Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

DREAMS OF EQUILIBRIA DANCED THROUGH THEIR HEADS

Expand Messages
  • Jay Hanson
    ~~~~~~~~~~EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~ All the following makes the case that we need to heed Albert Einstein s admonition that; We cannot solve
    Message 1 of 6 , Jul 31, 2012
      ~~~~~~~~~~EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

      All the following makes the case that we need to heed Albert Einstein's admonition that; "We cannot solve the problems of today with the same kinds of thinking that caused them."

      Lets look into this new kinds of thinking process and see what it has to offer us today, as we live in a world with an uncertainty that is unprecedented in history

      ~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~


      *
      *DREAMS OF EQUILIBRIA DANCED THROUGH THEIR HEADS*
      *Jay Hanson, 7/31/2012*
      **

      The central "truth" of [the social sciences] is that nature, especially
      that of humankind, is nice and that people are designed to do things
      that, all in all, favor the survival of their species. Hence people
      could never be equipped by nature with instincts to kill other people.
      This idea comes from the Bambi school of biology, a Disneyesque vision
      of nature as a collection of moralistic and altruistic creatures. It
      admires nature for its harmony and beauty of form and for its apparent
      "balance" or even cooperativeness. It admires the deer for its beauty
      and fleetness, and it grudgingly admires the lion for its power and
      nobility of form. If anything is really wrong with us, it explains, it
      is a sociocultural problem that we can fix by resocializing people. It
      is not a biological problem.
      ---Michael P. Ghiglieri, 1999

      "Equilibrium" models provide the foundation of our social sciences, our
      economic and political ideals. However, evolution theory tells us that
      these models are wrong; social systems do not tend towards
      equilibria---/they tend towards oligarchy and collapse./We only have to
      observe ourselves, as we destroy any chance for our species to exist on
      this planet, and as the rich monopolize political power, to realize
      that/these hopes for spontaneous equilibria are false./Where did
      equilibrium thinking come from?

      The origins of equilibria thought in our present society can be traced
      back to the philosophy of two men: Rene Descartes (1596-1650) and Isaac
      Newton (1642-1727). Descartes has been called the "Father of Modern
      Philosophy" for good reasons. Descartes claimed that the mind (or soul)
      is nonmaterial and does not follow the laws of nature. The idea that the
      mind is separate from the body became known as "Cartesian Dualism" and
      provided the philosophical foundation for our existing social sciences
      and political system:

      "There is the deeply embedded dominance of two strands of Cartesian
      thought in the social sciences: the fixed idea that there is a huge gulf
      between humans and other animals; and the belief that body and mind are
      separate rather than one and the same, which makes possible the implicit
      belief that biological evolution has to do with the body rather than the
      mind."---Jerome H. Barkow, 2006

      Isaac Newton is considered by many to be the greatest and most
      influential scientist who ever lived. His principles of mechanics
      provided the inspiration to the forerunners of our modern social
      sciences. Newton's mechanical equilibrium was copied metaphorically into
      our economic and political theories:

      "The metaphors of political liberalism---like those of neoclassical
      economics---are clearly Newtonian. The various political
      particles---interest groups, electoral parties, coalitions, NGOs and
      contending state organs---all act and react on one another. Each
      particle tries to maximize its own utility. But because the particles
      are all relatively small, the political bourse remains competitive, the
      different demands tend to countervail each other, and the result
      converges to the least harmful political equilibrium."---Jonathan Nitzan
      and Shimshon Bichler, 2009

      Beginning with Newton, some of the earlier influences on economics were
      Quesnay, Voltaire, Montesquieu, DuPont de Nemours, Turgot, Marquis de
      Condorcet and especially Adam Smith (1723-1790) through his "Wealth of
      Nations." Indeed, Smith's "invisible hand" became the flagship of
      equilibrium thinking.

      Influential in politics were John Locke 1632-1704) with his "Second
      Treatise of Government," Bernard Mandeville (1670-1733) through his
      "Fable of the Bees," Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755) for his theory of
      separation of powers and social Darwinism.

