An easy intro to economic theory might be "The Worldly Philosophers" by Robert L. Heilbroner- very readable and still available, I believe. Also, "Three Junes" by Julia Glass is a sensitive novel of homosexuality and death. I was raised in ignorance/innocence I had to unlearn as did many- must have been some sort of shell-shock of our parent post WWII- strange, since many were of a hustling era.
On Sep 2, 10:14 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm no expert on the Greeks to be sure. I remember that women got to > leave home when they were about 60 to go to funerals! I understand > the 'men of their time' arguments - and we tend to forget Greece is > really middle eastern - but I have real problems with the 'high' > philosophy and no grasp of the wrongs on the treatment of slavery, > indenture and women. It hardly suggests much of a route to a > materially enlightened society. The Italian aristocracy was almost > exclusively homosexual in the 17th century and much of the Middle East > remains 'homosocial'. In scientific argument and practice we often > work hard at excluding wads of common sense and religious muck under > pretense of objectivity, yet we are really trying to include all > options that aren't ludicrous (and we entertain these too to some > extent). I find human thinking that ends up with notions that a sex > or race is 'unequal' or unmeriting not wrong but intolerable, but this > doesn't lead me to believe we can't have abortion or not give deaf > people hearing if we can (and so on) - the intolerable remains a > heuristic open to situational particularism. Equality doesn;t mean I > won't lift the heavy box, think sport should be unisex, regard men as > potential sexual partners and so on - but it does mean I don't approve > of daft notions of banning girls from playing soccer because they > can't share the changing rooms. And it does mean I tend to despise > argument that excludes what should matter in the pretense of > objectivity. Our people who can't do much academic are not sub-human, > but I suspect much intellectualism is - including daft economists > suggesting inter-generational mortgages, or that we have to have a > super-rich for the benefit of all. I am not led to conclusion much > and think this is a result of perverse schooling and a fixation with > 'strong leadership'. My guess is we need moral assertion on the basis > of likely outcomes on social issues and that we are ignoring an > interesting history of this at our peril, including the distraction > from actual change that wordy words becomes when we lack courage. The > key in this is probably deep in a form of mentality that can't work > out the metaphor of fiddling while Rome burns or banksterism as a > criminally organised road to serfdom. Socrates called the unexamined > life pointless and its easy to agree faced with yet another class of > students who don't read, populations who vote 'on the economy stupid' > knowing nothing of economics - yet he was wrong. What we have failed > to do is provide the technology of it that people can use. > > On Sep 2, 1:05 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I dug up the file this afternoon- Spring "73- no mention of the > > professor's name but a reference to Tuft's- another university. He was > > older and soft spoken- his shirt sleeves had been shortened for some > > reason. I got an "A" for the final grade so I must have hooked into > > the material and my notes look complete and tidy. The course covered > > more than Plato- it was called Greek Thought/Classics Dept.- and I was > > taking 3 other courses that quarter. But this simply opened a can of > > worms=memory. > > > So all these years, Plato just sat waiting with a collection of Modern > > Library books- so out of sight-out of mind! In the meantime, I had my > > hands full with ordinary life plus in Plato's world I would have been > > stuck at home. I thought the Greeks preferred young boys and wives > > were for breeding- though Pericles seems to have loved Aspasia... > > > On Sep 1, 5:56 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > You may have been taught without a caste or read Plato through someone > > > who liked him rigsy. I even teach Kierkegaard as a Danish humourist. > > > I found PLato as despicable as Joseph Heller in 'Picture This' or > > > Popper in vol. 1 of The Enemies of the Open Society. There seems no > > > reason to regard an elite who can learn at least some of what's hard > > > to special privileges, but at the sane time trying to mash the stuff > > > into people's heads by academic means seems cruel. I share something > > > of Vam's view that a small number in power create a system that causes > > > great discomfort and disempowers others (social mice are a good study > > > in point). Finland gets a lot of its people to high standards of > > > education (one can google the PISA studies) - so there's a lot we > > > could do. > > > The problem as I see it is that we educate to make people 'successful' > > > in a society that has gone wrong instead of to change it. And the > > > vast majority can't cope with what we have made this education and I > > > now believe this is cruel. I guess what I want to see is a society in > > > which people can fit in without a caste system or