Neil how about listing the potential solutions as you see them? I would apperciate it as it is not something I have a talent for.. Thank you Allan
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 5:47 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I think there is always a standing excuse on the greater good - that > 'irrational capitalism' provides for it better than any rational > solution. Our thinking is puny at such levels and we have allowed > over-breeding into poverty just at the point we could have established > sensible regulation without cruelty. Much of the discussion is > barking - like Chinese oligarchs saying we will all have to work > harder and longer when There is actually not that much work to do > thanks to productivity (other than in making oligarchs richer). > We talk in moral argument only at simplistic levels - however abstruse > the language gets and have little grasp of how complex systems work > and how they might be controlled. Gabby is always right in my view to > point to the issue that control easily becomes the problem as even > legitimate authority is used illegitimately. Yet there is always a > default and this is what the oligarchs rely on. It's almost like > those pesky downloads that screw your browser settings Allan. > > If one takes a concept like 'artifactuality' - roughly those things > produced as artifacts (which splendidly moves nothing) - we find works > of art, buildings, tools and so on - the mistake is to see this as > human and 'unnatural'. We find animals and plants doing the same in > their terms. I'd even suggest we find molecules doing it, even > water. It's in nature, so what might this mean? If one hands out > vaccines like Gates one can hardly say this is wrong and yet medicine > can be seen as producing poverty through overpopulation. A 'bigger > cake' meaning disproportionate wealth for a few yet still bigger > slices for all seems OK - but what if the bigger cake is burning the > planet (just another case of the tragedy of the Commons)? What if the > disproportion itself is intolerably cruel or inevitably anti- > democratic? > > We have some potential solutions - but I don't see them in much of our > dialogue, even in here. > > On Oct 21, 5:21 am, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > It seems the term "for the greater good ." disappeared from the language > > especially from government. > > Allan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 2:32 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I'm stuck at another level too Chris - it was always little old > > > 'critical me' that got funding and such. When going to such things as > > > university creativity sessions and find them led by some clown with 50 > > > bright ideas to get the business going what do you do other than toss > > > the book '!01 Bright Ideas To Get Your Business Going' on the desk and > > > leave? I found universities not to be centres of excellence but full > > > of dullards or clown rules that prevented real work. I sometimes find > > > a few people to work with, have heard the 'Molly experience' and never > > > seen it do anything but damage - though Molly has an edge I could see > > > getting through. > > > With sports teams and some students you have to stop the pre-selection > > > of defeat - but you also have to spot where the brick walls not to run > > > at are. > > > I had a fantastic chance about 15 years back with a firm that wanted > > > to abolish its organisational structure in favour of project teams, > > > and go paperless. The top level was a great success and the paperless > > > thing worked better than I hoped. There were load of positive payoffs > > > - but huge resentment in the groups doing routine and scut work. All > > > in all though it was a buzz but a lot of people got left behind. I > > > have no problem with this kind of efficiency move - but there should > > > be more consideration of how to work with those who can't cope other > > > than junking to the reserve army of unemployment. Without going into > > > detail, this is why I think we need social solutions not individual > > > ones. And I think the social is too broken to start with letting fear > > > fall away. > > > > > On Oct 20, 10:57 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > "I guess that fear is the load we are experiencing" > > > > > > My world changed immeasurably when the fear fell away. > > > > > > On Oct 19, 1:25 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I can't take it myself to be honest Chris. Derrida used to say we > are > > > > > in spirit positive. In Anglo-Saxon terms he was just a liberal, > almost > > > > > priestly as a bloke over a few beers. I was younger then, still > able > > > > > to knock things over and feel it was worth the bother. I suspect > we > > > > > don't understand "negation" very well. Gabby (bless) always has > some > > > > > - or it seems that way (I remember very positive support of me some > > > > > years back) - and the question arising is when this becomes as much > > > > > censorship as all the other stuff we might brand as that. It isn't > > > > > "negation" or the sting of criticism that really gets to me, more > > > > > selfish attitudes in what I feel as madness, triumphed as positive > but > > > > > perpetual children. I like kids and even childish behaviour as > > > > > entertainment. I can't stand the failure of education in making a > > > > > decent society of responsible adults. > > > > > I've done a lot more than most in playing the game - £7 million in > > > > > research/project grants doesn't come from admissions projects will > > > > > fail in the business plan. But the critical eye has to admit the > > > > > majority fail and I was often signing-off on lies. £9K for > university > > > > > tutoring (outside of science and engineering) goes to fund middle- > > > > > class lifestyles of the university hangers-on not towards the > > > > > education of the young person. When last full-time, I was teaching > > > > > 100 FTEs at least (200 times £9K = £900K in fees leaving £810K > after > > > > > my costs). I could have done a better job for the students with > > > > > properly organised distance learning and a 'university' organised > > > > > around local pubs, theartres and sports clubs done through social > > > > > media - the overhead costed at around £100K (electronic library > > > > > etc.). A better education with much more opportunity for small > > > > > business involvement and so on at under a third of the cost and one > > > > > not