      The utopian thinkers Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Henri de Saint-Simon were
      instrumental in the Disneyesque nature of our social sciences. Aguste
      Comte (1798-1857) is the founder of sociology and his theories of
      sociocultural evolution---not biological evolution---set the tone for
      our modern social sciences.

      All of our founding ideas must be rethought. Even the physical
      conditions that made our society possible are now gone. We will either
      invent a new social world or nature will invent a one for us.

      --
      Economics is the publishing of political agendas that are hidden within known-false assumptions. If one accepts these assumptions, then one accepts the hidden agendas. This brilliant method for subliminal programming has been very effective in instilling libertarian ideals into university students for half a century.
      www.4america2.us



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • htraite
      ... All of economics is metaphor. If we accept economics as a language useful for communication what metaphor then can be excluded? Ah, that classic quote of
      Message 2 of 6 , Aug 1, 2012
        >
        > ~~~~~~~~~~EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~
        >
        > All the following makes the case that we need to heed Albert Einstein's admonition that; "We cannot solve the problems of today with the same kinds of thinking that caused them."
        >
        > Lets look into this new kinds of thinking process and see what it has to offer us today, as we live in a world with an uncertainty that is unprecedented in history
        >
        > ~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~

        All of economics is metaphor. If we accept economics as a language useful for communication what metaphor then can be excluded?

        Ah, that classic quote of Albert Einstein; whoever has put the black-and-white of physics in psychosocial context as well?

        Talking about talking, how much history is opened to review when we do so?


        Howard
        Earth

        --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, Jay Hanson <JayHanson@...> wrote:

        >
        >
        > *
        > *DREAMS OF EQUILIBRIA DANCED THROUGH THEIR HEADS*
        > *Jay Hanson, 7/31/2012*
        > **
        >
        > The central "truth" of [the social sciences] is that nature, especially
        > that of humankind, is nice and that people are designed to do things
        > that, all in all, favor the survival of their species. Hence people
        > could never be equipped by nature with instincts to kill other people.
        > This idea comes from the Bambi school of biology, a Disneyesque vision
        > of nature as a collection of moralistic and altruistic creatures. It
        > admires nature for its harmony and beauty of form and for its apparent
        > "balance" or even cooperativeness. It admires the deer for its beauty
        > and fleetness, and it grudgingly admires the lion for its power and
        > nobility of form. If anything is really wrong with us, it explains, it
        > is a sociocultural problem that we can fix by resocializing people. It
        > is not a biological problem.
        > ---Michael P. Ghiglieri, 1999
        >
        > "Equilibrium" models provide the foundation of our social sciences, our
        > economic and political ideals. However, evolution theory tells us that
        > these models are wrong; social systems do not tend towards
        > equilibria---/they tend towards oligarchy and collapse./We only have to
        > observe ourselves, as we destroy any chance for our species to exist on
        > this planet, and as the rich monopolize political power, to realize
        > that/these hopes for spontaneous equilibria are false./Where did
        > equilibrium thinking come from?
        >
        > The origins of equilibria thought in our present society can be traced
        > back to the philosophy of two men: Rene Descartes (1596-1650) and Isaac
        > Newton (1642-1727). Descartes has been called the "Father of Modern
        > Philosophy" for good reasons. Descartes claimed that the mind (or soul)
        > is nonmaterial and does not follow the laws of nature. The idea that the
        > mind is separate from the body became known as "Cartesian Dualism" and
        > provided the philosophical foundation for our existing social sciences
        > and political system:
        >
        > "There is the deeply embedded dominance of two strands of Cartesian
        > thought in the social sciences: the fixed idea that there is a huge gulf
        > between humans and other animals; and the belief that body and mind are
        > separate rather than one and the same, which makes possible the implicit
        > belief that biological evolution has to do with the body rather than the
        > mind."---Jerome H. Barkow, 2006
        >
        > Isaac Newton is considered by many to be the greatest and most
        > influential scientist who ever lived. His principles of mechanics
        > provided the inspiration to the forerunners of our modern social
        > sciences. Newton's mechanical equilibrium was copied metaphorically into
        > our economic and political theories:
        >
        > "The metaphors of political liberalism---like those of neoclassical
        > economics---are clearly Newtonian. The various political
        > particles---interest groups, electoral parties, coalitions, NGOs and
        > contending state organs---all act and react on one another. Each
        > particle tries to maximize its own utility. But because the particles
        > are all relatively small, the political bourse remains competitive, the
        > different demands tend to countervail each other, and the result
        > converges to the least harmful political equilibrium."---Jonathan Nitzan
        > and Shimshon Bichler, 2009
        >
        > Beginning with Newton, some of the earlier influences on economics were
        > Quesnay, Voltaire, Montesquieu, DuPont de Nemours, Turgot, Marquis de
        > Condorcet and especially Adam Smith (1723-1790) through his "Wealth of
        > Nations." Indeed, Smith's "invisible hand" became the flagship of
        > equilibrium thinking.
        >
        > Influential in politics were John Locke 1632-1704) with his "Second
        > Treatise of Government," Bernard Mandeville (1670-1733) through his
        > "Fable of the Bees," Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755) for his theory of
        > separation of powers and social Darwinism.
        >
        > The utopian thinkers Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Henri de Saint-Simon were
        > instrumental in the Disneyesque nature of our social sciences. Aguste
        > Comte (1798-1857) is the founder of sociology and his theories of
        > sociocultural evolution---not biological evolution---set the tone for
        > our modern social sciences.
        >
        > All of our founding ideas must be rethought. Even the physical
        > conditions that made our society possible are now gone. We will either
        > invent a new social world or nature will invent a one for us.
        >
        > --
        > Economics is the publishing of political agendas that are hidden within known-false assumptions. If one accepts these assumptions, then one accepts the hidden agendas. This brilliant method for subliminal programming has been very effective in instilling libertarian ideals into university students for half a century.
        > www.4america2.us
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • Jay Hanson
        I don t accept that economics is a useful metaphor. It s pure propaganda! If economics is to be a useful metaphor, it should correct some of the many known
        Message 3 of 6 , Aug 2, 2012
          I don't accept that economics is a useful "metaphor." It's pure
          propaganda! If economics is to be a useful metaphor, it should correct
          some of the many known lies. Here is six of the most-common lies used in
          economics:

