One more thing.... if I don't get a chance....All the best for the holidays... however you and your family observe them.....Catch you another day... back to the grind, for me....
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/-/TvMUfHT8GN0J. 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.