building onerous debt. What is negative in this? And sadly, > the > > > > > answer is easy middle-class incomes. I can go on an explain how > even > > > > > these would not be affected as we could expand more practical > > > > > education and work development. I'm talking here of a more social, > > > > > more tutor supported education better than the expensive, debt- > > > > > producing fantasy we're forcing kids into. And one with lots of > local > > > > > creative possibilities with less bureaucracy and vastly increased > > > > > 'civic' involvement. > > > > > You have to 'deconstruct' to get to the above idea - and elsewhere > in > > > > > terms of stuff like agricultural and manufacturing productivity we > > > > > have done this with little thought on the jobs lost by workers - > > > > > indeed we've run roughshod over 'them'. The point in the negation > > > > > should be positive - about the use of efficiency for general well- > > > > > being and the creation of wider prosperity, probably redefined. > > > > > > > What's hard, Chris, is facing-up to what life means to most people > - > > > > > the economics I've never taught (but colleagues have from a single > > > > > text book) leads to a few very rich and the rest in > debt-rent-mortgage > > > > > peonage and the arms' race. It must be obvious we barely have even > > > > > capitalism. It would be great to be able to ignore politics and > the > > > > > status quo, but we need to build so we can. The old phrase from > the > > > > > 50's (I only know from reading) was 'structuring freedom'. The > human > > > > > population has tripled since I was born (I reject personal, > intimate > > > > > responsibility!) - all very 'free' - producing planet burning and > soon > > > > > 'competition for air'. Raising questions about how complex freedom > > > > > is. > > > > > > > The weight on us - if we think for improved practice - is > complexity > > > > > that most use simple Idols on to make their sense. I played rugby > and > > > > > was a cop. The whole Bradford Northern front row were less > > > > > intimidating than the mad munter of some low-life I might nick > with a > > > > > bread knife. The rules and structure of the competition allow > rugby - > > > > > but what rules and structure would allow a decent society. Not > every > > > > > claim can count in trying to do that do should, in principle be > heard > > > > > so we don't 'go total' like some Spanish Fascit (fair typo) > stealing > > > > > babies from their ideologically unsound mothers. > > > > > > > I guess that fear is the load we are experiencing - maybe like > that of > > > > > animals in hierarchies under all kinds of complex leader power - > just > > > > > look what cockroaches and bees do to members in their 'reaching > > > > > consensus rules'. Even the really positive is negative - we can > now > > > > > support human life without much effort - so why do we need poverty? > > > > > That would destroy the motivation of the rest of us now, wouldn't > it? > > > > > The most obvious fact in the world is that most of what we claim we > > > > > want as moral individuals needs a change in what society is and > what > > > > > people can aspire to as persons in it - otherwise we head to the > usual > > > > > human solution, war. > > > > > > > Maybe I should 'out Dilbert' Scott Adams, you do some illustrations > > > > > and pics, and we should watch the fireworks from Bermuda? I like > the > > > > > shadows in Bermuda. > > > > > > > On Oct 19, 3:56 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > I've never had someone so casually create a crushing despair in > me, > > > Neil. > > > > > > Your writing has always affected me greatly, but the sense of > general > > > > > > futility that is often expressed weighs a ton. As someone who > still > > > holds > > > > > > out hope for society's betterment, your words often feel like > > > mountains on > > > > > > my head.The sense of truth in them, I think, is what gives them > so > > > much > > > > > > weight. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:25 PM, archytas <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > The smell of authority gets up my nose however disguised Gabby > - > > > we've > > > > > > > just seen an example in rugby union with a Welsh player sent > off > > > for a > > > > > > > decent tackle and then banned for three games to reinforce the > > > > > > > referee's authority. It all reeks of what people do given > > > authority. > > > > > > > Sport hardly matters, but the example is good. I don't know > what's > > > > > > > happening in Detroit. I do know that in Spain a ring of > bastards > > > > > > > (priests, nuns, doctors) removed 40,000 kids from their > parents and > > > > > > > adopted through mass baby trafficking beyond the Fascists. I > was > > > > > > > tempted once to become an anarcho-existential organisational > > > > > > > practitioner and break some windows from the inside, but > somehow > > > > > > > jargon remains with the same smell. > > > > > > > Molly's got a point - the problem is that words so rarely match > > > what > > > > > > > happens. The gadfly of irony loses its sting too,much as > > > increasing > > > > > > > lexicon (equafinality, artifactuality etc.) ... and paradigms > of > > > > > > > synergy fade in the dust of asset strippers. > > > > > > > > > So where are the solutions we might express? > > > > > > > > > On Oct 18, 8:15 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Puh, this is the flowery version of "I am against dualism" > > > (compare: All > > > > > > > > power plays are based in these memes because they require > > > opposition), > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > is understandable if the writer gets payed by the line. > Whereby > > > the scent > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > power being related to hierarchies is decently overtoned, now > > > isn't that > > > > > > > > lovely. No mod here has the power over the ban button, this > is > > > me here > > > > > > > > trolling and spreading an unpleasant odor. Puh, could someone > > > please > > > > > > > > let in some fresh air? > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Molly <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Power relations work only in a group with leadership who's > > > view is > > > > > > > > > based on power and the idea that "i" or "we" can have more > or > > > less > > > > > > > > > than > > > > ... > > > > read more » -- ( ) |_D Allan Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
