Exploitation
I know that is a loaded word, but I cannot escape the notion that the greatest task ahead of us is to stop the wholesale treatment of both man (I’m going to use the philosophical reference meaning both man and woman) and nature as means to an end. As we unravel the financial scandals of the past decade it will become very clear that Bernie Madoff’s exploitation of his investors was more the rule than the exception. Reading the Washington Post’s epic series on The Crash, it’s obvious that the brokers packaging this toxic waste were well aware of the crap they were selling. They were exploiting the system in the same way that Enron’s electricity traders were exploiting the citizens of California.
And how is that any different from the exploitation of nature involved in cutting off the top of a mountain in West Virginia as a cheaper way to get to the coal? Hegel would tell us that this constant exploitation leads only to alienation–man having lost the unity between himself and the world. In the Old Testament of Adam and Eve, man begins in a unity with nature but as he develops consciousness he asserts his freedom. He says “no” and enters into a world of conflict between man and nature, man and woman, man and man. The work of the good society should be to heal those wounds and enhance our powers of love and understanding.
But in a country where 1% of the population control almost 40% of the wealth and the top 20% control 84% of the wealth, the common man or woman is most often a victim of some sort of exploitation. Unfortunately the state has in recent years devoted itself to the protection of the Top 20% at the expense of the majority. This must change. The state must take the side of both the working man and of the natural ecology in the battle against their exploitation.
What I have been trying to suggest since right after the election is that there is a metaphysical aspect to our politics. This is not something that classic liberalism accepts. The notion that man’s spiritual self-realization is bound up with the transformation of society makes a lot of liberals nervous. But if society is to serve this self-realization, it must be put in service to the true needs of man. But these are hard to divine and the reason I put so much energy into the post on Advertising is that Madison Avenue has become frightfully good at creating artificial needs. So how can we separate our true needs from those exploitative needs? Maslow’s hierarchy is a place to start.
Beyond food,clothing ,shelter and security much of our real needs are emotional and not tied to owning things. But as Emerson observed 150 years ago, “Things are in the saddle and ride mankind.” Now much of this need for things comes from that same sense of alienation I spoke of earlier.
And so we come full circle. How do we build a society where man does not feel the need to exploit either nature or his fellow man? And if he tries to exploit either, the state will take the side of the powerless rather than backing the powerful.
Is this impossible? Have I been reading too many of the 18th Century enlightenment philosophers?
Perhaps the 18th century was too early for some kind of stable enlightenment of society, but 21st century seems to be the time, since we have finally arrived at the boundary; globalization of culture. There are strong forces at work to push us in the direction of significant unity; environmental, economic, scientific, technological, cultural, biological. There are forces against this trend as well, but I don’t think they are as convincing.
It seems we either unite around a stable solution that can address the common threats, or hell breaks loose. But how do we do it quickly and efficiently? May I suggest that there are two main fronts we should tackle this in; spiritual and material.
While our science has matured enough for our material needs, we have a huge black hole in the spiritual field. It is too scattered and full of discredited movements, while at the same time there are two global trends to fill the vacuum; top to bottom and otherwise. The so called spiritual leaders are mostly anti-science greedy and ignorant puppets who are no good for anything apart from small time bickering.
Perhaps the time is ripe for the spiritually inclined scientists to move in with some kind of synthesis to satisfy the thirst.
Perhaps the 18th century was too early for some kind of stable enlightenment of society, but 21st century seems to be the time, since we have finally arrived at the boundary; globalization of culture. There are strong forces at work to push us in the direction of significant unity; environmental, economic, scientific, technological, cultural, biological. There are forces against this trend as well, but I don’t think they are as convincing.
It seems we either unite around a stable solution that can address the common threats, or hell breaks loose. But how do we do it quickly and efficiently? May I suggest that there are two main fronts we should tackle this in; spiritual and material.
While our science has matured enough for our material needs, we have a huge black hole in the spiritual field. It is too scattered and full of discredited movements, while at the same time there are two global trends to fill the vacuum; top to bottom and otherwise. The so called spiritual leaders are mostly anti-science greedy and ignorant puppets who are no good for anything apart from small time bickering.
Perhaps the time is ripe for the spiritually inclined scientists to move in with some kind of synthesis to satisfy the thirst.
“Perhaps the time is ripe for the spiritually inclined scientists to move in with some kind of synthesis…”
I absolutely agree. The knowledge of this sort of thing has been around for more than a thousand years, and hopefully more humans are ready to hear it.
“Perhaps the time is ripe for the spiritually inclined scientists to move in with some kind of synthesis…”
I absolutely agree. The knowledge of this sort of thing has been around for more than a thousand years, and hopefully more humans are ready to hear it.
“The notion that man’s spiritual self-realization is bound up with the transformation of society…”
It seems that the majority of people who understand the depth of change needed in society are also people who have come to the above realization.
I work with a lot of people who just do not get this. They are quite decent folks however.
I also work with some hardened right wingers. These people strike me as being almost incapable of the above realization. I wonder if their embrace of right-wing conservatism actually just covers insecurity and selfishness?
These people do not let the evidence get in the way of their beliefs.
“The notion that man’s spiritual self-realization is bound up with the transformation of society…”
It seems that the majority of people who understand the depth of change needed in society are also people who have come to the above realization.
I work with a lot of people who just do not get this. They are quite decent folks however.
I also work with some hardened right wingers. These people strike me as being almost incapable of the above realization. I wonder if their embrace of right-wing conservatism actually just covers insecurity and selfishness?
These people do not let the evidence get in the way of their beliefs.
I also wonder how bad things have to get before the mass of people take action to implement change.
Obama’s utilization of the people who campaigned for him is an interesting step in getting more “ordinary people” working to improve society.
I also wonder how bad things have to get before the mass of people take action to implement change.
Obama’s utilization of the people who campaigned for him is an interesting step in getting more “ordinary people” working to improve society.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/177328
The Ponzis work in mysterious ways, their wonders to perform…
http://www.newsweek.com/id/177328
The Ponzis work in mysterious ways, their wonders to perform…
@Akira: “While our science has matured enough for our material needs, we have a huge black hole in the spiritual field. It is too scattered and full of discredited movements…”
I find this statement astonishing. Whose material needs are being met? Massive investment in green technology is needed to end our oil dependence; R&D to prevent and reverse global warming is needed to prevent apocalypse; cheap, pragmatic methods for providing clean water to the millions currently lacking it is essential; major advances in biotech and healthcare and medicine to prolong and improve the quality of life are possible… etc. etc.
To say that there’s enough science, we’re all set with what knowledge we have now, and instead what is lacking is more organized centralized religion, is just about the most untenable, outrageous position I can imagine.
All of these progressive, ethical and critically important areas require significant investment, in the only endeavor which has ever — in the course of human history — improved our collective lot: science.
Also when you mention “discredited” spiritual movements, which ones do you exclude? Based on what criteria?
@Akira: “While our science has matured enough for our material needs, we have a huge black hole in the spiritual field. It is too scattered and full of discredited movements…”
I find this statement astonishing. Whose material needs are being met? Massive investment in green technology is needed to end our oil dependence; R&D to prevent and reverse global warming is needed to prevent apocalypse; cheap, pragmatic methods for providing clean water to the millions currently lacking it is essential; major advances in biotech and healthcare and medicine to prolong and improve the quality of life are possible… etc. etc.
To say that there’s enough science, we’re all set with what knowledge we have now, and instead what is lacking is more organized centralized religion, is just about the most untenable, outrageous position I can imagine.
All of these progressive, ethical and critically important areas require significant investment, in the only endeavor which has ever — in the course of human history — improved our collective lot: science.
Also when you mention “discredited” spiritual movements, which ones do you exclude? Based on what criteria?
@Akira: “While our science has matured enough for our material needs, we have a huge black hole in the spiritual field. It is too scattered and full of discredited movements…”
I find this statement astonishing. Whose material needs are being met? Massive investment in green technology is needed to end our oil dependence; R&D to prevent and reverse global warming is needed to prevent apocalypse; cheap, pragmatic methods for providing clean water to the millions currently lacking it is essential; major advances in biotech and healthcare and medicine to prolong and improve the quality of life are possible… etc. etc.
To say that there’s enough science, we’re all set with what knowledge we have now, and instead what is lacking is more organized centralized religion, is just about the most untenable, outrageous position I can imagine.
All of these progressive, ethical and critically important areas require significant investment, in the only endeavor which has ever — in the course of human history — improved our collective lot: science.
Also when you mention “discredited” spiritual movements, which ones do you exclude? Based on what criteria?
While liberals may get nervous about the metaphysical aspects of the needed changes, it doesn’t really have to be the selling point to bring them on board, but can be collateral gains from the most basic reason to change; survival.
It’s come to that, though somewhat hidden in the slow glide path to the hell we are on, and the simple fact is that so much damage has been done, and sooooo many people are still not on board with the fact that The Consumption Party (politically, metaphorically, and physically) is over.
What’s astounding is the number of wealthy getting away with scraping the bottom of the vault, and making away with even more paper marked “future debt”. Why are we letting that happen? WERE’s the outrage? Here! Now!
Spiritual is good, but without basic needs being met the spiritual quickly is subsumed to the goals of the Warlords, Mafia Dons, Drug Lords and Robber Barons.
The risk Mark, is that people will think it’s worked out; the ‘bama boys and girls will get in and fix things. But we need more folk to take their current congress critters to the Church of the Holy Woodshed now. Hugo gets riled at the Cali Dept of Eternal Debt (aka the state legislature) borrowing more to pay for past borrowing, but where is the real, so necessary outrage now at Trillions (I said, I said Trillions Son) going out the door with ZERO accountability.
Write, phone, email now. Not after Inauguration day. Not after spiritual enlightenment. Now.
Please.
While liberals may get nervous about the metaphysical aspects of the needed changes, it doesn’t really have to be the selling point to bring them on board, but can be collateral gains from the most basic reason to change; survival.
It’s come to that, though somewhat hidden in the slow glide path to the hell we are on, and the simple fact is that so much damage has been done, and sooooo many people are still not on board with the fact that The Consumption Party (politically, metaphorically, and physically) is over.
What’s astounding is the number of wealthy getting away with scraping the bottom of the vault, and making away with even more paper marked “future debt”. Why are we letting that happen? WERE’s the outrage? Here! Now!
Spiritual is good, but without basic needs being met the spiritual quickly is subsumed to the goals of the Warlords, Mafia Dons, Drug Lords and Robber Barons.
