Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall. Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. And all the King's horses and all the King's men couldn't put Humpty together again. I wouldn't ask for fairness or readiness to include in this case.
On 8 Sep., 06:36, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > Other means would also include the shuffle of paper and a work force > making money off of other people's money or assets= huge. Is the > barter system a fairer means of exchange? > > On Sep 7, 4:40 pm, ashok tewari <[email protected]> wrote: > > > " I think this is an important thread, Vam." > > > It could be, Molly, but is not yet. In a sense, we all have ' arrived at ' > > ideas and values, whatever that might be. That per se may not thwart having > > a dialogue amongst us. What would is this inability to ensure or readiness > > to correct so that our ideas and values include all, here and now, and not > > in some future that ' history ' will unfold, even if there are people who > > are not even aware of those same ideas and values, much less subscribe. > > > To be true, honest dialogues and true discussions are rarely possible, > > anywhere at any age. Because what we espouse, seek to advance and are > > protective about, excludes the others, even if they profess to speak ' in > > the name of the people.' > > > On an immediate level, dialogue with some individuals becomes impossible > > because they can brook no disagreement, or because they find you > > disagreeable. That's pretty straight forward and happens all the time, a > > mere fact of life. > > > But Humpty Dumpty and Alice can still have a dialogue, with a simple query : > > so, what do YOU mean when you use the term ' capitalism ?' So long as the > > two are ready to include each other in their understanding. A discussion > > would be impossible if that readiness to include were not there. For > > instance, it's when either of them are unmindful of huge populations that > > the system does not serve and, in fact, marginalise, with just the Hegelian > > trust in history for them, for now, that the dialogue would become > > impossible. > > > It is this readiness to include each other in our understanding that makes > > discussions and dialogues possible, despite cultural and perspectival > > diversity, past disagreements and disagreeability. > > > On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Wonderful quote, Francis. Alice's bigger viewpoint of the Logos of > > > the words we use may be lost on Humpty Dumpty in his need to express > > > authority through "mastery", of words, identity of view, and > > > reluctance to consider another meaning. This may indeed be the crux > > > of the barriers to communication on the topic of capitalism or any > > > other, as " people began ' arriving ' at their fixed and > > > hardened perspectives, views or values. Which makes an open > > > conversation impossible, for there is mere reiteration of known > > > positions" > > > > By Logos, I mean the traditional sense of the word, the "meaning that > > > passes between you and me," which takes into account connotation, > > > denotation, linguistics and semantics. These are the processes > > > fleshed out in honest and open dialogue. Groups often get stuck in > > > defining terms. Anyone entering the dialogue with an ax to grind, a > > > need to be right or feel injured, stops dialogue and keeps the group > > > stuck in argument (or outright abuse), and there are thousands if not > > > millions of places in cyberspace ready to engage on this level. > > > Violent language, fallacious arguments, cynical humor and personal > > > attacks are all barriers to communication, often by design if a person > > > in the group is more interested in talking only about themselves or > > > what they make the words mean as masters of them. But we all know the > > > story of Humpty Dumpty. > > > > Dialogue takes a knowledge of other group members and respect for > > > differences in language and culture before semantic differences can be > > > flushed out, and common understanding of terms agreed upon. Then, > > > different viewpoints can be expressed and appreciated. There are then > > > those wonderful moments when we can experience our own viewpoints > > > expanding, as the meaning that passes between you and I gains > > > dimensionality. > > > > I think this is an important thread, Vam. Thanks for starting it. > > > > On Sep 5, 5:37 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Like many terms used in public discourse, Ashok/Vam, sometimes the > > > > only answer is that given by Humpty Dumpty :-): > > > > > "`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, > > > > `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' > > > > > `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so > > > > many different things.' > > > > > `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- > > > > that's all.'" > > > > >http://www.sabian.org/Alice/lgchap06.htm > > > > > Francis > > > > > On Sep 4, 5:17 pm, ashok tewari <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > little time ? ! ... indeed. > > > > > > But that's not the issue I'd highlighted, Fran. It was about " what > > > *people > > > > > mean when they use the term* ' capitalism.' " Not how it means in Das > > > > > Kapital. > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 7:25 PM, frantheman < > > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > Well, if anyone's got a little time on their hands, here's an > > > > > > introduction to the subject of capitalism :-) > > > > > > >http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Das_Kapital > > > > > > > Francis > > > > > > > On Sep 3, 7:56 pm, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I do sense an aspect of timelessness in the platform, on which > > > people > > > > > > > with fundamental questions or doubts met and discoursed to > > > > > > > clarify. > > > > > > > > What happened was people began ' arriving ' at their fixed and > > > > > > > hardened perspectives, views or values. Which makes an open > > > > > > > conversation impossible, for there is mere reiteration of known > > > > > > > positions. Like, it would be disappointing if we came to clear the > > > > > > > ground and found it littered with buildings of all sorts, > > > > > > > including > > > > > > > those one may disagree with or dislike. > > > > > > > > I believe the developments take nothing away from the timelessness > > > of > > > > > > > ME. But we need to go back to discussing fundamental issues, > > > aspects > > > > > > > or terms. For instances, I am till date intrigued by what people > > > mean > > > > > > > when they use the term ' capitalism.' Ideally, the user should be > > > able > > > > > > > to enlighten us with all ideate dimensions to the term - > > > > > > > practice, > > > > > > > structure, economic values system, moral values, ethical values, > > > and > > > > > > > way - of - life beliefs and philosophy. > > > > > > > > The discussion would of course veer to alternate systems and > > > > > > > philosophies ... and so on. The participants definitely make their > > > own > > > > > > > informed or cultural choices along the way. Life itself clarifies > > > the > > > > > > > rest of the way. And perhaps the discourse gets upgraded ... > > > > > > > sometime ... if there are enough interested members to infuse life > > > !! > > > > > > -- > > > > > ASHOK TEWARI > > > -- > > ASHOK TEWARI- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -
