Thank you for the ideas Neil,, I for one actually believe ?bankerism? can be controlled but not necessarily with regulations.. It is well known and I think it was discussed here on the financial power of the trust fund especially non-expiring ones,, to the point that they are regulated by the government requiring them to spend the interest.. I have to run I will get back to this when I return.. Allan
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:37 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > My guess is that modern rationality starts with Descartes - though he > doesn't provide a template, just some ground we can get into the > issues through. The great warnings to us on 'solutions' is real > history and the failure of Germany as the most cultured and scientific > nation culminating in "Hitler" - the lesson being so-called triumphs > in rationality, science and culture are dreadful fantasies. I would > hope in this that German friends would not see any blaming in this - > the culpability is wider-set in imperialism and our still stupid > notions of leadership. In intellectual terms we are supposedly in > postmoderism (really read that and weep in a different way from > Gabby's sonnet). The crisis is one of legitimation and the need for > an incredulous stance towards grand narratives like religion and the > 'wealth creation' espoused in the status quo of oligarchy (rather than > competitive capitalism). > > I'd say the big issue is dishonesty and the ease with which we swallow > chronic lies whole as the facts stand up against them. The idiocy is > in demanding paragons of virtue in politics. Honesty is not so easily > produced. As a population we remain crudely ignorant and politicians > can rely on this. I can prove over and again that voters don't know > what they vote for - the result being my regard as a smartarse, > "commie" or whatever suits. We get bogged down by popular opinion > (Idols in Bacon) and inane rationalist fantasies as to whether god > exists or not to which there is only 'answer' in sentient (Hume). We > rightly point to failures in communism whilst failing to spot we have > already been carried away in the anti-communism (even anti-democratic > management - see the use of the UnAmerican stuff against quite mild > adherents of such) that drives our resources into the hands of a tiny > few, leaving even 1 in 5 Americans poor etc. and wars all over -let > alone poverty through massive over-breeding and climate change. > > The answer is a massive change in our ways, including world-government > - but the rub here is this can't involve the kind of people doing > politics at the whim of banksterism and it does mean not allowing > 'riches' as currently conceived, which many think 'fair' owing to > propaganda. The statement on population ignorance itself needs review > as it can't itself be just another bid for leadership and power. On > the odd occasion I do chemistry for schoolkids I do experiments that > go bang, flash light and then a tame one in which heating Lead > Carbonate turns it yellow before it melts. The kids rarely understand > (which isn't the point). Teaching economics is much the same in > result - most end up with no clue and would need to be in intensive > educational care to get a grok. I am much more confident in my > scientific prognostications than on those of how we should live and a > viable economics. Yet the world of science is much less authoritarian > than that of public opinion, despite the techniques being much more > reliable. If you don't want to listen properly on how to make,say, > gunpowder - then you're free to blow your hands off. Yet how do I > tell anyone not to have children in excess? Recruit Indira Gandhi? > How do we get work done - sit around drinking tea voting? > > The basic idea is often to get everyone up to western standards - yet > what 'standard' do we offer? Planet burning firsts? A model that has > always favoured a few rich with a minor blip after WW2 and is as debt- > ridden as ancient Mesopotamia? A big part of the answer is the > setting up of complex regulation that prevents undue power accretion. > The human tendency in this is towards bureaucracy and that runs into n > iron cage (Weber). I believe computing offers new avenues -but we'd > have to guard against this being perverted in the usual ways. The key > roadblock is world peace and not believing we could have it and the > daft assumption just laying down our 'guns' would produce it. > > There's a massive literature that could help - the problem being few > read and would even watch if our media could summarise it. Should I > issue a bibliography? This doesn't even work at university. > > The first solution is getting resources into individual and collective > control with banking as a utility (rather than designed to steal them > as happens now even with micro-credit). This itself should produce > enough argument to fill several books - but watch this space. The > move is broadly capitalist but anti-oligarchy pro-democracy in the > sense of (Popper's) control of those allocated 'power'. Questions > immediately arise as to what is not allowable - like a bunch of > Taliban mistreating women and trying to build an H-bomb or burning > coal for the hell of it. > > To see this as other than 'castle-in-the-air' one needs an > understanding of social economics and the mad stuff of the mainstream > and what its results are. This requires a lot of negation -something > widely perceived (still, long after science) perceived as negative > because of Idols. Rigsy started a thread on Freud in which this and > the paranoid-schizoid and 'depressive' positions could have been > explored. This level of intellectualism can even lead to 'academic > bullying' claims in universities in these dumbed-down days. A good > start would be Naomi Klein's 'Shock Doctrine' would be a start, but > only a start (you can get it on Movshare and the like). > > I'm much more positive than most people I know in spirit, from running > myself into the ground and desperate tackles to trying new stuff. One > meets this negative stuff everywhere from underperforming sports teams > to simple changes like not buying vastly over priced ink and toner and > getting advice from the data protection officer that means don't put > anything on your project website. The 'highly positive', of course > ain't going through the Pillars of Hercules because they'll fall off > the edge. The positive question is nearly always 'what junk are we in > thrall to now' - what is today's "flat earth theory". The big > challenge isn't ignorance but incompetence even to the point of not > recognising one's own. The arguments many think they take part in are > carefully structured inside highly parochial propaganda (Idols). > Rather than learning through gleaning the facts, most people just > reinforce there dullard positions - this means you (or me if I don't > check myself). > > Most, even in this group,lack enough knowledge to have more than mere > opinion, whether on how to make TNT or understand what the banking > crisis is. Much of what I say won't work would not be negative if you > knew more, but seen as pointing to reasons for radical change. > Classic moves include atheism meaning I must lack morality or am not > open-minded about god possibilities - you know the form. With, say, > nitroglycerin manufacture you can leave it to me (at a safe distance) > - but why are we generally so reluctant to learn what is available on > ideological and economic-practical issues? What model of the positive > do you guys work with - Mollyarian letting fear slip away (which is > complex in her elaborations, not barking), how would you get across a > street under fire (the answer is you don't unless there is no > alternative) - how do you assess what is negative? > > Many of the issues discussed in groups like this are deeply > constrained because most people don't study and have false views on > fact. I see this as key in developing 'democracy' - I'm anti-democrat > in the same terms as Joseph Heller's lovely book - but how many have > read it and would recognise I'm not being negative but asking for a > review of the ideas and practices for better, wider control of > authority and how we might achieve it? Try making nitro by just > bunging the constituents together (goodbye you). There would be a lot > of 'don't do that it's a waste of time' in my teaching on that. You > don't get "democracy" through a voting system alone. We can't get > near economic fairness until we realise just how negative the > 'positive modern world' is and the complexity we need to handle. > > > On Oct 21, 7:23 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'd be interested to see that enumerated as well. A frequent meme in > Neil's > > writing is that he doesn't feel most offered solutions have any real > value, > > once percolated down through human greed and incompetence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > > > > ... > > > > read more » -- ( ) |_D Allan Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