The risk Mark, is that people will think it’s worked out; the ‘bama boys and girls will get in and fix things. But we need more folk to take their current congress critters to the Church of the Holy Woodshed now. Hugo gets riled at the Cali Dept of Eternal Debt (aka the state legislature) borrowing more to pay for past borrowing, but where is the real, so necessary outrage now at Trillions (I said, I said Trillions Son) going out the door with ZERO accountability.
Write, phone, email now. Not after Inauguration day. Not after spiritual enlightenment. Now.
Please.
While liberals may get nervous about the metaphysical aspects of the needed changes, it doesn’t really have to be the selling point to bring them on board, but can be collateral gains from the most basic reason to change; survival.
It’s come to that, though somewhat hidden in the slow glide path to the hell we are on, and the simple fact is that so much damage has been done, and sooooo many people are still not on board with the fact that The Consumption Party (politically, metaphorically, and physically) is over.
What’s astounding is the number of wealthy getting away with scraping the bottom of the vault, and making away with even more paper marked “future debt”. Why are we letting that happen? WERE’s the outrage? Here! Now!
Spiritual is good, but without basic needs being met the spiritual quickly is subsumed to the goals of the Warlords, Mafia Dons, Drug Lords and Robber Barons.
The risk Mark, is that people will think it’s worked out; the ‘bama boys and girls will get in and fix things. But we need more folk to take their current congress critters to the Church of the Holy Woodshed now. Hugo gets riled at the Cali Dept of Eternal Debt (aka the state legislature) borrowing more to pay for past borrowing, but where is the real, so necessary outrage now at Trillions (I said, I said Trillions Son) going out the door with ZERO accountability.
Write, phone, email now. Not after Inauguration day. Not after spiritual enlightenment. Now.
Please.
Chris Weekly;
Come on lift your game. I said science, not it’s current application. Hiding your real motivation
(spirituality) after the rather unsuccessful science cover is laughable. But I will still reply; Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and all their derivatives are all hiding places for the ignorant, greedy, and incompetent.
Your website seems phony like your piece. All this noise about cyber wars, I am yet to meet a competent agent. Besides, your style is awfully reminiscent of someone too regular here.
Chris Weekly;
Come on lift your game. I said science, not it’s current application. Hiding your real motivation
(spirituality) after the rather unsuccessful science cover is laughable. But I will still reply; Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and all their derivatives are all hiding places for the ignorant, greedy, and incompetent.
Your website seems phony like your piece. All this noise about cyber wars, I am yet to meet a competent agent. Besides, your style is awfully reminiscent of someone too regular here.
Chris Weekly;
Come on lift your game. I said science, not it’s current application. Hiding your real motivation
(spirituality) after the rather unsuccessful science cover is laughable. But I will still reply; Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and all their derivatives are all hiding places for the ignorant, greedy, and incompetent.
Your website seems phony like your piece. All this noise about cyber wars, I am yet to meet a competent agent. Besides, your style is awfully reminiscent of someone too regular here.
“Perhaps the time is ripe for the spiritually inclined scientists to move in with some kind of synthesis to satisfy the thirst.”
Science is observer-centric. So is religion.
You’re on to the theme of Wells’ “The Shape of Things to Come”. What religion can induce is the events a scientist considers worthy of observing. The article by the Unabomber T-Bone referenced points out the dangers of recruiting religion into movements. Does that hold for science?
Are you asking scientists for a satisfying religion or spiritualists for a satisfying science?
Design of intelligence vs. intelligent design?
It is easy to make a scientific case for the former and impossible for the second.
“Perhaps the time is ripe for the spiritually inclined scientists to move in with some kind of synthesis to satisfy the thirst.”
Science is observer-centric. So is religion.
You’re on to the theme of Wells’ “The Shape of Things to Come”. What religion can induce is the events a scientist considers worthy of observing. The article by the Unabomber T-Bone referenced points out the dangers of recruiting religion into movements. Does that hold for science?
Are you asking scientists for a satisfying religion or spiritualists for a satisfying science?
Design of intelligence vs. intelligent design?
It is easy to make a scientific case for the former and impossible for the second.
Akira. Your generalizations are boring.
I am beginning to understand why dearest Hugo becomes unhinged at times.
Akira. Your generalizations are boring.
I am beginning to understand why dearest Hugo becomes unhinged at times.
Akira. Your generalizations are boring.
I am beginning to understand why dearest Hugo becomes unhinged at times.
AJ-I disagree. What Akira is calling for is a bottom-up spiritual revival, not driven by doctrinaire anti-science preachers, but rather by citizens who feel that science without ethical boundaries and goals is a materialist trap.
AJ-I disagree. What Akira is calling for is a bottom-up spiritual revival, not driven by doctrinaire anti-science preachers, but rather by citizens who feel that science without ethical boundaries and goals is a materialist trap.
AJ-I disagree. What Akira is calling for is a bottom-up spiritual revival, not driven by doctrinaire anti-science preachers, but rather by citizens who feel that science without ethical boundaries and goals is a materialist trap.
Jon Taplin; thanks for interpreting my angle so eloquently.
AJ; why don’t you let Hugo speak for himself, and why don’t you express your own opinions, instead of empty generalizations?
len; “Are you asking scientists for a satisfying religion or spiritualists for a satisfying science?”
Neither. I am asking for a balance of heart and mind, if you know what I mean. I have come to recognize your anti-science stance. Wedge politics. Unabomber event was in fact a terror campaign designed by the establishment to scare the scientists. It happened in many countries. You are misinterpreting TBB’s comment. You tried previously with one of mine. Lift your game.
Religion without science is mindless,
science without religion is heartless.
Jon Taplin; thanks for interpreting my angle so eloquently.
AJ; why don’t you let Hugo speak for himself, and why don’t you express your own opinions, instead of empty generalizations?
len; “Are you asking scientists for a satisfying religion or spiritualists for a satisfying science?”
Neither. I am asking for a balance of heart and mind, if you know what I mean. I have come to recognize your anti-science stance. Wedge politics. Unabomber event was in fact a terror campaign designed by the establishment to scare the scientists. It happened in many countries. You are misinterpreting TBB’s comment. You tried previously with one of mine. Lift your game.
Religion without science is mindless,
science without religion is heartless.
Jon Taplin; thanks for interpreting my angle so eloquently.
AJ; why don’t you let Hugo speak for himself, and why don’t you express your own opinions, instead of empty generalizations?
len; “Are you asking scientists for a satisfying religion or spiritualists for a satisfying science?”
Neither. I am asking for a balance of heart and mind, if you know what I mean. I have come to recognize your anti-science stance. Wedge politics. Unabomber event was in fact a terror campaign designed by the establishment to scare the scientists. It happened in many countries. You are misinterpreting TBB’s comment. You tried previously with one of mine. Lift your game.
Religion without science is mindless,
science without religion is heartless.
But isn’t the point of Science to let evidence present itself, free from any pre-ordained goals or agendas?
The medieval Church, for instance, convicted Galileo of heresy some two hundred years after Copernicus postulated that the Earth was in motion around the Sun, and not vice versa.
The point is not to say that, when it comes to Science we ‘suspend morality’. Rather, it is to note that we continually reassess the foundations of our morality as Science progresses.
Like John Maynard Keynes said “when the facts change, I change my mind”.
If a ‘religious’ organization is making attempts to obscure facts, it’s probably because they’ve already fallen down on the job when it comes to their own missions of cultivating morality.
In the Western tradition, the twin pillars of ethics remain ‘do as you would be done by’ and ‘know thyself’. Both of these call for a free and inquisitive conscience, and a sense of personal dignity. Organized religion is notorious for diminishing both (as are totalitarian governments and over-reaching corporations).
As I mentioned in a much earlier post, Science – and its relentless desire to reconcile fact with theory – provides something like a spiritual Fourth Estate.
I’d be the first to agree with Jon that the highly political direction organized religion has taken in America has been corrosive to church and state alike, and that a revival is sorely needed. But success is going to depend on coming to terms with what we know and can find out, and not ignoring what can actually be seen, or banning attempts to see more clearly.
But isn’t the point of Science to let evidence present itself, free from any pre-ordained goals or agendas?
The medieval Church, for instance, convicted Galileo of heresy some two hundred years after Copernicus postulated that the Earth was in motion around the Sun, and not vice versa.
The point is not to say that, when it comes to Science we ‘suspend morality’. Rather, it is to note that we continually reassess the foundations of our morality as Science progresses.
Like John Maynard Keynes said “when the facts change, I change my mind”.
If a ‘religious’ organization is making attempts to obscure facts, it’s probably because they’ve already fallen down on the job when it comes to their own missions of cultivating morality.
In the Western tradition, the twin pillars of ethics remain ‘do as you would be done by’ and ‘know thyself’. Both of these call for a free and inquisitive conscience, and a sense of personal dignity. Organized religion is notorious for diminishing both (as are totalitarian governments and over-reaching corporations).
As I mentioned in a much earlier post, Science – and its relentless desire to reconcile fact with theory – provides something like a spiritual Fourth Estate.
I’d be the first to agree with Jon that the highly political direction organized religion has taken in America has been corrosive to church and state alike, and that a revival is sorely needed. But success is going to depend on coming to terms with what we know and can find out, and not ignoring what can actually be seen, or banning attempts to see more clearly.
But isn’t the point of Science to let evidence present itself, free from any pre-ordained goals or agendas?
The medieval Church, for instance, convicted Galileo of heresy some two hundred years after Copernicus postulated that the Earth was in motion around the Sun, and not vice versa.
The point is not to say that, when it comes to Science we ‘suspend morality’. Rather, it is to note that we continually reassess the foundations of our morality as Science progresses.
Like John Maynard Keynes said “when the facts change, I change my mind”.
If a ‘religious’ organization is making attempts to obscure facts, it’s probably because they’ve already fallen down on the job when it comes to their own missions of cultivating morality.
In the Western tradition, the twin pillars of ethics remain ‘do as you would be done by’ and ‘know thyself’. Both of these call for a free and inquisitive conscience, and a sense of personal dignity. Organized religion is notorious for diminishing both (as are totalitarian governments and over-reaching corporations).
As I mentioned in a much earlier post, Science – and its relentless desire to reconcile fact with theory – provides something like a spiritual Fourth Estate.
I’d be the first to agree with Jon that the highly political direction organized religion has taken in America has been corrosive to church and state alike, and that a revival is sorely needed. But success is going to depend on coming to terms with what we know and can find out, and not ignoring what can actually be seen, or banning attempts to see more clearly.
As an aside, the tidy remark about science and religion being mutually complementary also betrays a profound misunderstanding of each.
Religion, as a matter of faith, concerns itself with things that can’t be known – instead, they must be accepted on faith. That’s the whole point.
Science, on the other hand, makes no attempt to explain what cannot be observed directly, and repeated endlessly. It makes no allowances for the way we’d like the world to be (or ‘feel’ it ‘ought’ to be). Rather, it limits itself only to what actually is, and can be shown to be. Articles of faith are, by definition, unacceptable. That, too, is the whole point.
It is individual humans that must reconcile any perceived conflicts between thought and feeling. And only the human actions resulting from these attempts that can properly be considered ‘mindless’ or ‘heartless’.
As an aside, the tidy remark about science and religion being mutually complementary also betrays a profound misunderstanding of each.
Religion, as a matter of faith, concerns itself with things that can’t be known – instead, they must be accepted on faith. That’s the whole point.
Science, on the other hand, makes no attempt to explain what cannot be observed directly, and repeated endlessly. It makes no allowances for the way we’d like the world to be (or ‘feel’ it ‘ought’ to be). Rather, it limits itself only to what actually is, and can be shown to be. Articles of faith are, by definition, unacceptable. That, too, is the whole point.
It is individual humans that must reconcile any perceived conflicts between thought and feeling. And only the human actions resulting from these attempts that can properly be considered ‘mindless’ or ‘heartless’.
As an aside, the tidy remark about science and religion being mutually complementary also betrays a profound misunderstanding of each.
Religion, as a matter of faith, concerns itself with things that can’t be known – instead, they must be accepted on faith. That’s the whole point.
Science, on the other hand, makes no attempt to explain what cannot be observed directly, and repeated endlessly. It makes no allowances for the way we’d like the world to be (or ‘feel’ it ‘ought’ to be). Rather, it limits itself only to what actually is, and can be shown to be. Articles of faith are, by definition, unacceptable. That, too, is the whole point.
It is individual humans that must reconcile any perceived conflicts between thought and feeling. And only the human actions resulting from these attempts that can properly be considered ‘mindless’ or ‘heartless’.
As an aside, the tidy remark about science and religion being mutually complementary also betrays a profound misunderstanding of each.
Religion, as a matter of faith, concerns itself with things that can’t be known – instead, they must be accepted on faith. That’s the whole point.
Science, on the other hand, makes no attempt to explain what cannot be observed directly, and repeated endlessly. It makes no allowances for the way we’d like the world to be (or ‘feel’ it ‘ought’ to be). Rather, it limits itself only to what actually is, and can be shown to be. Articles of faith are, by definition, unacceptable. That, too, is the whole point.
It is individual humans that must reconcile any perceived conflicts between thought and feeling. And only the human actions resulting from these attempts that can properly be considered ‘mindless’ or ‘heartless’.
Alex;
Yes there is a difference but the boundary is not as clear cut as you suggest. The fundamental genes that build the head reflect the ones of the torso. Musicality of an interpreter reflects the technicality. Religion reflects science and culture. The boundary is osmotic and dynamic. The clear cut separation of science and religion happened because of the needs of the shepherd-sheep culture.
Science is not exact and limitless either. It’s axioms are based on a paradox. Physics and information theory are built on the uncertainty principle.
Alex;
Yes there is a difference but the boundary is not as clear cut as you suggest. The fundamental genes that build the head reflect the ones of the torso. Musicality of an interpreter reflects the technicality. Religion reflects science and culture. The boundary is osmotic and dynamic. The clear cut separation of science and religion happened because of the needs of the shepherd-sheep culture.
Science is not exact and limitless either. It’s axioms are based on a paradox. Physics and information theory are built on the uncertainty principle.
Alex;
Yes there is a difference but the boundary is not as clear cut as you suggest. The fundamental genes that build the head reflect the ones of the torso. Musicality of an interpreter reflects the technicality. Religion reflects science and culture. The boundary is osmotic and dynamic. The clear cut separation of science and religion happened because of the needs of the shepherd-sheep culture.
Science is not exact and limitless either. It’s axioms are based on a paradox. Physics and information theory are built on the uncertainty principle.
Alex;
Yes there is a difference but the boundary is not as clear cut as you suggest. The fundamental genes that build the head reflect the ones of the torso. Musicality of an interpreter reflects the technicality. Religion reflects science and culture. The boundary is osmotic and dynamic. The clear cut separation of science and religion happened because of the needs of the shepherd-sheep culture.
Science is not exact and limitless either. It’s axioms are based on a paradox. Physics and information theory are built on the uncertainty principle.
AB- The Golden Rule -”Do unto others…”which pertains to most spiritual traditions is something that science, including the dismal science–economics–cannot account for. It must mean that the notion of soul or mind must be distinct from the materialist demand that we talk about “brain”.
AB- The Golden Rule -”Do unto others…”which pertains to most spiritual traditions is something that science, including the dismal science–economics–cannot account for. It must mean that the notion of soul or mind must be distinct from the materialist demand that we talk about “brain”.
AB- The Golden Rule -”Do unto others…”which pertains to most spiritual traditions is something that science, including the dismal science–economics–cannot account for. It must mean that the notion of soul or mind must be distinct from the materialist demand that we talk about “brain”.
Is the spiritual necessarily religious?
We were spiritual creatures long before we had religion I think.
Perhaps what we need is a secular ethical standard and leave religion where it belongs – in the faith arena. We don’t need to exclude spiritualism, only the dogmas associated with religion.
My 2 cents…
Is the spiritual necessarily religious?
We were spiritual creatures long before we had religion I think.
Perhaps what we need is a secular ethical standard and leave religion where it belongs – in the faith arena. We don’t need to exclude spiritualism, only the dogmas associated with religion.
My 2 cents…
Jon; The heart-mind duality is symbiotic. They can not do by themselves. They need each other. I hope I did not give the impression that spirituality is based on science.
Jon; The heart-mind duality is symbiotic. They can not do by themselves. They need each other. I hope I did not give the impression that spirituality is based on science.
Jon; The heart-mind duality is symbiotic. They can not do by themselves. They need each other. I hope I did not give the impression that spirituality is based on science.
Oops, the reply is not complete. I do not want to equate the material brain with spirituality, although it is the container of the mind. This is not trivial and a hot point of discussion. The head-body duality is a response of evolution to a need to separate the physical and the mental. The brain is also an instrument just like the body, but a very special one. This is a very mysterious and curious subject.
Oops, the reply is not complete. I do not want to equate the material brain with spirituality, although it is the container of the mind. This is not trivial and a hot point of discussion. The head-body duality is a response of evolution to a need to separate the physical and the mental. The brain is also an instrument just like the body, but a very special one. This is a very mysterious and curious subject.
Oops, the reply is not complete. I do not want to equate the material brain with spirituality, although it is the container of the mind. This is not trivial and a hot point of discussion. The head-body duality is a response of evolution to a need to separate the physical and the mental. The brain is also an instrument just like the body, but a very special one. This is a very mysterious and curious subject.
Oops, the reply is not complete. I do not want to equate the material brain with spirituality, although it is the container of the mind. This is not trivial and a hot point of discussion. The head-body duality is a response of evolution to a need to separate the physical and the mental. The brain is also an instrument just like the body, but a very special one. This is a very mysterious and curious subject.
The Golden Rule is not that insulated from analytical thought. It can be explained by probability and statistics.
The Golden Rule is not that insulated from analytical thought. It can be explained by probability and statistics.
The Golden Rule is not that insulated from analytical thought. It can be explained by probability and statistics.
The Golden Rule is not that insulated from analytical thought. It can be explained by probability and statistics.
Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind-Albert Einstein
Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind-Albert Einstein
Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind-Albert Einstein
Ummm…. no, Jon. Science can account for the Golden Rule. It is the maximum payoff behaviorally. What science doesn’t account for is an irrevocable Golden Rule, and it doesn’t have to because that is a future test and future tests aren’t science. It is part of the problem discussed in the article you referenced: over reliance on the past as a predictor blinds one to the outliers, the black swans.
Akira: I’m no more anti-science than you. Probably less. Like Alex, I understand what science does and what faith does. I integrate these to synthesize my own solutions to choice. That is freedom to choose among choices, to make options of options, to create. To live.
Your position is the universe is too mysterious to understand so give into the nothingness. That is one of those faux-philosophy positions that creates a dilemma by removing the actor, thus reducing the person you address to nothing by pretense to understanding of them that you don’t possess.
I practice the Golden Rules because to a person both observant and feeling, it works over time. That isn’t anti-science. That is good sense.
Ummm…. no, Jon. Science can account for the Golden Rule. It is the maximum payoff behaviorally. What science doesn’t account for is an irrevocable Golden Rule, and it doesn’t have to because that is a future test and future tests aren’t science. It is part of the problem discussed in the article you referenced: over reliance on the past as a predictor blinds one to the outliers, the black swans.
Akira: I’m no more anti-science than you. Probably less. Like Alex, I understand what science does and what faith does. I integrate these to synthesize my own solutions to choice. That is freedom to choose among choices, to make options of options, to create. To live.
Your position is the universe is too mysterious to understand so give into the nothingness. That is one of those faux-philosophy positions that creates a dilemma by removing the actor, thus reducing the person you address to nothing by pretense to understanding of them that you don’t possess.
I practice the Golden Rules because to a person both observant and feeling, it works over time. That isn’t anti-science. That is good sense.
Thanks for that Jon. Maybe I knew that subconsciously and it made me write mine, maybe reinvented it. Either case, I like him more now
Thanks for that Jon. Maybe I knew that subconsciously and it made me write mine, maybe reinvented it. Either case, I like him more now
Thanks for that Jon. Maybe I knew that subconsciously and it made me write mine, maybe reinvented it. Either case, I like him more now
Len;
“irrevocable Golden Rule”
Hahaha. There is no such thing. Like the Dalai Lama, you are now inventing a new concept to hide behind.
“I’m no more anti-science than you. Probably less.”
I still remember what you said about mathematics.
“Your position is the universe is too mysterious to understand so give into the nothingness.”
I only give in when I have to, and not to an Eastern master puppet. What was his name again? I don’t think you understand the uncertainty principle. I am not surprised with that attitude about mathematics.
Len;
“irrevocable Golden Rule”
Hahaha. There is no such thing. Like the Dalai Lama, you are now inventing a new concept to hide behind.
“I’m no more anti-science than you. Probably less.”
I still remember what you said about mathematics.
“Your position is the universe is too mysterious to understand so give into the nothingness.”
I only give in when I have to, and not to an Eastern master puppet. What was his name again? I don’t think you understand the uncertainty principle. I am not surprised with that attitude about mathematics.
Len;
“irrevocable Golden Rule”
Hahaha. There is no such thing. Like the Dalai Lama, you are now inventing a new concept to hide behind.
“I’m no more anti-science than you. Probably less.”
I still remember what you said about mathematics.
“Your position is the universe is too mysterious to understand so give into the nothingness.”
I only give in when I have to, and not to an Eastern master puppet. What was his name again? I don’t think you understand the uncertainty principle. I am not surprised with that attitude about mathematics.
Len;
“irrevocable Golden Rule”
Hahaha. There is no such thing. Like the Dalai Lama, you are now inventing a new concept to hide behind.
“I’m no more anti-science than you. Probably less.”
I still remember what you said about mathematics.
“Your position is the universe is too mysterious to understand so give into the nothingness.”
I only give in when I have to, and not to an Eastern master puppet. What was his name again? I don’t think you understand the uncertainty principle. I am not surprised with that attitude about mathematics.
“As we unravel the financial scandals of the past decade it will become very clear that Bernie Madoff’s exploitation of his investors was more the rule than the exception.”
I agree. That’s why I still think we’ve seen only the tip of the iceberg. A crash is coming, a really bad one. The bailout money is going into secret Swiss bank accounts; the scandal story of late 2009 will be how the bailout money was stolen, and “there’s nothing we can do about it now,” so we’ll have to pony up some more money, or else everybody loses their jobs. But you can trust us, we really fixed the system this time.
“The notion that man’s spiritual self-realization is bound up with the transformation of society makes a lot of liberals nervous.”
What makes me nervous is anybody, liberal, conservative or otherwise, deciding that their path to spiritual fulfillment or happiness or righteousness or whatever, is the right one, and the one that everyone must follow. I’m not suggesting that is what you are trying to do; you end your post with a question, not an answer. But if there are two things you can count on, it’s that bigshots will saw off the tops of mountains to get at the rich creamy money inside them, and they’ll saw off the tops of our heads to pour their theologies in where our brains used to be.
What makes me nervous is not the people like you, with the questions, but the people with the cocksure answers, seeking to drill those answers into the heads of the nitwits who spend their evenings watching “The Biggest Loser.”
“As we unravel the financial scandals of the past decade it will become very clear that Bernie Madoff’s exploitation of his investors was more the rule than the exception.”
I agree. That’s why I still think we’ve seen only the tip of the iceberg. A crash is coming, a really bad one. The bailout money is going into secret Swiss bank accounts; the scandal story of late 2009 will be how the bailout money was stolen, and “there’s nothing we can do about it now,” so we’ll have to pony up some more money, or else everybody loses their jobs. But you can trust us, we really fixed the system this time.
“The notion that man’s spiritual self-realization is bound up with the transformation of society makes a lot of liberals nervous.”
What makes me nervous is anybody, liberal, conservative or otherwise, deciding that their path to spiritual fulfillment or happiness or righteousness or whatever, is the right one, and the one that everyone must follow. I’m not suggesting that is what you are trying to do; you end your post with a question, not an answer. But if there are two things you can count on, it’s that bigshots will saw off the tops of mountains to get at the rich creamy money inside them, and they’ll saw off the tops of our heads to pour their theologies in where our brains used to be.
What makes me nervous is not the people like you, with the questions, but the people with the cocksure answers, seeking to drill those answers into the heads of the nitwits who spend their evenings watching “The Biggest Loser.”
“As we unravel the financial scandals of the past decade it will become very clear that Bernie Madoff’s exploitation of his investors was more the rule than the exception.”
I agree. That’s why I still think we’ve seen only the tip of the iceberg. A crash is coming, a really bad one. The bailout money is going into secret Swiss bank accounts; the scandal story of late 2009 will be how the bailout money was stolen, and “there’s nothing we can do about it now,” so we’ll have to pony up some more money, or else everybody loses their jobs. But you can trust us, we really fixed the system this time.
“The notion that man’s spiritual self-realization is bound up with the transformation of society makes a lot of liberals nervous.”
What makes me nervous is anybody, liberal, conservative or otherwise, deciding that their path to spiritual fulfillment or happiness or righteousness or whatever, is the right one, and the one that everyone must follow. I’m not suggesting that is what you are trying to do; you end your post with a question, not an answer. But if there are two things you can count on, it’s that bigshots will saw off the tops of mountains to get at the rich creamy money inside them, and they’ll saw off the tops of our heads to pour their theologies in where our brains used to be.
What makes me nervous is not the people like you, with the questions, but the people with the cocksure answers, seeking to drill those answers into the heads of the nitwits who spend their evenings watching “The Biggest Loser.”
“Science is observer-centric. So is religion.”
Books use words. So did Hitler.
“Science is observer-centric. So is religion.”
Books use words. So did Hitler.
“Science is observer-centric. So is religion.”
Books use words. So did Hitler.
@Akira:
I don’t wish to engage in a flamewar, but I do want to understand you. Right now I don’t.
>> I said science, not it’s current application.
Huh? How do you separate applied science from pure R&D so cleanly? And do you really suggest we abandon cutting-edge research in fields like nanotech and quantum physics and genetic engineering?
>> … Hiding your real motivation
(spirituality) after the rather unsuccessful science cover is laughable.
Huh? Are you ascribing some motivation to me, or is the “you” here some other entity? I have no idea what you’re talking about. I thought I spoke plainly.
>>But I will still reply; Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and all their derivatives are all hiding places for the ignorant, greedy, and incompetent.
Here we appear to be in close agreement.
>> Your website seems phony like your piece.
That’s low and baseless, what gives? Socrates had much to say about ad hominem attacks. Please refrain from juvenile insults. I’ve been writing my personal thoughts on my site for eight years and there’s nothing “phony” about it. Please, elevate the level of your discourse and keep it to ideas.
>> All this noise about cyber wars, I am yet to meet a competent agent.
Again I have no idea what you’re talking about. What cyber wars? What kind of agent? How is any of that relevant?
>> Besides, your style is awfully reminiscent of someone too regular here.
Again w/ the ad hominem attacks. I’ve only ever written here non-anonymously. You have my personal site and my email address. I don’t know who you’re referring to but you’re wrong, and seriously, there’s just no need for that.
Please take this as constructive criticism: your obtuse and aggressive writing style get in the way of communication. It makes it hard to even tell when we are in agreement. It seems from some later comments you made that there’s actually quite a lot of common ground. But I also see in your comments a real attacking style of discussion (e.g. aimed at me, and at Len) which I’m trying to avoid. Thanks in advance for taking this at face value. Not attacking you.
Back to the subject matter:
I agree the mind-brain duality is very interesting indeed. I found Pinker very helpful here, the computational theory of mind is as coherent as any other I’ve come across in my studies.
http://www.amazon.com/How-Mind-Works-Steven-Pinker/dp/0393318486
As far as the relationship of Science to Religion, I defer to Dawkins who is much more eloquent than I am:
http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004
The “godless == amoral” straw-man is just totally wrong. We do not get our morals from our belief in invisible magic friends, we get them from our connectedness to community, from our love for one another, from adaptively selected human social traits…
@woodnsoul: Yeah. There’s a problem here w/ defining terms. Spirituality vs. Morality vs. Religious dogma… Science (applied), Science (R&D), Science (Hyper-rational determinism as philosophy)… Heart, Mind, Brain, Soul…. sigh. Terms so loaded (w/ meaning, let alone emotional/affective response) it’s pretty difficult to bang ideas around effectively.
@Dan: LOL. Funny and to the point, that last one.
@Alex: Right on, well put.
@All: Happy New Year!
@Akira:
I don’t wish to engage in a flamewar, but I do want to understand you. Right now I don’t.
>> I said science, not it’s current application.
Huh? How do you separate applied science from pure R&D so cleanly? And do you really suggest we abandon cutting-edge research in fields like nanotech and quantum physics and genetic engineering?
>> … Hiding your real motivation
(spirituality) after the rather unsuccessful science cover is laughable.
Huh? Are you ascribing some motivation to me, or is the “you” here some other entity? I have no idea what you’re talking about. I thought I spoke plainly.
>>But I will still reply; Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and all their derivatives are all hiding places for the ignorant, greedy, and incompetent.
Here we appear to be in close agreement.
>> Your website seems phony like your piece.
That’s low and baseless, what gives? Socrates had much to say about ad hominem attacks. Please refrain from juvenile insults. I’ve been writing my personal thoughts on my site for eight years and there’s nothing “phony” about it. Please, elevate the level of your discourse and keep it to ideas.
>> All this noise about cyber wars, I am yet to meet a competent agent.
Again I have no idea what you’re talking about. What cyber wars? What kind of agent? How is any of that relevant?
>> Besides, your style is awfully reminiscent of someone too regular here.
Again w/ the ad hominem attacks. I’ve only ever written here non-anonymously. You have my personal site and my email address. I don’t know who you’re referring to but you’re wrong, and seriously, there’s just no need for that.
Please take this as constructive criticism: your obtuse and aggressive writing style get in the way of communication. It makes it hard to even tell when we are in agreement. It seems from some later comments you made that there’s actually quite a lot of common ground. But I also see in your comments a real attacking style of discussion (e.g. aimed at me, and at Len) which I’m trying to avoid. Thanks in advance for taking this at face value. Not attacking you.
Back to the subject matter:
I agree the mind-brain duality is very interesting indeed. I found Pinker very helpful here, the computational theory of mind is as coherent as any other I’ve come across in my studies.
http://www.amazon.com/How-Mind-Works-Steven-Pinker/dp/0393318486
As far as the relationship of Science to Religion, I defer to Dawkins who is much more eloquent than I am:
http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004
The “godless == amoral” straw-man is just totally wrong. We do not get our morals from our belief in invisible magic friends, we get them from our connectedness to community, from our love for one another, from adaptively selected human social traits…
@woodnsoul: Yeah. There’s a problem here w/ defining terms. Spirituality vs. Morality vs. Religious dogma… Science (applied), Science (R&D), Science (Hyper-rational determinism as philosophy)… Heart, Mind, Brain, Soul…. sigh. Terms so loaded (w/ meaning, let alone emotional/affective response) it’s pretty difficult to bang ideas around effectively.
@Dan: LOL. Funny and to the point, that last one.
@Alex: Right on, well put.
@All: Happy New Year!
@Akira:
I don’t wish to engage in a flamewar, but I do want to understand you. Right now I don’t.
>> I said science, not it’s current application.
Huh? How do you separate applied science from pure R&D so cleanly? And do you really suggest we abandon cutting-edge research in fields like nanotech and quantum physics and genetic engineering?
>> … Hiding your real motivation
(spirituality) after the rather unsuccessful science cover is laughable.
Huh? Are you ascribing some motivation to me, or is the “you” here some other entity? I have no idea what you’re talking about. I thought I spoke plainly.
>>But I will still reply; Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and all their derivatives are all hiding places for the ignorant, greedy, and incompetent.
Here we appear to be in close agreement.
>> Your website seems phony like your piece.
That’s low and baseless, what gives? Socrates had much to say about ad hominem attacks. Please refrain from juvenile insults. I’ve been writing my personal thoughts on my site for eight years and there’s nothing “phony” about it. Please, elevate the level of your discourse and keep it to ideas.
>> All this noise about cyber wars, I am yet to meet a competent agent.
Again I have no idea what you’re talking about. What cyber wars? What kind of agent? How is any of that relevant?
>> Besides, your style is awfully reminiscent of someone too regular here.
Again w/ the ad hominem attacks. I’ve only ever written here non-anonymously. You have my personal site and my email address. I don’t know who you’re referring to but you’re wrong, and seriously, there’s just no need for that.
Please take this as constructive criticism: your obtuse and aggressive writing style get in the way of communication. It makes it hard to even tell when we are in agreement. It seems from some later comments you made that there’s actually quite a lot of common ground. But I also see in your comments a real attacking style of discussion (e.g. aimed at me, and at Len) which I’m trying to avoid. Thanks in advance for taking this at face value. Not attacking you.
Back to the subject matter:
I agree the mind-brain duality is very interesting indeed. I found Pinker very helpful here, the computational theory of mind is as coherent as any other I’ve come across in my studies.
http://www.amazon.com/How-Mind-Works-Steven-Pinker/dp/0393318486
As far as the relationship of Science to Religion, I defer to Dawkins who is much more eloquent than I am:
http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004
The “godless == amoral” straw-man is just totally wrong. We do not get our morals from our belief in invisible magic friends, we get them from our connectedness to community, from our love for one another, from adaptively selected human social traits…
@woodnsoul: Yeah. There’s a problem here w/ defining terms. Spirituality vs. Morality vs. Religious dogma… Science (applied), Science (R&D), Science (Hyper-rational determinism as philosophy)… Heart, Mind, Brain, Soul…. sigh. Terms so loaded (w/ meaning, let alone emotional/affective response) it’s pretty difficult to bang ideas around effectively.
@Dan: LOL. Funny and to the point, that last one.
@Alex: Right on, well put.
@All: Happy New Year!
This is totally off-topic but hilarious:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=susZ2ceEHwk
This is totally off-topic but hilarious:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=susZ2ceEHwk
This is totally off-topic but hilarious:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=susZ2ceEHwk
““irrevocable Golden Rule” Hahaha. There is no such thing. Like the Dalai Lama, you are now inventing a new concept to hide behind.”
I was explaining to Jon that the Golden Rule as taught by some Christians would mean that the rule is irrevocable, never broken. The majority of people can’t manage that. It is a good idea and one supported by simulation testing (tit for tat sims). There is nothing to hide.
If you are saying I am a poor mathematician, guilty as charged. When you say I am anti-science, you are wrong. No contest.
My comment was about gravity. One of the counter-arguments to dark matter is that we don’t actually understand gravity effects over very long distances. We don’t know so for the sake of discussion, it is a good counter-argument. IOW, we rely on math which is in its pure form, symbolic manipulation according to logical rules. Our math tells us a spiral galaxy ought to have certain properties and our observations contradict the math. So now we know the math is wrong.
That’s science. Math isn’t truth except insofar as one ascribes truth to texts or hypotheses and that is bad science. It is a useful tool where comparisons are made with scientific testing. If you are an admirer of science, you know that.
Some people are both good scientists and good church members. This is not a relationship based on the quest for absolute truth. It is based on the personal choices for living a life integrated both socially and morally with a grounding in provable science for making decisions and unproven scientific speculation for finding the interesting questions.
No skin lost here, but consider that an intellect informed by humility is more likely to unlock the secrets of science and spirituality than one that seeks these simply as a way to be a bit higher up on the food chain than the next guy. No one who has to be right all of the time is a good correspondent because at some point, they will be wrong and then they either have to change their mind or abuse their partners. Intellectual abuse is ugly.
““irrevocable Golden Rule” Hahaha. There is no such thing. Like the Dalai Lama, you are now inventing a new concept to hide behind.”
I was explaining to Jon that the Golden Rule as taught by some Christians would mean that the rule is irrevocable, never broken. The majority of people can’t manage that. It is a good idea and one supported by simulation testing (tit for tat sims). There is nothing to hide.
If you are saying I am a poor mathematician, guilty as charged. When you say I am anti-science, you are wrong. No contest.
My comment was about gravity. One of the counter-arguments to dark matter is that we don’t actually understand gravity effects over very long distances. We don’t know so for the sake of discussion, it is a good counter-argument. IOW, we rely on math which is in its pure form, symbolic manipulation according to logical rules. Our math tells us a spiral galaxy ought to have certain properties and our observations contradict the math. So now we know the math is wrong.
That’s science. Math isn’t truth except insofar as one ascribes truth to texts or hypotheses and that is bad science. It is a useful tool where comparisons are made with scientific testing. If you are an admirer of science, you know that.
Some people are both good scientists and good church members. This is not a relationship based on the quest for absolute truth. It is based on the personal choices for living a life integrated both socially and morally with a grounding in provable science for making decisions and unproven scientific speculation for finding the interesting questions.
No skin lost here, but consider that an intellect informed by humility is more likely to unlock the secrets of science and spirituality than one that seeks these simply as a way to be a bit higher up on the food chain than the next guy. No one who has to be right all of the time is a good correspondent because at some point, they will be wrong and then they either have to change their mind or abuse their partners. Intellectual abuse is ugly.
““irrevocable Golden Rule” Hahaha. There is no such thing. Like the Dalai Lama, you are now inventing a new concept to hide behind.”
I was explaining to Jon that the Golden Rule as taught by some Christians would mean that the rule is irrevocable, never broken. The majority of people can’t manage that. It is a good idea and one supported by simulation testing (tit for tat sims). There is nothing to hide.
If you are saying I am a poor mathematician, guilty as charged. When you say I am anti-science, you are wrong. No contest.
My comment was about gravity. One of the counter-arguments to dark matter is that we don’t actually understand gravity effects over very long distances. We don’t know so for the sake of discussion, it is a good counter-argument. IOW, we rely on math which is in its pure form, symbolic manipulation according to logical rules. Our math tells us a spiral galaxy ought to have certain properties and our observations contradict the math. So now we know the math is wrong.
That’s science. Math isn’t truth except insofar as one ascribes truth to texts or hypotheses and that is bad science. It is a useful tool where comparisons are made with scientific testing. If you are an admirer of science, you know that.
Some people are both good scientists and good church members. This is not a relationship based on the quest for absolute truth. It is based on the personal choices for living a life integrated both socially and morally with a grounding in provable science for making decisions and unproven scientific speculation for finding the interesting questions.
No skin lost here, but consider that an intellect informed by humility is more likely to unlock the secrets of science and spirituality than one that seeks these simply as a way to be a bit higher up on the food chain than the next guy. No one who has to be right all of the time is a good correspondent because at some point, they will be wrong and then they either have to change their mind or abuse their partners. Intellectual abuse is ugly.
““irrevocable Golden Rule” Hahaha. There is no such thing. Like the Dalai Lama, you are now inventing a new concept to hide behind.”
I was explaining to Jon that the Golden Rule as taught by some Christians would mean that the rule is irrevocable, never broken. The majority of people can’t manage that. It is a good idea and one supported by simulation testing (tit for tat sims). There is nothing to hide.
If you are saying I am a poor mathematician, guilty as charged. When you say I am anti-science, you are wrong. No contest.
My comment was about gravity. One of the counter-arguments to dark matter is that we don’t actually understand gravity effects over very long distances. We don’t know so for the sake of discussion, it is a good counter-argument. IOW, we rely on math which is in its pure form, symbolic manipulation according to logical rules. Our math tells us a spiral galaxy ought to have certain properties and our observations contradict the math. So now we know the math is wrong.
That’s science. Math isn’t truth except insofar as one ascribes truth to texts or hypotheses and that is bad science. It is a useful tool where comparisons are made with scientific testing. If you are an admirer of science, you know that.
Some people are both good scientists and good church members. This is not a relationship based on the quest for absolute truth. It is based on the personal choices for living a life integrated both socially and morally with a grounding in provable science for making decisions and unproven scientific speculation for finding the interesting questions.
No skin lost here, but consider that an intellect informed by humility is more likely to unlock the secrets of science and spirituality than one that seeks these simply as a way to be a bit higher up on the food chain than the next guy. No one who has to be right all of the time is a good correspondent because at some point, they will be wrong and then they either have to change their mind or abuse their partners. Intellectual abuse is ugly.
Bringing it back to the original subject, the unholy alliance between GM and the UAW is shaping up to be a case study of exploitation in all its forms, and the best example yet of how supposedly ‘bottom line’ thinking can lead to the bottom dropping out entirely. Here’s a great illustration showing how a pattern of systematic disregard for anything but short-term profits on one side) and insulation from market forces (on the other) has plunged an industrial superpower into the realm of deep and sustained losses – not only to its workers, suppliers, customers, and shareholders, but to every person who pays taxes, and, by extension to everyone who is loosing business because individuals are sending money into this black hole, instead of genuinely productive ends.
Tangential to this mess seems to be an endless – and totally pointless – debate about ‘which comes first – profits or people?’
I understand the impetus behind the pro-profit side. Usually it’s a request not to kill the golden goose by loading a broad range of social welfare goals onto the backs of companies that must make money to survive. At the risk of sounding too partisan, these programs are often pushed by liberals who have done a bad job governing, and are now trying to foist the resulting failures off of organizations that are singularly unequipped to address these needs (Example A: employer-based health care).
At the same time, people making the ‘profits first’ argument have a nasty habit of disregarding the off-balance sheet losses that their products and operations may impose on the rest of society, and resist even those efforts to improve social welfare that can only be made (effectively, at least) with changes in their business practices (e.g. dumping toxic waste in rivers).
Personally, I’m opposed to the kind of ‘feel-good / give something back’ nonsense that has passed for ‘corporate social responsibility’. While it’s great to see companies supporting local charities, and makes sense to the extent that it advances marketing dept. goals, the reality is that most of these efforts are transparent PR that waste investor capitol, do nothing to improve the quality or profitability of output, and sidestep any questions about decisions that maximize social welfare and can only be handled in a private boardroom (e.g. lowering mortality rates by installing seat-belts and air-bags).
One development I hope to see from the Interregnum is the realization that we can’t simply think about ‘the bottom line’ as though it had some clearly defined – and universally accepted – length. There are quarterly returns, annul returns, and returns that may not accrue or a decade or more (e.g. Toyota’s investment in hybrid technology).
Though it hasn’t received enough attention, it seems that one of the most insidious effects of the credit bubble was the way it elevated the value of quarterly returns to the point where these were the only numbers that mattered. No externality was left unspared – from the health of our oceans to the integrity of our government, to the educations and retirements of our people.
Sure, the returns were (temporarily) great – but so it the feeling that any coke addict tells you he craves. Moving forward, I think we need to realize that sustainability is key.
If you’re dealing with people who find that the needs of People, Profits and Place are, somehow, in conflict, and arranged in a ‘one can’t win unless the other looses’ fashion, then it’s pretty clear that you’re up against somebody who is still addicted to hopelessly short-term thinking. Because once your view gets adequately broad, it becomes clear that these three elements – People, Profits, and Place – are entirely inter-related and co-dependent.
If you don’t see how diminishing one will inevitably lead to reductions in the others, then you’re not a manager. You’re a pirate. Of course, if you live in a completely failed state, like Somalia, piracy is to be expected – and may even produce a limited measure of social good. But if you have the option to live under a real government, with actual accountability to its people, you’ll want to see your elected representatives dead-set against exploitation in any form, and hostile to any managers incapable of harmonizing the three Ps’.
Bringing it back to the original subject, the unholy alliance between GM and the UAW is shaping up to be a case study of exploitation in all its forms, and the best example yet of how supposedly ‘bottom line’ thinking can lead to the bottom dropping out entirely. Here’s a great illustration showing how a pattern of systematic disregard for anything but short-term profits on one side) and insulation from market forces (on the other) has plunged an industrial superpower into the realm of deep and sustained losses – not only to its workers, suppliers, customers, and shareholders, but to every person who pays taxes, and, by extension to everyone who is loosing business because individuals are sending money into this black hole, instead of genuinely productive ends.
Tangential to this mess seems to be an endless – and totally pointless – debate about ‘which comes first – profits or people?’
I understand the impetus behind the pro-profit side. Usually it’s a request not to kill the golden goose by loading a broad range of social welfare goals onto the backs of companies that must make money to survive. At the risk of sounding too partisan, these programs are often pushed by liberals who have done a bad job governing, and are now trying to foist the resulting failures off of organizations that are singularly unequipped to address these needs (Example A: employer-based health care).
At the same time, people making the ‘profits first’ argument have a nasty habit of disregarding the off-balance sheet losses that their products and operations may impose on the rest of society, and resist even those efforts to improve social welfare that can only be made (effectively, at least) with changes in their business practices (e.g. dumping toxic waste in rivers).
Personally, I’m opposed to the kind of ‘feel-good / give something back’ nonsense that has passed for ‘corporate social responsibility’. While it’s great to see companies supporting local charities, and makes sense to the extent that it advances marketing dept. goals, the reality is that most of these efforts are transparent PR that waste investor capitol, do nothing to improve the quality or profitability of output, and sidestep any questions about decisions that maximize social welfare and can only be handled in a private boardroom (e.g. lowering mortality rates by installing seat-belts and air-bags).
One development I hope to see from the Interregnum is the realization that we can’t simply think about ‘the bottom line’ as though it had some clearly defined – and universally accepted – length. There are quarterly returns, annul returns, and returns that may not accrue or a decade or more (e.g. Toyota’s investment in hybrid technology).
Though it hasn’t received enough attention, it seems that one of the most insidious effects of the credit bubble was the way it elevated the value of quarterly returns to the point where these were the only numbers that mattered. No externality was left unspared – from the health of our oceans to the integrity of our government, to the educations and retirements of our people.
Sure, the returns were (temporarily) great – but so it the feeling that any coke addict tells you he craves. Moving forward, I think we need to realize that sustainability is key.
If you’re dealing with people who find that the needs of People, Profits and Place are, somehow, in conflict, and arranged in a ‘one can’t win unless the other looses’ fashion, then it’s pretty clear that you’re up against somebody who is still addicted to hopelessly short-term thinking. Because once your view gets adequately broad, it becomes clear that these three elements – People, Profits, and Place – are entirely inter-related and co-dependent.
If you don’t see how diminishing one will inevitably lead to reductions in the others, then you’re not a manager. You’re a pirate. Of course, if you live in a completely failed state, like Somalia, piracy is to be expected – and may even produce a limited measure of social good. But if you have the option to live under a real government, with actual accountability to its people, you’ll want to see your elected representatives dead-set against exploitation in any form, and hostile to any managers incapable of harmonizing the three Ps’.
Bringing it back to the original subject, the unholy alliance between GM and the UAW is shaping up to be a case study of exploitation in all its forms, and the best example yet of how supposedly ‘bottom line’ thinking can lead to the bottom dropping out entirely. Here’s a great illustration showing how a pattern of systematic disregard for anything but short-term profits on one side) and insulation from market forces (on the other) has plunged an industrial superpower into the realm of deep and sustained losses – not only to its workers, suppliers, customers, and shareholders, but to every person who pays taxes, and, by extension to everyone who is loosing business because individuals are sending money into this black hole, instead of genuinely productive ends.
Tangential to this mess seems to be an endless – and totally pointless – debate about ‘which comes first – profits or people?’
I understand the impetus behind the pro-profit side. Usually it’s a request not to kill the golden goose by loading a broad range of social welfare goals onto the backs of companies that must make money to survive. At the risk of sounding too partisan, these programs are often pushed by liberals who have done a bad job governing, and are now trying to foist the resulting failures off of organizations that are singularly unequipped to address these needs (Example A: employer-based health care).
At the same time, people making the ‘profits first’ argument have a nasty habit of disregarding the off-balance sheet losses that their products and operations may impose on the rest of society, and resist even those efforts to improve social welfare that can only be made (effectively, at least) with changes in their business practices (e.g. dumping toxic waste in rivers).
Personally, I’m opposed to the kind of ‘feel-good / give something back’ nonsense that has passed for ‘corporate social responsibility’. While it’s great to see companies supporting local charities, and makes sense to the extent that it advances marketing dept. goals, the reality is that most of these efforts are transparent PR that waste investor capitol, do nothing to improve the quality or profitability of output, and sidestep any questions about decisions that maximize social welfare and can only be handled in a private boardroom (e.g. lowering mortality rates by installing seat-belts and air-bags).
One development I hope to see from the Interregnum is the realization that we can’t simply think about ‘the bottom line’ as though it had some clearly defined – and universally accepted – length. There are quarterly returns, annul returns, and returns that may not accrue or a decade or more (e.g. Toyota’s investment in hybrid technology).
Though it hasn’t received enough attention, it seems that one of the most insidious effects of the credit bubble was the way it elevated the value of quarterly returns to the point where these were the only numbers that mattered. No externality was left unspared – from the health of our oceans to the integrity of our government, to the educations and retirements of our people.
Sure, the returns were (temporarily) great – but so it the feeling that any coke addict tells you he craves. Moving forward, I think we need to realize that sustainability is key.
If you’re dealing with people who find that the needs of People, Profits and Place are, somehow, in conflict, and arranged in a ‘one can’t win unless the other looses’ fashion, then it’s pretty clear that you’re up against somebody who is still addicted to hopelessly short-term thinking. Because once your view gets adequately broad, it becomes clear that these three elements – People, Profits, and Place – are entirely inter-related and co-dependent.
If you don’t see how diminishing one will inevitably lead to reductions in the others, then you’re not a manager. You’re a pirate. Of course, if you live in a completely failed state, like Somalia, piracy is to be expected – and may even produce a limited measure of social good. But if you have the option to live under a real government, with actual accountability to its people, you’ll want to see your elected representatives dead-set against exploitation in any form, and hostile to any managers incapable of harmonizing the three Ps’.
Bringing it back to the original subject, the unholy alliance between GM and the UAW is shaping up to be a case study of exploitation in all its forms, and the best example yet of how supposedly ‘bottom line’ thinking can lead to the bottom dropping out entirely. Here’s a great illustration showing how a pattern of systematic disregard for anything but short-term profits on one side) and insulation from market forces (on the other) has plunged an industrial superpower into the realm of deep and sustained losses – not only to its workers, suppliers, customers, and shareholders, but to every person who pays taxes, and, by extension to everyone who is loosing business because individuals are sending money into this black hole, instead of genuinely productive ends.
Tangential to this mess seems to be an endless – and totally pointless – debate about ‘which comes first – profits or people?’
I understand the impetus behind the pro-profit side. Usually it’s a request not to kill the golden goose by loading a broad range of social welfare goals onto the backs of companies that must make money to survive. At the risk of sounding too partisan, these programs are often pushed by liberals who have done a bad job governing, and are now trying to foist the resulting failures off of organizations that are singularly unequipped to address these needs (Example A: employer-based health care).
At the same time, people making the ‘profits first’ argument have a nasty habit of disregarding the off-balance sheet losses that their products and operations may impose on the rest of society, and resist even those efforts to improve social welfare that can only be made (effectively, at least) with changes in their business practices (e.g. dumping toxic waste in rivers).
