence must link to defined
> values in the vision, not to tell us how impossible it is to realise
> those values for all of us in practice. We already know that. Instead,
> we would like evidence to point to ways along which we may proceed to
> make a start with, say, minimising the waste competition is inflicting
> on our present or the cost liabilities we are incurring today on
> humanity's account in future. As is required, we could look at '
> exceptional ' experiments already being conducted ( e.g. Gramin Bank
> in Bangladesh ), or even create experiments, to show us what would be
> best to start up on towards realising those envisioned values. The EU
> experiment is a case in point.
>
> Finally, I suppose, we need to be able to do something ( different
> from what has gone on and brought us so far ) so as to be able to
> honestly tell ourselves that we indeed deserve a better collective
> life. In fraternity, as Fran admirably says.
>
> And, I can see even with the mini - world we have on this forum, we
> each need to examine our self for long merely to know why that '
> vision ' is preferable and worth it. I might not agree with Pat's
> dogma but we all can see how empowering his well - examined vision
> is !
>
> On Aug 31, 9:38 pm, 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
>
> ...
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
