developing technologies and curbing wealth whilst retaining motivation. Okay... one part at a time....
"developing technologies"... curbing wealth".... "retaining motivation"..... how and what does "one" do to accomplish each part of that?.... I am genuinely interested...."developing technologies" takes learning... schools and such... but also research and development... the production end....who does each part of that?... private or public who funds it?... you know, the associated questions... "curbing wealth"... for some or for all... are you saying more equitable division , but where do you get the "seed money"? and "retaining motivation"? "motivation" is something I like to look into... It is mostly "conceptual" or emotional.... Below is and "old" thematic dialectic square that I came up with...the "motivations" being to "live modestly" as distinguished from "to "live affluently"...... I guess the condensced word-terms would probably be "Greed" .... and some not so well-defined Live modestly / work....... Live affluently / steal Live modestly / steal........ Live affluently / work I guess the defined word-terms would probably be "Greed" .... as opposed to some not so well-defined "antonyms"... *Antonyms:* abstemiousness <http://www.synonyms.net/synonym/abstemiousness>, abstinence<http://www.synonyms.net/synonym/abstinence>, continence <http://www.synonyms.net/synonym/continence>, fasting<http://www.synonyms.net/synonym/fasting>, frugality <http://www.synonyms.net/synonym/frugality>, moderation<http://www.synonyms.net/synonym/moderation>, self-control <http://www.synonyms.net/synonym/self-control>, self-denial<http://www.synonyms.net/synonym/self-denial>, self-restraint <http://www.synonyms.net/synonym/self-restraint>, sobriety<http://www.synonyms.net/synonym/sobriety>, temperance <http://www.synonyms.net/synonym/temperance> My point is that the most "known" motivation for economic activity (at least for "capitalist" economics) is greed... but a comparable motivation for a "modest" approach seems to be harder to pin down.....Can you suggest some... Archytas?.... economic altruism... general welfare... public good.... what would you call it? On Sunday, December 2, 2012 10:14:18 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > I don't think economics can help much. The subject is more of a sham > than a science. Most of the constructs on any side of it aren't > tested. My guess is technology is our only hope. We could have some > worthwhile theory if we broke the focus on money as in earlier forms > of economics (Ely, Veblen), looked more at resources, planet burning, > developing technologies and curbing wealth whilst retaining > motivation. > > On 2 Dec, 19:13, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > So... how about Economics?....It appears that the whole world is in an > > economic mess....That's your field, more-or-less, right?... How the heck > > does the world get out of it (the mess)?....Tax the Rich... or Cut > benefits > > for the Poor?... Grow the economy by fostering laissez faire > Capitalism... > > or government direct the flow of money to entrepreneurial or business > > sectors that can and do "create jobs"? or something else... you likely > know > > better than I what the possible options are.... > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_growth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, December 1, 2012 9:31:19 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > > > > I don't do holy Kant. I do think the way most argument works is to > > > suppress and as a consequence there are few 'rational words'. Kant > > > was wrong on a priori in geometry - but then I had loads of trouble > > > understanding triangles written on spheres myself and the advantage of > > > coming after Gauss. What I did find in reading Kant was an effort to > > > see complex relations. > > > > > On 1 Dec, 16:30, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Nomaparanoius.... HAR..... > > > > > > Sometimes I look back on my posts and note quite a few lapses or > > > mistakes > > > > that make me cringe....I wonder how people can understand what I am > > > trying > > > > to get at when I state the exact opposite of what I wanted to > convey.... > > > > all due to a misplaced term..... I tend to set up my reasoning by > > > > oppositions of terms and ideas.... sometimes I get forgetful and > plug in > > > > the contrary in the wrong place.... ah well.... I know what I mean, > if > > > no > > > > one else does.... > > > > > > I've been looking over some of the writings and notions of David > > > Hume..... > > > > another smart "empiricist".....English thinkers are the predominant > > > origin > > > > and seat of empiricism... nominalism... and the like....My personal > > > > favorite....I don't cotton much for the teutonic brands of > "Idealism"... > > > > and especially Kantian "transcendental Idealism... which generates > > > > phenomenology... I think you've gathered that about me by now, > > > > Archytas.....You, on the other hand, appear to have a tolerance of > if > > > not a > > > > liking for Kant and the Phenomenological brand of philosophical > > > > "meditation" techniques HAR.... searching for the Thing in > Itself.... > > > the > > > > noumenon which underlies the misleading and transitory > phenomenon..... > > > the > > > > Alpha and the Omega... the "GOD-IMAGE" and revealed utmost TRUTH of > all > > > > scientific quest........It's a religion... you know... that whole > > > > "direction".... > > > > > > On Friday, November 30, 2012 10:00:26 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > > > > > > No Nomaparanoius - my allusion was to some postmodern dross. > > > > > > > On 30 Nov, 15:35, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > Are you suggesting that I am not... readable????HAR....well... > my > > > style > > > > > > comes from "thinking" in "things"....Concepts and References.... > not > > > in > > > > > > "words and abstractions".....mostly ruminations and phantasms of > the > > > > > > "imagination".... tropical fish... words and abstractions are? > HAR > > > > > > > > On Thursday, November 