Personally, I’m opposed to the kind of ‘feel-good / give something back’ nonsense that has passed for ‘corporate social responsibility’. While it’s great to see companies supporting local charities, and makes sense to the extent that it advances marketing dept. goals, the reality is that most of these efforts are transparent PR that waste investor capitol, do nothing to improve the quality or profitability of output, and sidestep any questions about decisions that maximize social welfare and can only be handled in a private boardroom (e.g. lowering mortality rates by installing seat-belts and air-bags).
One development I hope to see from the Interregnum is the realization that we can’t simply think about ‘the bottom line’ as though it had some clearly defined – and universally accepted – length. There are quarterly returns, annul returns, and returns that may not accrue or a decade or more (e.g. Toyota’s investment in hybrid technology).
Though it hasn’t received enough attention, it seems that one of the most insidious effects of the credit bubble was the way it elevated the value of quarterly returns to the point where these were the only numbers that mattered. No externality was left unspared – from the health of our oceans to the integrity of our government, to the educations and retirements of our people.
Sure, the returns were (temporarily) great – but so it the feeling that any coke addict tells you he craves. Moving forward, I think we need to realize that sustainability is key.
If you’re dealing with people who find that the needs of People, Profits and Place are, somehow, in conflict, and arranged in a ‘one can’t win unless the other looses’ fashion, then it’s pretty clear that you’re up against somebody who is still addicted to hopelessly short-term thinking. Because once your view gets adequately broad, it becomes clear that these three elements – People, Profits, and Place – are entirely inter-related and co-dependent.
If you don’t see how diminishing one will inevitably lead to reductions in the others, then you’re not a manager. You’re a pirate. Of course, if you live in a completely failed state, like Somalia, piracy is to be expected – and may even produce a limited measure of social good. But if you have the option to live under a real government, with actual accountability to its people, you’ll want to see your elected representatives dead-set against exploitation in any form, and hostile to any managers incapable of harmonizing the three Ps’.
@Alex: Well-said.
@Alex: Well-said.
@Alex: Well-said.
“..sustainability is key”
Yes, Alex, as long as it is coupled to the need to get rid of materiel no longer needed when one is sure it isn’t. As Marvin Minsky is reported to have said, “it is important to remember to forget”.
Having lived through locust seasons when good companies went bad because of financial buy-ups, you are right. The mantra is “the stockholder is our customer” and no lie could be more insidiously destructive to the company culture, it’s product quality, and survival.
What would be the effect on our financial system if we got rid of shorting? IOW, what value is created by shorting and if the answer is none, then should we insist that neg-value functions are a good idea for financial health?
“..sustainability is key”
Yes, Alex, as long as it is coupled to the need to get rid of materiel no longer needed when one is sure it isn’t. As Marvin Minsky is reported to have said, “it is important to remember to forget”.
Having lived through locust seasons when good companies went bad because of financial buy-ups, you are right. The mantra is “the stockholder is our customer” and no lie could be more insidiously destructive to the company culture, it’s product quality, and survival.
What would be the effect on our financial system if we got rid of shorting? IOW, what value is created by shorting and if the answer is none, then should we insist that neg-value functions are a good idea for financial health?
Alex- Great thoughts. I actually think some of the steady state economists like Herman Daly are trying to put a cost on the externalities that a present day P & L does not account for.
Alex- Great thoughts. I actually think some of the steady state economists like Herman Daly are trying to put a cost on the externalities that a present day P & L does not account for.
Alex- Great thoughts. I actually think some of the steady state economists like Herman Daly are trying to put a cost on the externalities that a present day P & L does not account for.
Thanks for the kind words. I wasn’t familiar with Professor Daly, but having done a bit of Googling, I think his concept of ‘uneconomic growth‘ is an essential one to keep in mind as we try to extract ourselves from the wreckage of the Bush Bubble.
As an aside, your observation about Corporate Welfare and Cerberus seems like a case study in uneconomic growth.
Thanks for the kind words. I wasn’t familiar with Professor Daly, but having done a bit of Googling, I think his concept of ‘uneconomic growth‘ is an essential one to keep in mind as we try to extract ourselves from the wreckage of the Bush Bubble.
As an aside, your observation about Corporate Welfare and Cerberus seems like a case study in uneconomic growth.
Oh, hey, it looks like Herman Daly is becoming the man of the moment.
Tim O’Reilly has just written a post about The Biggest Ponzi Scheme of Them All
In this piece, Professor Daly makes the obvious, but under-reported point that
In other words, we’re not witnessing a crash. We’re in the middle of flood. It’s like the Katrina of Money, we all live in New Orleans, and the Ninth Ward is Detroit.
Oh, hey, it looks like Herman Daly is becoming the man of the moment.
Tim O’Reilly has just written a post about The Biggest Ponzi Scheme of Them All
In this piece, Professor Daly makes the obvious, but under-reported point that
In other words, we’re not witnessing a crash. We’re in the middle of flood. It’s like the Katrina of Money, we all live in New Orleans, and the Ninth Ward is Detroit.
Oh, hey, it looks like Herman Daly is becoming the man of the moment.
Tim O’Reilly has just written a post about The Biggest Ponzi Scheme of Them All
In this piece, Professor Daly makes the obvious, but under-reported point that
In other words, we’re not witnessing a crash. We’re in the middle of flood. It’s like the Katrina of Money, we all live in New Orleans, and the Ninth Ward is Detroit.
Oh, hey, it looks like Herman Daly is becoming the man of the moment.
Tim O’Reilly has just written a post about The Biggest Ponzi Scheme of Them All
In this piece, Professor Daly makes the obvious, but under-reported point that
In other words, we’re not witnessing a crash. We’re in the middle of flood. It’s like the Katrina of Money, we all live in New Orleans, and the Ninth Ward is Detroit.
If we don’t go to space, it can grow internally but will still go chaotic at some point. Arabeque economies are not based on outward expansion but inward expansion: we become the Tokyo of Money. At some point of resolution, it becomes not only uncomfortable, but impossible to manage efficiently. That’s one of the nasties of information space theories of addressing.
Space is not an answer given how long it would take for an off-world economy to have on-world benefits disregarding spinoffs and considering tangible goods. We aren’t going to the Moon again for economic reasons.
As pointed out, we are strip mining the future with promises with the retort being, and how will they collect when we are dead? From our heirs? You can’t rob the poor of much except opportunity.
And any futures-oriented market is based on there being if not infinite opportunity, at least promissory opportunity. IOW, it is cash where the promissory IS the future.
Reagan saw that and answered with optimism that somehow translated to perceived prosperity. He won that way. Obama just did the same thing. I’m watching to see how well that works. Infrastructure is a good idea and a necessary task but it takes time and in many cases tends toward corruption. Patience and tolerance for corruption appear to be necessary for restart economies and one would inquire if that is a real necessity or one caused by the cost of control/oversight becoming a penalty to the end results. Means matter.
In the large, there are no permanent solutions. In the small and local, one focuses on value for money: build something someone else wants. If you want to be socially conscious, it can be something they need as well. If one wants to be socially aware, it can be something they need and that will enable them to satisfy other needs as well.
If one wants to be socially acceptable, it shouldn’t be crystal meth.
If one wants to be a social hero, it should be something that puts resources back. Johnny Appleseed and open source are heroes for a reason but there are few free apple orchards today.
And that struggle for ownership and control are permanent aspects of capitalism. Capitalism works until it becomes predatory. A honey bee makes honey. A locust just eats and moves on.
It is all about creating real value instead of just inflating numbers by passing them from function to function.
Tim O’Reilly as one of the proponents of Web 2.0 and a man who drank deep of the spring of the frictionless Internet isn’t exactly the guy I look to for advice on how to get rid of economic locusts. A steady state farm works well until the locusts come to dine.
And this is a locust problem. What will be hardest for the ownership society to face up to is how much of their wealth was really just locust droppings and that to create it without attending it (invest and forget), they are guaranteeing that a good part of their crop is not just feeding the bugs, it enables them to breed.
If we don’t go to space, it can grow internally but will still go chaotic at some point. Arabeque economies are not based on outward expansion but inward expansion: we become the Tokyo of Money. At some point of resolution, it becomes not only uncomfortable, but impossible to manage efficiently. That’s one of the nasties of information space theories of addressing.
Space is not an answer given how long it would take for an off-world economy to have on-world benefits disregarding spinoffs and considering tangible goods. We aren’t going to the Moon again for economic reasons.
As pointed out, we are strip mining the future with promises with the retort being, and how will they collect when we are dead? From our heirs? You can’t rob the poor of much except opportunity.
And any futures-oriented market is based on there being if not infinite opportunity, at least promissory opportunity. IOW, it is cash where the promissory IS the future.
Reagan saw that and answered with optimism that somehow translated to perceived prosperity. He won that way. Obama just did the same thing. I’m watching to see how well that works. Infrastructure is a good idea and a necessary task but it takes time and in many cases tends toward corruption. Patience and tolerance for corruption appear to be necessary for restart economies and one would inquire if that is a real necessity or one caused by the cost of control/oversight becoming a penalty to the end results. Means matter.
In the large, there are no permanent solutions. In the small and local, one focuses on value for money: build something someone else wants. If you want to be socially conscious, it can be something they need as well. If one wants to be socially aware, it can be something they need and that will enable them to satisfy other needs as well.
If one wants to be socially acceptable, it shouldn’t be crystal meth.
If one wants to be a social hero, it should be something that puts resources back. Johnny Appleseed and open source are heroes for a reason but there are few free apple orchards today.
And that struggle for ownership and control are permanent aspects of capitalism. Capitalism works until it becomes predatory. A honey bee makes honey. A locust just eats and moves on.
It is all about creating real value instead of just inflating numbers by passing them from function to function.
Tim O’Reilly as one of the proponents of Web 2.0 and a man who drank deep of the spring of the frictionless Internet isn’t exactly the guy I look to for advice on how to get rid of economic locusts. A steady state farm works well until the locusts come to dine.
And this is a locust problem. What will be hardest for the ownership society to face up to is how much of their wealth was really just locust droppings and that to create it without attending it (invest and forget), they are guaranteeing that a good part of their crop is not just feeding the bugs, it enables them to breed.
If we don’t go to space, it can grow internally but will still go chaotic at some point. Arabeque economies are not based on outward expansion but inward expansion: we become the Tokyo of Money. At some point of resolution, it becomes not only uncomfortable, but impossible to manage efficiently. That’s one of the nasties of information space theories of addressing.
Space is not an answer given how long it would take for an off-world economy to have on-world benefits disregarding spinoffs and considering tangible goods. We aren’t going to the Moon again for economic reasons.
