Greetings Economists, On Sep 29, 2007, at 9:37 AM, Doug Henwood wrote:
I'm using it in Gramsci's sense - all the inherited formulas we use for understanding the world. They appear spontaneous and nonideological but in fact are anything but.
Doyle; To me when you post the reference so we can discuss it is what I want in discussion. I'm not going to directly address this essay. I see you give us some pieces, but there is enough there to discuss this essay. I'm afraid I was pissy with you, and that makes discussions difficult, and since you did what I think is the right thing to bring up the source material I'll say more about what it takes to discuss dense material. The whole list needs the information presented in a cogent quick reference so we can keep track of the content as it develops. It really takes time for me to develop ideas and this subject is one I have many ideas about. Since you and I don't agree and you often don't even understand me, then the work process is entangled and difficult. Which means we would need an agreement to work together to the finish. I'm not asking for that I am analyzing what it takes to do justice to something you take seriously. I am an advocate of such collaborations, and I think disagreements add to such documents, and the proper support for doing the document on all sides is necessary to really develop ideas. I think you like seeing depth in ideas. You also like poking me to see if I'll snap at you. Which is fun in developing ideas because it adds energy. I don't think this list can carry such work forward though there are people here who could contribute in any number of areas. This list does certain sorts of work that attract people to read and some to write here. But resolving issues is not a goal of the writing here. The focusing and channeling of such energies remains for other formats to make possible. I am hopeful that such automation techniques like massively parallel games would offer a kind of ground to distill, develop and make stable such essays as the one you posted that are like stubs on Wikipedia. I think the passion of developing ideas is also central to how ideas really emerge. So the kind of bitter dialogue that comes up really matters in creating the energy to do the work in the depth it deserves. But intellectual working techniques are still quite individual and lone wolfish. So I think this will come as our technical means develop further. In the spirit of Jim Devine I retract my pissy attitude to your serious efforts to make yourself heard. Thank you, Doyle Saylor
