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

the partial and limited view

Expand Messages
  • Trinidad Cruz
    Mary I m not sure to take you as an anarchist now or not. I know you hang out with some who claim to be. (I personally think Bush is an anarchist). I have seen
    Message 1 of 5 , May 31, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Mary

      I'm not sure to take you as an anarchist now or not. I know you hang
      out with some who claim to be. (I personally think Bush is an
      anarchist). I have seen your writing on other sites. I wonder what an
      anarchist is? I admit to having a rather guilty attachment to
      stimulating controversy here (largely because the host is a
      rhetorician); and it has been interesting to watch the occasional
      theory melt down; but anarchy fails for the same substantive reasons
      as most social iniatives: an incorrect perspective on reality, and
      taking its own rhetoric as representational, essentially believing
      that you can get there from here.

      I was working part-time as a gas station attendant back in the 60's
      when a rather cute young lady pulled up and ask me for directions to
      the freeway. I pondered for a minute and then replied quite seriously,
      " I don't think you can get there from here." I saw the alarm
      momentarily cross her face, and she shuffled through a map and asked,
      "Well where do I have to go to get there?" I started to pretend to
      show her on the map, and she looked up at me and burst into laughter.
      Even though it is not valid, people in general relate to ideas and
      concepts as representational of reality. The reality of anarchy is
      actually in its own arguments against control. All any social
      organization can do; personal relationship, family, community,
      government; is make you less free. Other is conflict. One cannot
      protect freedom, only make enriching enhancing choices for someone else.

      Anarchy is not a system of liberation; but rather, the natural state
      of human beings who take concepts and ideas as possibly
      representational of their natural state (something that can only be
      larger than they can possibly grasp in an idea). The view human beings
      are afforded of themselves by their natural consequences of being
      human can always only be less than they actually are. Even Einstein
      hints at this a bit with: "imagination is more important than
      knowledge, knowledge is limited." Quantum physics and people like
      Cartwright (as I have often referred) have enriched this debate
      immensely, and it continues always between Rorty and Dennett in their
      own personal exhanges. Modern science has always been tied to a
      pragmatism that requires a representational epistemology, but now we
      must incorporate a real acceptance of experiential limitations in view
      for data to remain valid, and results utilitarian. We cannot mistake
      utilitarian effects within a completely representational view as
      always utilitarian if science is to progress anywhere beyond
      lego-land. For that matter we cannot define pragmatism in general
      without incorporating our natural empirical limitations (we cannot
      ever wholly view ourselves and exist able to view at all). On this
      issue, you may be surprised to discover, I agree with Rorty, and do
      not see his present views on epistemology as a threat to either
      pragmatism or science, but rather as a challenge toward their future.

      Trinidad
    • Exist List Moderator
      Anarchy as theory takes libertarian freedoms to the point they fail. People need order within a society; some people are born leaders or even dictators and we
      Message 2 of 5 , May 31, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Anarchy as theory takes libertarian freedoms to the point they fail.
        People need order within a society; some people are born leaders or
        even dictators and we need some rules to limit their pursuits of power
        and authority. A lot more people want to be led than want to lead -- so
        I worry that they will follow anyone promising easy answers.

        As a libertarian, I know I am far from the socialism of the people
        around me. I am neither a socialist nor a corporatist, which confuses
        people. I think the fact companies can and do manipulate government
        laws and regulations means the companies cease to be "capitalistic." If
        you seek laws to protect yourself from competition and free market, or
        seek special tax breaks, you are not really practicing capitalism.
        (Even Adam Smith suggested government must ensure a fair and open
        market, with honesty sustained by the courts and contracts.)

        Anarchy fails because many people are not honest. They will do anything
        for power and money. They will lie about what their product does, lie
        about how much effort they put into work, et cetera. Socialism fails
        for the same reasons -- people manipulate any system.

        It is sad, but we need just enough laws to protect us from each other,
        while avoiding having so many laws that freedom is lost. The balance is
        not easy. I suggest you let people buy and sell whatever they want, as
        long as they know the risks. I also think people should be free to try
        and fail at most anything at all. However, people should admit they
        might fail -- and government should not pick up the pieces every time.

        Because I am tired, I'm probably not explaining my distrust of anarchy
        very well. I am somewhere between philosophies, like most people. I
        want to be free to do what I want, but I also do not trust the rest of
        humanity to behave in the way I might consider ethical.