          #1. People are Bayesian equation solvers (the entire argument for market
          outcomes rests on this assumption).
          #2. Money is just a medium of exchange (money is inherently political
          because it can buy others, thus, money is a form of social power).
          #3. Energy is just a commodity (the production function only assumes
          capital and labor).
          #4. Debt is neutral to an economy.
          #5. "Wants" are identical to "needs."
          #6. The environment is part of the economy instead of the other way around.


          Jay
          --
          Economics is the publishing of political agendas that are hidden within
          known-false assumptions. If one accepts these assumptions, then one
          accepts the hidden agendas. This brilliant method for subliminal
          programming has been very effective in instilling libertarian ideals
          into university students for half a century. www.4america2.us


          On 8/1/2012 12:04 PM, htraite wrote:
          > All of economics is metaphor. If we accept economics as a language
          > useful for communication what metaphor then can be excluded?


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Jay Hanson
          I agree with you Tom. Personally, I don t see any future for the social sciences, unless they become a branch of biological study. The problem is that the
          Message 4 of 6 , Aug 2, 2012
            I agree with you Tom. Personally, I don't see any future for the social
            sciences, unless they become a branch of biological study.

            The problem is that the social scientists' brains were wired wrong.
            Everything studied by social sciences (culture markets, etc.) is a
            product of our biology. Culture is NOT a thing-in-itself. Moreover,
            the methodology of the social sciences is "positivism," which we all
            know doesn't work.

            Harvard has come-up with a temporary solution to the problem of social
            science professors who can't be fired and can't learn biology. How can
            you keep these old turds from ruining the futures of students because
            they cannot learn biology? I will make a separate post on the topic.

