I agree with the difficulties concerning "human affairs" , as such.... Science has certainty as to "unthinking" material objects because there is a strict "Physical" cause and effect relation (of whatever sort) there.... But when any thinking mind gets involved then the direct one-to-one "Physical" relation can be subverted or diverted.... Action and Reaction applies in thinking being affairs....I think we discussed this in the past.... So Social sciences or cultural affairs in their totality are not so cut and dried.... not "reasoned and rational"... or at least not so "ordered" according to only one conception of reason and rationality.....all sorts of people going off in different "course of action" directions often competing or clashing with one another....That's the way it goes.....But there must be some way of getting the just plain mistakes and stupid "feasability" errors out of the consideration thought processes of the roughly mentally competent of thinking/acting beings, I'd hope.....
Often seems not....Over here. the Govt. is teetering at the edge of a "fiscal budget cliff" of its own making... the prospect is for some very draconian budget cuts and tax increases across the board of Govt,. programs and taxpayers unless the present Govt. (President and equally-divided legislative bodies) can come to some agreement on what alternative intermediate steps can be taken as to the budget issues....Do you have at least a basic understanding of what is going on in the U.S.?.... What would be your own (more expert than my own) notions as to how to address and redress the U.S. budget issues.....On the other side.... Europe (and the English zone... the "Isles" including the Irelands) is going through similar economic difficulties....What should be done..... not just to put the Govt. budgets back in order but also to get all the respective social economies going at a better clip? I mean.... at some point it does get into "Physical" or "Action matters of "fact"....doesn't it?.... what would "function" (work) and what would be counter-productive (steal)..... Taxation seems just point-of-fact limited...I mean, one can't get blood (money) from a stone (meaning that people in poverty don't have any appreciable tax money to give). And conversely, rich people can pay for their own social services.... so they usually don't feel that much of a burden if services are terminated or pared down....Is it too much of a self-serving point for me to say that the likely "feasible" way to a solution "could" be to Tax the rich more (since that is where the money is) and Cut the rich's social benefits most also since they're the ones who get hurt the least by that.....But I don't want to make this appear to be all only a one-way street... How can the rich be"positively" "motivated" to do something for the "public welfare" and what could that action be?....A not altogether "altruistic" motivation would be to lead the rich to put their money to work creating jobs....by giving generous "tax breaks" or write offs to all "wealth" put into productive economic ventures....the "rich" would still "own" things... like companies, plants and farms and such... but their wealth would not be sucked up in capital investments... or gold ... or dormant property and the like...then, when the time comes... the rich can pass down the "company" to the kids (tax-free).....not the family fortune.... I know.... it's very simplistic to the financially astute... like you and the true "money" folks... but you get the general gist... there must be mutually beneficial ways for all to prosper, together....you tell me... BTW... is Chazwin alright? On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 10:40:36 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > We are 'seeing' the DNA double helix for the first time through > electrons fired at strands about 7 helix's thick. In x-ray > crystallography we made some measurements and interpreted the helix > via mathematical models. In comparison, economics is somewhere pre- > alchemy on structure. The main barriers to understanding are the same > in science and social science - but in social science you can't > exclude them. Economics has no reliable definitions or clue on the > half-life of much it seeks to define. > > On 3 Dec, 17:58, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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 > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป > -- 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/-/fJNm3tDPYEAJ. 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.