some equality in > > > mediocrity. Democracy isn't it for me - I tend to see it and its > > > economics as religious and past sell by date. We need something more > > > peaceful that recognises its been the best game in town and its > > > faults. > > > Education based on making individuals 'moral' or 'virtuous' really has > > > to come after structuring social freedom - we have to be brave enough > > > to try this. A young American student burst into my office some years > > > ago (I don't hold a regular position or teach much now) after a > > > business ethics class. He was appalled by the teacher (my ex-boss - a > > > jerk) and claimed the lesson was just about teaching excuses for bad > > > management behaviour. The ethics teacher was one of the most > > > unethical perverts it had been my misfortune to meet. Soon there was > > > a queue and I was asked to run an alternative. I'd conclude after 20 > > > years that much management teaching simply reinforces prejudice and > > > the wrong way to do things. I'd sum it up with something research > > > methods students with work experience say - 'you don't expect us to do > > > any of this at work do you Neil - telling the truth there is like > > > writing a resignation letter'. They are soon assured i don't. > > > > My feeling is that much early religion may have been about rebellious > > > moral assertion - freedom from indenture. This has been lost and > > > maybe we need something like this back. This is probably what I mean > > > by something 'more simple' Lee. Teaching (effectively) 'honesty is > > > the best policy' seems wrong in a world that doesn't reward honesty - > > > even if one does this through difficult concepts. We need a movement > > > to make life happier and more decent and then maybe John Rawls would > > > make sense. But we can't do it by teaching Rawls. Or by designing > > > the life for Plato's few through massive training in which we become > > > so moral we deign to share wives, in a manner that rather suggests we > > > own them. > > > > On Sep 1, 4:08 pm, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Just joining in... with a Wow ! > > > > > Much of what Neil deprecates in ineducable human beings is also > > > > evident in this very group discussion ... morality, ego, ethics, > > > > or read Plato social order / values / effects ... and much talk, many > > > > words, wider > > > > canvas, saying for the sake of saying, an activity that satisfies ... > > > > but really going nowhere, reaching noplace. > > > > > Lee's relative morality is a fact... not the truth. The difference is > > > > that facts are truths of the moment and truths are facts for life. > > > > Facts can be spotted, by individuals on account of what the moment or > > > > one's situation in life means to him, and by the collective on issues > > > > which Neil is acutely concerned about. In contrast, truths are only > > > > available, if at all, either when one is breathing for the last time > > > > or to one who has lived through expelling that "last" breath while > > > > still relatively young ! > > > > > The founder of Lee's spiritual order has no such " relativistic " > > > > ambiguities in what he prescribes, both as ethics and morals. They > > > > very explicit, and abundantly clear when implicit. So does the Buddha. > > > > So is Spinoza. And Kant. Or, Gandhi and Luther King. And Faulkner, > > > > Steinbeck, Camus. And the reason why are clear, even when they admit > > > > the relativistic paradigms commonplace or narrate the saga of human > > > > failings, is that they have a vision IN TRUTH that is simple... Say, A > > > > SOCIETY IN WHICH PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE THE NEED TO, AND THEY ACTUALLY DO > > > > NOT, SETTLE ANYTHING WITH VIOLENCE ! If you take a representative > > > > worldwide survey 99% of the population would find it most agreeable > > > > thing to happen. The 1% who'd disagree are those who actually hold on > > > > to power and spoils for themselves through the exercise of violence. > > > > > It is this which is SIMPLE. The rest of it complex, more complex, > > > > absolutely knotted and compounded to boot. But that didn't deter them > > > > from proceeding down to laying out the content and elements of this > > > > ONE simple truth... and what it implies for each one of us as > > > > individuals, our morals and our ethics. > > > > > What comes in the way of us actually subscribing to such morals and > > > > ethics is IGNORANCE... of what ? that vision, that simple truth. And > > > > EGO comes into the picture because it loves this ignorance, of not > > > > having to subscribe to and subject itself to such rules for itself, > > > > morals and ethics, because the fact of our moment is that they do not > > > > pay. Why ? Because the people who will make the payment do not > > > > subscribe to such rules and, in fact, require that we who are looking > > > > to be paid also do not do so ! > > > > > This in fact is the nature of the argument I see for ourselves. And > > > > that we do dissipate ourselves in mere words, learning and desire to > > > > say the last word ! > > > > > On Sep 1, 7:10 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Democracy is simply a new system > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