        Too many people think "capitalism" is devoid of ethics, when in fact
        Adam Smith and others did explain that ethical behavior was the only
        way for capitalism to work. This is true of any political system --
        which is why all system are weak and can fail. Even in a theocracy,
        people will manipulate and lie.

        So, I am a libertarian instead of an anarchist, and a capitalist
        instead of a corporatist. Unfortunately, too many Americans (and
        Europeans) think being a libertarian is the same as being a neo-liberal
        or neo-conservative. We don't educate our youth well enough to
        understand what it means to "believe" in any set of philosophies.

        As a result, young "anarchists" protest against "capitalism" without a
        clue as to what the terms mean.

        -- CSW


        I have been away for the last week, and off-list for a bit longer. I
        was presenting at a conference in Texas and many things that could go
        wrong did with both the presentation and the trip. Nothing like a
        tornado and severe storm warning to remind me why I like California.
        Quakes are a lot less destructive and you don't have to watch them
        approach on the local TV channels.
      • Trinidad Cruz
        ... wrote: I think the fact companies can and do manipulate government laws and regulations means the companies cease to be capitalistic.If
        Message 3 of 5 , Jun 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator
          <existlist1@...> wrote:

          "I think the fact companies can and do manipulate government laws and
          regulations means the companies cease to be "capitalistic.If you seek
          laws to protect yourself from competition and free market, or seek
          special tax breaks, you are not really practicing capitalism."

          I have always looked at this as a statistical anomaly. Though it
          should be "one man - one vote", with influence peddling and lobbying
          we have a democracy that is weighed out most often only in dollars,
          and one man can deliver thousands of votes. Companies are still
          practicing capitalism when seeking to buy government advantages.
          Bribery and pandering are capitalist activities. A capitalist is not
          compelled to moral or ethical claim and arguments to that effect are
          silly. There is a vast difference between Enron's Lay gang and say
          industrialists like Carnegie and Pullman. Capitalism slipped from any
          ethical postition a long time ago, but then so has every other naive
          view of social organization. I love the mixers. I loved Drexel back in
          the day, and I like Chavez and Citgo selling heating oil for
          forty-five percent of the market price to designated poor communities
          in the US. I think that capitalism is not a theory, not even in a
          mathematical sense. It's just the old need and greed paradigm,
          regardless of how some philosophers have tried to bandwagon it to the
          moral high ground as both the prerequisite and result of freedom.
          Neither is true. Capitalism is a human event in a representational
          view. In my opinion Deleuze has a strange poetic but poignantly
          concise turn on it.If we would really consider capitalism as a
          philosophical theory it would line up rather neatly with a lot of the
          anarchist view; but in the end capitalism is actually not a
          philosophy, actually not a way of life, or even a way of living, just
          a system of counting.

          Trinidad
        • Albert
          Now Trinidad, It is the least evil system. Besides, greed and counting are an essential components to progress, period, and without it there is no progress.
          Message 4 of 5 , Jun 1, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Now Trinidad,

            It is the least evil system. Besides, greed and "counting" are an essential
            components to progress, period, and without it there is no progress.

            Albert.




            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@...>
            To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 5:49 PM
            Subject: [existlist] Re: the partial and limited view


            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator
            <existlist1@...> wrote:

            "I think the fact companies can and do manipulate government laws and
            regulations means the companies cease to be "capitalistic.If you seek
            laws to protect yourself from competition and free market, or seek
            special tax breaks, you are not really practicing capitalism."

            I have always looked at this as a statistical anomaly. Though it
            should be "one man - one vote", with influence peddling and lobbying
            we have a democracy that is weighed out most often only in dollars,
            and one man can deliver thousands of votes. Companies are still
            practicing capitalism when seeking to buy government advantages.
            Bribery and pandering are capitalist activities. A capitalist is not
            compelled to moral or ethical claim and arguments to that effect are
            silly. There is a vast difference between Enron's Lay gang and say
            industrialists like Carnegie and Pullman. Capitalism slipped from any
            ethical postition a long time ago, but then so has every other naive
            view of social organization. I love the mixers. I loved Drexel back in
            the day, and I like Chavez and Citgo selling heating oil for
            forty-five percent of the market price to designated poor communities
            in the US. I think that capitalism is not a theory, not even in a
            mathematical sense. It's just the old need and greed paradigm,
            regardless of how some philosophers have tried to bandwagon it to the
            moral high ground as both the prerequisite and result of freedom.
            Neither is true. Capitalism is a human event in a representational
            view. In my opinion Deleuze has a strange poetic but poignantly
            concise turn on it.If we would really consider capitalism as a
            philosophical theory it would line up rather neatly with a lot of the
            anarchist view; but in the end capitalism is actually not a
            philosophy, actually not a way of life, or even a way of living, just
            a system of counting.

