As with lawyers on a riverbed Orn, a small drowning might be a good start with the politicians.
On 1 Sep, 03:47, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > archy, if only a swamping alone would do it! > > The railroads are traveling so fast these days I am afraid that it > would tale the rather unpredictable act that all new governments arise > from. > > On Aug 31, 3:18 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > There is definitely something in the notion of convincing ourselves we > > deserve a better collective life - even that it is possible. Naomi > > Klein's fairly recent book (was it 'Shock Doctrine'?) points in > > something of the right direction in showing the lack of much link > > between free markets and democracy. I have actually wondered whether > > the only protest we can make is to swamp the political process Orn. > > Thatcher was so worried about it she put up the deposit needed here > > and its actually quite hard to stand even in local elections here. I > > wondered during the Falklands farce whether we were actually going to > > take down mainland Argentina as some kind of food factory for Britain > > because I could see no sense at all in fighting over the Falklands > > themselves. The idea that it was part of a right wing conspiracy of > > control makes a lot of sense - it happened just as we were giving up > > on military force abroad. There has to be more we can know and > > something we can do to stop the current mess just dragging on and on. > > > On 31 Aug, 22:57, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
