"machines"... I'd suggest thermodynamic "systems"... closed, open, adiabatic... and "processes" constant pressure, constant volume...
They actually correspond to individual, community, environment, universal change, energy considerations of all kinds, properties or nature / behaviour / happenings ... and even history, the kind that overwhelmed Hegel ! On Oct 29, 10:51 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > The current crisis is not one of banking or economics, but something > much more basic. One might say this is our attitude towards 'machines > of loving grace'. In short, we live in the fantasy that "the machine" > will put things right, returning to an equilibrium as our > interventions are little more than 'of mice and men'. The real world > of the environment and the exchange world of economics return to > equilibrium after fluctuations. It's very tempting to believe this - > one might see Gaia as a case in point - the planet and other species > flourishing after we've crazed ourselves to extinction through > consumption and wars. > > You can pick up the ideas of 'all watched over by machines of loving > grace' here > -http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/2160186460/All-Watched-Over-By-M... > > A review with an economic twist can be found here > -http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/10/the-natural-chaos-of-markets.html > > My own work has often focused on the difference between espoused > theories and theories-in-action. In some subjects like chemistry the > relationship between theory and practice is good - if you follow the > rules and recipes you get what you intended and the explanations make > sense if you study enough. There is a working core, you can trust or > check the work of others and speculation can eventually be tested on > what is not accepted as 'settled'. In the human sciences this is much > more difficult, not least because we do not exclude much in human > society that prevents science. Few of us have much aptitude for > science, perhaps especially for its negation of ideology soaked up > from community. > > I always noted as a teacher that I was more comfortable saying 'you > just can't handle the maths' (unlikely for me as I'd teach people like > that without the stuff), than in saying 'you just don't get argument > because you can't let go of any prejudice'. Teaching people to think > for themselves contains a paradox. One finds much one is expected to > teach based on dross. I know of no country in which history is taught > without gross ideological distortion. We hear the Japanese rip out > pages in textbooks on the 'rape of Nanking' yet it's rare to find > Brits who know much of our squalid imperialism and involvement in much > similar. In the middle east you will find a more accurate picture of > the Crusades than we get, but the Jihad that is the mirror image is > revered. > > Most people like to imagine themselves as individual, but if we're > honest we are subjects of machines of loving grace. One makes one's > way in an economy (machine) on a planet (environmental machine). I > think these are only "machines" because we don't examine them. > Examination often ends in paradox - logical positivism eventually > conceded its own quest to extirpate metaphysics was - oops - > metaphysical. My own guess is that rigorous thinking seeks to > discover and eliminate dross - this involves a great deal of courage > in accepting you are likely made of same oneself! > > I'm a maverick systems theorist and conceive of our social-political > arguments (and the systems themselves) as houses of cards. one looks > for the soft spots that can bring the lot down or as places to put in > effort to keep the ball rolling. No argument survives this process > more than twenty seconds with such soft spots arising. Most don't > have either the energy or tools to keep going and run to the 'bliss' > of the machine (religion, patriotism, left and right etc.). We are > thus robots of one 'machine' or another, not individuals, hardly > people if we're not careful.
