Not 'seen' Chaz since last year. Had his postgrad year at Sussex by then. The way for us all to prosper is to get rid of the rich and the financial system as we have it. The key element in this concerns being able to organise work without the coercion of poverty and various forms of one-uppmanship. Good luck to you too Nom.
On 5 Dec, 18:36, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. 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.