29, 2012 7:20:41 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > > > > > > > > And he was readable Nom! > > > > > > > > > On 27 Nov, 16:34, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Locke > > > > > > > > left room for something more speculative than the empirical. > / > > > > > Archytas > > > > > > > > > > Smart fellow, that Locke.... > > > > > > > > - show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, November 26, 2012 7:31:09 PM UTC-5, archytas > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I don't go with Craig on the 'answer' - but we don't know > what > > > > > matter > > > > > > > > > or energy is - we construct notions of such in the present > > > > > including > > > > > > > > > the notion some 'stuff' is older than us. Whitehead's > > > 'occasions > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > experience' perhaps. > > > > > > > > > We sidestep a lot of ontology with method. If you waft a > bit > > > of > > > > > lead > > > > > > > > > carbonate in a test tube in a Bunsen flame for a while it > will > > > > > turn > > > > > > > > > yellow. That is, on Earth in normal lab conditions. You > could > > > > > check > > > > > > > > > this out if arsed. A blind man would need a sighter he > could > > > > > trust. > > > > > > > > > If I draw two line on a flip chart, one slightly shorter > than > > > the > > > > > > > > > other and get a collaborator to point to the short one and > say > > > it > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > the longest - most will follow the lie and point to the > wrong > > > one. > > > > > A > > > > > > > > > ruler becomes the arbiter. Much of science is about > keeping > > > > > cheating > > > > > > > > > slackers and dumb sheep behaviour out. Particles are just > > > > > accounting > > > > > > > > > devices and theories accounting systems. Science likes to > > > mark to > > > > > > > > > what it posits as reality - unlike banks. What that > reality > > > is - > > > > > fuck > > > > > > > > > knows - but just hold the top of this Leiden Jar Nom - the > > > shock > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > only be nominal (or Nominal's?). Make me a radio based on > > > some > > > > > goon's > > > > > > > > > ideas about health giving crystals - or try Wireless World > (I > > > was > > > > > once > > > > > > > > > an addict). Tropical fish realism works - but this > doesn't > > > negate > > > > > > > > > what Craig has to say and neither does it not working for > me. > > > > > Locke > > > > > > > > > left room for something more speculative than the > empirical. > > > > > > > > > > > On 26 Nov, 18:49, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The way that it makes sense to me is that energy is only > the > > > > > > > experience > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > matter interacting with matter, and matter is only > > > experience > > > > > > > divorced > > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > any given participant. To you, your life is images, > > > feelings, > > > > > > > thoughts. > > > > > > > > > To > > > > > > > > > > me is it a body or brain - materials having an effect on > > > other > > > > > > > materials > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > the world. > > > > > > > > > > > > Our idea of energy and information are the two greatest > > > > > obstacles to > > > > > > > our > > > > > > > > > > understanding. We have objectified them as existential > > > > > > > > > pseudo-substances, > > > > > > > > > > but I think that the reality is that energy and > information > > > are > > > > > > > nothing > > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > > arbitrarily depersonalized sensory-motor experience. > > > Information > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > sensory > > > > > > > > > > input, energy is motor output, each of which define and > > > > > constrain > > > > > > > each > > > > > > > > > > other.. Period. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, November 26, 2012 1:36:54 PM UTC-5, nominal9 > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a "teasing" question for the both of > > > you....Socrates > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > Archytas....are Energy and Matter (interchangeable and > > > mutable > > > > > as > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > > > > be)... both "physical"... or are they just > > > > > "conceptual"....same > > > > > > > > > question > > > > > > > > > > > put differently ... are Energy and Matter an "idea" > or > > > are > > > > > they > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > actual > > > > > > > > > > > "real" thing?....Sometimes I think "scientists" get > lost > > > in > > > > > their > > > > > > > > > > > "abstractions"..... of formulas and > mathematics...theories > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > hypotheses....Me... I think that Energy and Matter are > > > > > Objective, > > > > > > > > > actually > > > > > > > > > > > "there" and "real"....but I'm just a lowly > lay-person.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, September 8, 2012 11:16:00 AM UTC-4, > > > > > > > > > socr...@bezeqint.netwrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Our Modern Scientific Philosophy. > > > > > > > > > > >> =. > > > > > > > > > > >> The simplest atom hydrogen consists of electron and > > > proton. > > > > > > > > > > >> Question. > > > > > > > > > > >> Where did electron and proton come from? > > > > > > > > > > >> Answer. > > > > > > > > > > >> Electron and proton came from big bang. > > > > > > > > > > >> Question. > > > > > > > > > > >> Where the did big bang come from? > > > > > > > > > > >> Answer. > > > > > > > > > > >> The big bang was created when all electrons and > protons > > > > > > > > > > >> and all another particles were pressed into a > singular > > > point. > > > > > > > > > > >> ==.. > > > > > > > > > > >> If you don’t believe in such philosophy – you are an > > > ignorant > > > > > > > man. > > > > > > > > > > >> =. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/CToAZv-Dn2QJ. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