            Jay


            On 7/31/2012 7:15 PM, Jay Hanson wrote:
            > ~~~~~~~~~~EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~
            >
            > All the following makes the case that we need to heed Albert Einstein's admonition that; "We cannot solve the problems of today with the same kinds of thinking that caused them."
            >
            > Lets look into this new kinds of thinking process and see what it has to offer us today, as we live in a world with an uncertainty that is unprecedented in history
            >
            > ~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~
          • htraite
            Hmmm. There seems some conflicting view on economics. Let s see what Merriam-Webster Online has to say about it: a : a social science concerned chiefly with
            Message 5 of 6 , Aug 3, 2012
              Hmmm. There seems some conflicting view on economics. Let's see what Merriam-Webster Online has to say about it:

              a : a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services

              b : economic theory, principles, or practices <sound economics>

              2: economic aspect or significance <the economics of building a new stadium>

              3: economic conditions <current economics>

              http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/economics

              Unfortunately I don't subscribe to Oxford English Online, but does anyone else want to offer some perspective on economics?


              Howard
              Home Earth

              --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, Jay Hanson <JayHanson@...> wrote:
              >
              > I don't accept that economics is a useful "metaphor." It's pure
              > propaganda! If economics is to be a useful metaphor, it should correct
              > some of the many known lies. Here is six of the most-common lies used in
              > economics:
              >
              > #1. People are Bayesian equation solvers (the entire argument for market
              > outcomes rests on this assumption).
              > #2. Money is just a medium of exchange (money is inherently political
              > because it can buy others, thus, money is a form of social power).
              > #3. Energy is just a commodity (the production function only assumes
              > capital and labor).
              > #4. Debt is neutral to an economy.
              > #5. "Wants" are identical to "needs."
              > #6. The environment is part of the economy instead of the other way around.
              >
              >
              > Jay
              > --
              > Economics is the publishing of political agendas that are hidden within
              > known-false assumptions. If one accepts these assumptions, then one
              > accepts the hidden agendas. This brilliant method for subliminal
              > programming has been very effective in instilling libertarian ideals
              > into university students for half a century. www.4america2.us
              >
              >
              > On 8/1/2012 12:04 PM, htraite wrote:
              > > All of economics is metaphor. If we accept economics as a language
              > > useful for communication what metaphor then can be excluded?
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            • Ryder
              Dare I tell a joke here, told by the Biology department at my University about the Sociology students.... Did you hear about the Sociology student whose
              Message 6 of 6 , Aug 3, 2012
                Dare I tell a joke here, told by the Biology department at my University about the Sociology students....

                "Did you hear about the Sociology student whose apartment burnt down? He lost everything including all his books. Well, both of them actually and one of them he hadn't actually finished colouring in."

                This is maybe a little harsh, but in principle I agree with you. I look forward to your separate post.

                Robert R.




                On 2 Aug 2012, at 19:39, Jay Hanson <JayHanson@...> wrote:

                > I agree with you Tom. Personally, I don't see any future for the social
                > sciences, unless they become a branch of biological study.
                >
                > The problem is that the social scientists' brains were wired wrong.
                > Everything studied by social sciences (culture markets, etc.) is a
                > product of our biology. Culture is NOT a thing-in-itself. Moreover,
                > the methodology of the social sciences is "positivism," which we all
                > know doesn't work.
                >
                > Harvard has come-up with a temporary solution to the problem of social
                > science professors who can't be fired and can't learn biology. How can
                > you keep these old turds from ruining the futures of students because
                > they cannot learn biology? I will make a separate post on the topic.
                >
                > Jay
                >
                > On 7/31/2012 7:15 PM, Jay Hanson wrote:
                > > ~~~~~~~~~~EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~
                > >
                > > All the following makes the case that we need to heed Albert Einstein's admonition that; "We cannot solve the problems of today with the same kinds of thinking that caused them."
                > >
                > > Lets look into this new kinds of thinking process and see what it has to offer us today, as we live in a world with an uncertainty that is unprecedented in history
                > >
                > > ~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~
                >
                >



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.