As pointed out, we are strip mining the future with promises with the retort being, and how will they collect when we are dead? From our heirs? You can’t rob the poor of much except opportunity.
And any futures-oriented market is based on there being if not infinite opportunity, at least promissory opportunity. IOW, it is cash where the promissory IS the future.
Reagan saw that and answered with optimism that somehow translated to perceived prosperity. He won that way. Obama just did the same thing. I’m watching to see how well that works. Infrastructure is a good idea and a necessary task but it takes time and in many cases tends toward corruption. Patience and tolerance for corruption appear to be necessary for restart economies and one would inquire if that is a real necessity or one caused by the cost of control/oversight becoming a penalty to the end results. Means matter.
In the large, there are no permanent solutions. In the small and local, one focuses on value for money: build something someone else wants. If you want to be socially conscious, it can be something they need as well. If one wants to be socially aware, it can be something they need and that will enable them to satisfy other needs as well.
If one wants to be socially acceptable, it shouldn’t be crystal meth.
If one wants to be a social hero, it should be something that puts resources back. Johnny Appleseed and open source are heroes for a reason but there are few free apple orchards today.
And that struggle for ownership and control are permanent aspects of capitalism. Capitalism works until it becomes predatory. A honey bee makes honey. A locust just eats and moves on.
It is all about creating real value instead of just inflating numbers by passing them from function to function.
Tim O’Reilly as one of the proponents of Web 2.0 and a man who drank deep of the spring of the frictionless Internet isn’t exactly the guy I look to for advice on how to get rid of economic locusts. A steady state farm works well until the locusts come to dine.
And this is a locust problem. What will be hardest for the ownership society to face up to is how much of their wealth was really just locust droppings and that to create it without attending it (invest and forget), they are guaranteeing that a good part of their crop is not just feeding the bugs, it enables them to breed.
If we don’t go to space, it can grow internally but will still go chaotic at some point. Arabeque economies are not based on outward expansion but inward expansion: we become the Tokyo of Money. At some point of resolution, it becomes not only uncomfortable, but impossible to manage efficiently. That’s one of the nasties of information space theories of addressing.
Space is not an answer given how long it would take for an off-world economy to have on-world benefits disregarding spinoffs and considering tangible goods. We aren’t going to the Moon again for economic reasons.
As pointed out, we are strip mining the future with promises with the retort being, and how will they collect when we are dead? From our heirs? You can’t rob the poor of much except opportunity.
And any futures-oriented market is based on there being if not infinite opportunity, at least promissory opportunity. IOW, it is cash where the promissory IS the future.
Reagan saw that and answered with optimism that somehow translated to perceived prosperity. He won that way. Obama just did the same thing. I’m watching to see how well that works. Infrastructure is a good idea and a necessary task but it takes time and in many cases tends toward corruption. Patience and tolerance for corruption appear to be necessary for restart economies and one would inquire if that is a real necessity or one caused by the cost of control/oversight becoming a penalty to the end results. Means matter.
In the large, there are no permanent solutions. In the small and local, one focuses on value for money: build something someone else wants. If you want to be socially conscious, it can be something they need as well. If one wants to be socially aware, it can be something they need and that will enable them to satisfy other needs as well.
If one wants to be socially acceptable, it shouldn’t be crystal meth.
If one wants to be a social hero, it should be something that puts resources back. Johnny Appleseed and open source are heroes for a reason but there are few free apple orchards today.
And that struggle for ownership and control are permanent aspects of capitalism. Capitalism works until it becomes predatory. A honey bee makes honey. A locust just eats and moves on.
It is all about creating real value instead of just inflating numbers by passing them from function to function.
Tim O’Reilly as one of the proponents of Web 2.0 and a man who drank deep of the spring of the frictionless Internet isn’t exactly the guy I look to for advice on how to get rid of economic locusts. A steady state farm works well until the locusts come to dine.
And this is a locust problem. What will be hardest for the ownership society to face up to is how much of their wealth was really just locust droppings and that to create it without attending it (invest and forget), they are guaranteeing that a good part of their crop is not just feeding the bugs, it enables them to breed.
@len,
At least Mr. O’Reilly has the ability to realize that notions held dear from childhood may no longer make much sense. Specifically, that the focus on outer space vs. inner space may be past it’s prime, or at least in need of a sensible counterweight.
I applaud his ability to change his mind.
@len,
At least Mr. O’Reilly has the ability to realize that notions held dear from childhood may no longer make much sense. Specifically, that the focus on outer space vs. inner space may be past it’s prime, or at least in need of a sensible counterweight.
I applaud his ability to change his mind.
@len,
At least Mr. O’Reilly has the ability to realize that notions held dear from childhood may no longer make much sense. Specifically, that the focus on outer space vs. inner space may be past it’s prime, or at least in need of a sensible counterweight.
I applaud his ability to change his mind.
I note his ability to make fortunes on recoining the ideas of others, but then I’m from the web side of the world where a lot of such petty theft made people rich. I’ve not much patience for the pundits of Web 2.0. They made Ponzi schemes popular and then when their own assets were secure, began like bootleggers become licensed brewers to evolve into the biggest supporters of the secret service.
It is easy to change values in the moment, but harder to keep them when being told they make no sense but they still have value. Again, New Coke. The role of the artist in both cases, yours and this one, is to put up the mirror and ask the hard questions even if the artist believes they have answered it for themselves.
Thus my question to T-Bone about the role of a bluesman when all looks well.
The counterweight is to rationally understand that the reach into both spaces is limited and that limits benefits. As with the example of Goldman Sachs, modeling is just an image of things that might be but not really a mirror of what is. Anywhere you see a straight line appear out of nowhere (hidden coupler), a value increase in the present based on a function that cannot return until later (lookahead), or a curve that turns upward infinitely (recursion), your antennae should light up and fear pheromones should flood the immediate space around you.
Entropy takes no prisoners and uncertainty leaves no witnesses.
I note his ability to make fortunes on recoining the ideas of others, but then I’m from the web side of the world where a lot of such petty theft made people rich. I’ve not much patience for the pundits of Web 2.0. They made Ponzi schemes popular and then when their own assets were secure, began like bootleggers become licensed brewers to evolve into the biggest supporters of the secret service.
It is easy to change values in the moment, but harder to keep them when being told they make no sense but they still have value. Again, New Coke. The role of the artist in both cases, yours and this one, is to put up the mirror and ask the hard questions even if the artist believes they have answered it for themselves.
Thus my question to T-Bone about the role of a bluesman when all looks well.
The counterweight is to rationally understand that the reach into both spaces is limited and that limits benefits. As with the example of Goldman Sachs, modeling is just an image of things that might be but not really a mirror of what is. Anywhere you see a straight line appear out of nowhere (hidden coupler), a value increase in the present based on a function that cannot return until later (lookahead), or a curve that turns upward infinitely (recursion), your antennae should light up and fear pheromones should flood the immediate space around you.
Entropy takes no prisoners and uncertainty leaves no witnesses.
I note his ability to make fortunes on recoining the ideas of others, but then I’m from the web side of the world where a lot of such petty theft made people rich. I’ve not much patience for the pundits of Web 2.0. They made Ponzi schemes popular and then when their own assets were secure, began like bootleggers become licensed brewers to evolve into the biggest supporters of the secret service.
It is easy to change values in the moment, but harder to keep them when being told they make no sense but they still have value. Again, New Coke. The role of the artist in both cases, yours and this one, is to put up the mirror and ask the hard questions even if the artist believes they have answered it for themselves.
Thus my question to T-Bone about the role of a bluesman when all looks well.
The counterweight is to rationally understand that the reach into both spaces is limited and that limits benefits. As with the example of Goldman Sachs, modeling is just an image of things that might be but not really a mirror of what is. Anywhere you see a straight line appear out of nowhere (hidden coupler), a value increase in the present based on a function that cannot return until later (lookahead), or a curve that turns upward infinitely (recursion), your antennae should light up and fear pheromones should flood the immediate space around you.
Entropy takes no prisoners and uncertainty leaves no witnesses.
@len,
All that may be the case, but it’s important to remember that the salient point about unsustainable (and therefore uneconomic) growth was made by Herman Daly, not Tim O’Reilly, who was simply being credit for bringing the link to my attention.
Even if he is a pirate and a bootlegger, he seems to have good stuff to ‘share’.
@len,
All that may be the case, but it’s important to remember that the salient point about unsustainable (and therefore uneconomic) growth was made by Herman Daly, not Tim O’Reilly, who was simply being credit for bringing the link to my attention.
Even if he is a pirate and a bootlegger, he seems to have good stuff to ‘share’.
@len,
All that may be the case, but it’s important to remember that the salient point about unsustainable (and therefore uneconomic) growth was made by Herman Daly, not Tim O’Reilly, who was simply being credit for bringing the link to my attention.
Even if he is a pirate and a bootlegger, he seems to have good stuff to ‘share’.
@len,
All that may be the case, but it’s important to remember that the salient point about unsustainable (and therefore uneconomic) growth was made by Herman Daly, not Tim O’Reilly, who was simply being credit for bringing the link to my attention.
Even if he is a pirate and a bootlegger, he seems to have good stuff to ‘share’.
Point made. That he does and he does.
The problem of selling it is how to make the idea that once we accept unsustainable growth, we may be abandoning the American Dream of excess without regard to class, creed, color or sexual preference.
IOW, when there are limits, not everyone can be obscenely wealthy, and if we are honest about that, it needs to become a virtue.
Point made. That he does and he does.
The problem of selling it is how to make the idea that once we accept unsustainable growth, we may be abandoning the American Dream of excess without regard to class, creed, color or sexual preference.
IOW, when there are limits, not everyone can be obscenely wealthy, and if we are honest about that, it needs to become a virtue.
Point made. That he does and he does.
The problem of selling it is how to make the idea that once we accept unsustainable growth, we may be abandoning the American Dream of excess without regard to class, creed, color or sexual preference.
IOW, when there are limits, not everyone can be obscenely wealthy, and if we are honest about that, it needs to become a virtue.
A brilliant talk in line with the theme of this string by Barry Schwartz at TED;
http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisdom.html
Judging by the response, the science community is ready for the transformation towards balancing of material and spiritual, and they may even lead it.
A brilliant talk in line with the theme of this string by Barry Schwartz at TED;
http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisdom.html
Judging by the response, the science community is ready for the transformation towards balancing of material and spiritual, and they may even lead it.