            Trinidad










            Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

            Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
            Yahoo! Groups Links









            --
            No virus found in this incoming message.
            Checked by AVG Free Edition.
            Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.0/353 - Release Date: 5/31/2006
          • Exist List Moderator
            ... Actually, it is not silly to call upon the moral imperatives Smith and others said were necessary for true capitalism to survive. Once you lose the moral
            Message 5 of 5 , Jun 5, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              On Jun 01, 2006, at 8:49, Trinidad Cruz wrote:

              > and one man can deliver thousands of votes. Companies are still
              > practicing capitalism when seeking to buy government advantages.
              > Bribery and pandering are capitalist activities. A capitalist is not
              > compelled to moral or ethical claim and arguments to that effect are
              > silly.

              Actually, it is not "silly" to call upon the moral imperatives Smith
              and others said were necessary for true capitalism to survive. Once you
              lose the moral obligations to society and to whatever moral compass you
              have (admitted for Smith and his colleagues this was a Christian
              ethic), then anything becomes possible.

              The loss of morality / ethics is evident, as you admit, in all social
              systems. I certainly would not present any current world leader or
              government as a model of perfection. Ethics are stuck in some
              soft-n-chewy (not my quote) postmodern relativism that refuses to seek
              clarity but rather strives to show how no ethical system is valid
              because all are valid.

              Capitalism is not Enron, unless you consider the notion that Smith was
              correct when he suggested the courts might be the final solution when
              morality and social ethics fail. At least some stockholders are
              starting to use their ownership to challenge executive hubris.

              > I love the mixers. I loved Drexel back in
              > the day, and I like Chavez and Citgo selling heating oil for
              > forty-five percent of the market price to designated poor communities
              > in the US.

              I consider Chavez incredibly dangerous, and increasingly so do his
              neighbors. Unfortunately, generations of corruption supported by the
              Cold War have ruined the political systems of Latin America. The United
              States and Soviet Union did their best to dominate the puppet states,
              depriving the residents of self-determination.

              Now, anyone promising a better life can win for a cycle or two. That
              Caracas is the "most dangerous city in the hemisphere" (Amnesty
              International) doesn't seem to register with Chavez supporters. He will
              eventually use the high crime rate to justify some manner of
              power-grab. We've seen this in Chile, Columbia, and Brazil.

              > concise turn on it.If we would really consider capitalism as a
              > philosophical theory it would line up rather neatly with a lot of the
              > anarchist view; but in the end capitalism is actually not a
              > philosophy, actually not a way of life, or even a way of living, just
              > a system of counting.

              No philosophy works, under this strict notion that you can actually
              implement a pure version of the political or economic. Human nature
              will always interfere. This is why the libertarians and anarchists try
              to limit government -- it has the ultimate power, and the people in
              charge are just people. I don't trust people to do the right thing
              without some manner of public way to cause shame or even humiliation.
              In capitalism, competition is the balancing force, along with the
              notion of complete and honest contractual obligations.

              In "corporatism" (internationalism, or whatever you wish to call it),
              we approach the unholy alliance of government and industry, as was the
              case with fascism and Soviet-style "Communism" we see morphing under
              Putin. China is a more extreme example, but I'm not certain where it
              will evolve. When the government and industry are one, there are no
              checks on power. The leaders of one are the leaders of the other.

              This concerns me right now because when we allow power to become
              centralized, new ideas and even radical rejections of current ideas
              become nearly impossible. No "philosophy" except self-focused,
              inner-peace type solutions become viable when the individual is
              stripped of power.

              Then, you have the existentialism of Frankl or the absurdism of Camus.
              This is where I often turn for reading, and see no conflict with their
              notions and my dream of an individual-based society. I know it is a
              dream because most people... we know what they are like. They aren't
              about to go without handouts or leaders to follow.

              - C. S. Wyatt
              I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
              that I shall be.
              http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
              http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.