Hi all, Michael R Brown especially I am trying to avoid being a philosophologist so I prefer to use some of what I learned on common everyday issues instead like the life and death of Ms Thatcher.
Kirkegaard learned how to separate culture from nature, as he said that what we are by nature, as we are born and made are our nature, while all what we have achieved by our own will and common sense belongs to our culture. This is a slight different view than the separation between the biological and the social/ intellectual levels, because much of our social preferences comes to us by where we are born and grew up like language, religion and basic social behaviour. Things that Antropologists like to eat for breakfast. A true MOQ discussion with Ms Thatcher as object would therefore be a discussion about what were her cultural contributions to humanity and what kind of qualities could we see in her free choices. Free from her natural qualities etc. I can't think that she chose to be born as a woman for example and we can't blame her for that. Some people here support her thinking and some other does not. Now lets remember that thoughts at the intellectual level is not bound to any separate individuals. Thoughts depends on the other levels, BUT, thoughts and ideas are independent of an individual brain. A concept can be carried and alive in just any healthy brain. This means, that the thoughts and political strategies carried by Ms Thatcher doesn't disappear just because of her absence. Therefore it is to early to shout Hooray by her opponents and it will still be hope for her supporters. According to MRB the conflict lies between Capitalism and Socialism. MRB estimates the validity of the two isms by their number of causalties. To me that sounds apart from the very systems. This kind of rhetoric is just the same that terrorists use to verify casaulties by their actions. I can just tell you that everyone, all citizens die in any society. If Jesus would have known how many millions would be sacrified because of human stupidity and lack of quality concepts he might never have returned from the desert. The solution must be a free market and a system of global free trade. Every deal between two free parts where both benefit must be the ultimate base for a healthy economy on this planet. The main difference between socialism and capitalism is that socialism is using corporate economics on the whole country. It is called planned economy. One of the main problem that arises then is when the State-company comes in economic trouble it cant fire their employees because they will still be citizens and want food. That is why I think Stalin and Pol Pot instead of fireing them they just had to shoot them to save the rest of the staff. That is also the reason why the people on Cuba has so bad cars, because Castro decided to discriminate the automobile standard instead and save his workers. China is like a giant company with 1.2 trillion employees, we must take that in account went we look at their wages. Capitalism on the other side has its problems which make a lot of people suffer and die. I will not count them all but we can just imagine how many causalties there are from bad business environmentals, unhealthy food, drugs and criminal actions. Capitalism and neoliberalism builds its existence on numbers, individual and board decisions calculated by numbers and economic theories based on mathematical science. Positive, measurable yield is the leading star and the measure of intelligent behaviour. The customer's benefit is not taken enough in account and that is also the reason why we have today's scale of environmental issues. I have explained this thorughly in the chapters about the oil and price in my book "Money and the Art of Losing Control" if you haven't read it yet. Because Capitalism is based on a SOM mentality there are no place for Quality at the board meeting. The world need something else to rely on and that is an economic theory based on human Values. The issue of today's philosopher should therefore be to supply the society with better concepts that support humanity and its economic organisation to minimize its causalties. Tanks for reading Jan Anders Andersson 17 apr 2013 kl. 23:44 skrev david buchanan <[email protected]>: > > Adrie said: > Have to agree with Dr. McWatt. Thatcher was a psychopath they really should > fill her grave with concrete, to avoid any ressurection. > > > Marsha said: > Whoa... What kind of self does the MoQ attribute to Ms. Thatcher? Does she > have an evil homunculus that behind the scenes called the shots for > devastating Great Britain? > > > dmb says: > What? Thatcher's lack of empathy can't be criticized because she was not a > Cartesian homunculus? Are you on acid right now, or what? That's the weakest, > lamest defense I ever heard. It's not even relevant and think what would > happen if we applied your "reasoning" to every political actor. > > It's about the age-old complaint against the rich and powerful. You don't > have to take my word for it, just ask Charles Dickens. Or Robert Pirsig... > > > "...the conservatives who keep trumpeting about the virtues of free > enterprise are normally just supporting their own self-interest. They are > just doing the usual cover-up for the rich in their age-oldexploitation of > the poor." > > In the MOQ, 20th century political conflict is portrayed as a conflict > between social and intellectual values - with the right-left clash being more > severe in Europe than in the USA. > > > "The gigantic power of socialism and fascism, which have overwhelmed this > century, is explained by a conflict of levels of evolution. This conflict > explains the driving force behind Hitler not as an insane search for power > but as an all-consuming glorification of social authority and hatred of > intellectualism. His anti-Semitism was fueled by anti-intellectualism. His > hatred of communists was fueled by anti-intellectualism. His exaltation of > the German volk was fueled by it. His fanatic persecution of any kind of > intellectual freedom was driven by it. In the United States the economic and > social upheaval was not so great as in Europe, but Franklin Roosevelt and the > New Deal, nevertheless, became the center of a lesser storm between social > and intellectual forces." > > > > Thatcher and Reagan both represent a rightward turn against "big government", > as Reagan called it. This was aimed against the whole tradition of New Deal > liberalism. (It's a bit confusing but this neo-Victorian reaction is known as > free-market conservatism or right-wing libertarianism while in England it's > known as neo-liberalism.) In both cases, the dismantling of "the welfare > state" entailed not only drastic financial cuts to the poor but also a rather > cruel demonization of the recipients. Way back in 1980 when Reagan first ran > for President, they campaigned against the so-called "Welfare Queens," the > mythical figure who lived in luxury from her welfare checks and in the most > recent Presidential election the Republican candidate was still campaigning > against these same mythical "takers". > > Psychopathy is a broad range of mental disorders wherein the "afflicted" > lacks empathy. This lack ranges from mild narcissism to full-blown serial > killers. The only place with a higher rate of psychopathy than politics and > big business is prison. It could be literally true that Maggie was somewhere > along that psychopathic continuum but I think that's not really the point. > It's just a way to criticize her willingness to inflict suffering on the > citizens of the UK. The statistic show the actual effects of these market > policies, which have been operable for about three decades now. The rich got > richer, the poor got poorer, and the middle class got smaller. Only one > nation in the West has more of its children living in poverty. Heckofajob, > Ronny. Thanks, Maggie. > > "...the conservatives who keep trumpeting about the virtues of free > enterprise are normally just supporting their own self-interest. They are > just doing the usual cover-up for the rich in their age-oldexploitation of > the poor." > > > "That’s what neither the socialists nor the capitalists ever got figured out. > From a static point of view, socialism is more moral than capitalism. It’s a > higher form of evolution. It is an intellectually guided society, not just a > society that is guided by mindless traditions. That’s what gives socialism > its drive. But what the socialists left out and what has all but killed their > whole undertaking is an absence of a concept of indefinite Dynamic Quality. > You go to any socialist city and it’s always a dull placebecause there’s > little Dynamic Quality. > On the other hand the conservatives who keep trumpeting about the virtues of > free enterprise are normally just supporting their own self-interest. They > are just doing the usual cover-up for the rich in their age-old exploitation > of the poor. Some of them seem to sense there is also something mysteriously > virtuous in a free enterprise system and you can see them struggling to put > it into words but they don’t have the metaphysical vocabulary for it any more > than the socialists do. > The metaphysics of Quality provides the vocabulary. A free market is a > Dynamic institution. What people buy and what people sell, in other words > what people value, can never be contained by any intellectual formula. What > makes the marketplace work is Dynamic Quality. The market is alwayschanging > and the direction of that change can never be predetermined. The Metaphysics > of Quality says the free market makes everybody richer by preventing static > economic patterns for setting in and stagnating economic growth. That is the > reason major capitalist economies of the world have done so much better since > World War II that the major socialist economies. > It is not that Victorian social economic patterns are more moral than > socialist intellectual economic patterns. Quite the opposite. They are less > moral as static patterns go. What makes the free-enterprise system superior > is that the socialists, reasoning intelligently and objectively, > haveinadvertently closed the door to Dynamic Quality in the buying and > selling of things. They closed it because the metaphysical structure of their > objectivity never told them Dynamic Quality exists." (Lila, chapter 17) > > > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
