Follow up artilcle on the Bangladesh clothing factory collapse disaster......some headway.... not much... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-bangladesh-building-safety-hmbre94c0gj-20130513,0,1355426.story
On Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:12:07 AM UTC-4, nominal9 wrote: > > I asked above that you ecucate me more on "transparent money".... I'm > trying to get your full meaning, Archytas.... hence my broad comments on > fungible and liquid and legal and illegal money gains.... Your mention of a > "gift" tractor in rural India, just by proximity and similarity in economic > condition, brings to mind the factory collapse in Bangladesh.... > > http://news.yahoo.com/joy-disbelief-relatives-embrace-rescued-bangladesh-factory-worker-104458859.html > That's the usual motive/action result of introducing a "modern tool" into > a third -world environment....Capitalism... it's all about the profit > margin.... damn the people..... > I believe we agree..... what bothers me is that in this "postmodern" (I've > come to dislike the word) age, the evils of sweatshops and of exploitation > aren't even hardly mentioned anymore.....it's expected and accepted > collateral damage, in the quest for the most.... gain..... > > > On Friday, May 10, 2013 1:25:36 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: >> >> In principle we could do something like this. Transparent money has >> many advantages - though like any other legislation we'd expect the >> banksters and other crooks to try and get round it. There's an >> obvious problem with transparency - what happens to privacy? We might >> wonder what privacy really is before letting fears about it prevent >> more transparency. Somewhere lurking on economics is why we have to >> be controlled so much by needing 'money' - even to the extent that >> those with more than they can ever use are supposed to need ever >> increasing reward through it. It's hard not to accept that money is >> good as a means of exchange - but modern money is hardly just that and >> now prevents democracy, social mobility and so on. >> Economics seems an unholy alliance of rocket science and the tools >> available to build the spaceship in my shed. I do think economics is >> possible, but we don't even realise that whatever it is will vary with >> the way we live. Human relations are so pathetic that we'd probably >> kill loads of people if we saved up and took a tractor to rural India >> and gave it away. >> >> >> On May 9, 3:47 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > Here's what I'm getting at.... can (should) the "illegal" "stuff"... >> > criminal sales (drugs, etc) or otherwise ill-begotten gains (stolen >> goods >> > converted to cash) under the table... be "unvcovered" and all >> > be"unliquified"....either restored to the >> > defrauded victims or confiscated by the state (in lieu of some taxes to >> > taxpayers, say).....? >> > >> > I said above..... and "one" might say.. "Well, isn't that what usually >> > happens when the authorities retrieve ill-gotten or stolen goods, or >> the >> > fruit thereof?.... confiscate them and if the rightful owner isn't >> there to >> > be restituted.... property auction or the like it off?" >> > True enough..... except that some of these stolen or ill-gotten goods >> > aren't "classified" as such... I'm referring to all the >> "horse-droppings" >> > paper that you (Archytas) and others say the banks and financial >> > institutions (traders and brokerage houses and such) hold.....Why not >> > classify it all "stolen goods"?... restitute the mortgages to the >> "owners" >> > (paid in full)... and whatever else there is of a "physical" nature >> restore >> > to the people who bought it, too (again, paid in full).... but here's >> the >> > kicker..... hold the banks and institutions who wrote the "bad" >> mortgages >> > or brokered the "iffy" deals financially responsible for the "liquid" >> money >> > lost......HAR..... sounds good to me....Probably sound good to >> everyone.... >> > except the thieves..... >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 10:54:31 AM UTC-4, nominal9 wrote: >> > >> > > Another day, Archytas..... >> > > everyone ignores my dialectics.... until they function like a kick in >> the >> > > ass...HAR,.... then it's "theme" this and "theme" that..."point of >> view" >> > > here and "point of view" there... "motivation" this and "motivation" >> > > that.....etc..... everyone tries the words.... but they still don't >> get >> > > it.....because they all look for "the Answer".... which is the answer >> that >> > > "they" want (personally as in selfishly)....not the answer that's >> > > obvious....given the "dialectical logic" of things....Ethics seems to >> work >> > > ( I reiterate).... pragmatically (I think)) .....sooner or later.... >> the >> > > best interests of the most (whatever) .... fill in the blank..... >> takes >> > > hold..... until the next time most (whatever).... changes.... >> > >> > > Good plan... let's get back to the economics....Capital of all >> > > sorts....money is fungible.... but should all "goods and services" be >> > > "liquid"? >> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility >> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity >> > >> > > Here's what I'm getting at.... can (should) the "illegal" "stuff"... >> > > criminal sales (drugs, etc) or otherwise ill-begotten gains (stolen >> goods >> > > converted to cash) under the table... be "unvcovered" and all >> > > be"unliquified"....either restored to the >> > > defrauded victims or confiscated by the state (in lieu of some taxes >> to >> > > taxpayers, say).....? >> > > On Monday, May 6, 2013 3:23:10 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: >> > >> > >> Capital is always treated as neutral Nom - but really our food-home- >> > >> beer vouchers are mixed-up with criminal, tax-dodging, looted and >> > >> speculative funds, along with all sorts of economic rent. There is >> > >> little reason for any of this given new technology. It's a long >> story >> > >> from this rather obvious start. I have rather neglected your >> > >> dialectics - must dash - back when more time. >> > >> > >> On 5 May, 19:40, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Archytas... long post... lot to comment on, and I'm skipping >> > >> much... >> > >> > otherwise it would take tomes.... >> > >> > I think you've seen how I try to deal with the subject of moral >> or >> > >> ethical >> > >> > value judgments... identify a "thematic dialectic" contraposition, >> then >> > >> > plug in the Good or Bad valuations accordingly.... If I'm dealing >> with >> > >> an >> > >> > opinion on the "thematic" registered by another person (say an >> author >> > >> of a >> > >> > work of literature) then I try to stay true (accurate) to the >> valuation >> > >> > given by that person.... just to be fair... I might say I >> disagree, but >> > >> I >> > >> > say that the disagreement is my own.... professional courtesy, I >> > >> > think.....I figure if I have a different take on it.... I should >> write >> > >> my >> > >> > own masterpiece (HAR).... I do the same at the ontological >> level.... >> > >> which >> > >> > is to say, valuation of what is taken for fact or fiction in any >> given >> > >> > context.....This whole "methodology" approach is a way of trying >> to >> > >> > establish some objectivity (in the common usage)... looking at >> > >> something in >> > >> > a disinterested or at least in an overtly judgmental manner (as >> opposed >> > >> to >> > >> > the ignorant usage IMO of "non-judgmental" by some which usually >> leads >> > >> to >> > >> > mean.... whatever the "reader or listener" wants to hear instead >> of >> > >> what is >> > >> > actually the case of the "work" under consideration)...I don't say >> that >> > >> > there is any possibility of a "scientific" knowledge of these >> ethical >> > >> (or >> > >> > cultural) judgments and the like, but there can be an "honest >> > >> reporting" >> > >> > standard, I think, and a "method" to that end is a track on the >> > >> honesty.... >> > >> > >> > Anyway....I found the following entry on >> Anarcho-Syndicalismhttps:// >> > >> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism >> > >> > I tried to see how it may apply to my own, personal, preference >> for >> > >> usage >> > >> > of the notion of anarchy ... Is there a branch of anarchy without >> the >> > >> > Syndicalism? I think that would better fit me.....I don't much >> care for >> > >> the >> > >> > "group" or "joint' thing.... I'm pretty much the "individual"... >> that >> > >> also >> > >> > fits in with my nominalist leanings.... you know, the individual >> as >> > >> > distinguished from the genus or the class....I like to think of >> myself >> > >> as >> > >> > "unique" (HAR). With reference to the wiki article, I tend to feel >> that >> > >> the >> > >> > syndicalist groups or "union" of individuals tends to constitute >> an >> > >> > "institution" in its own right..... I don't rightly know how the >> > >> dilemma >> > >> > can be righted... I mean by that dilemma, what if as an individual >> I >> > >> > disagree with the democratically voted majority opinion of my >> > >> "anarchist" >> > >> > peers?.... Well.... to be true to myself, I like to stand alone >> and >> > >> just do >> > >> > what I agree with.... if a group of like-minded "anarchists" >> (HAR) >> > >> goes >> > >> > along with me (or I with them) better yet...... >> > >> > >> > More generally, one has to wonder what inspires rebellion against >> > >> corrupt >> > >> > institutions and their "morality". I have spotted I am a moralist >> in >> > >> this >> > >> > sense. / Archytas >> > >> > >> > I have this notion, myself, that ethics or morality often (I avoid >> > >> > "universals") can be seen to gravitate toward what "works" or what >> is >> > >> > "better" in many senses, be it for the individual or for the >> society of >> > >> > individuals.... there seems to be a "pragmatic" component to >> Ethics or >> > >> > Morality... Of course.. that pragmatism depends on a value >> judgment, >> > >> too... >> > >> > an "interest" that can be singular or "shared"..... the "shared" >> > >> interests >> > >> > tend to win out in a pinch.... but often it takes a tussle...So, a >> > >> > rebellion against a "corrupt" institution seems to rely, often, on >> the >> > >> fact >> > >> > that the institution is not working to or up to those shared >> interests >> > >> of >> > >> > the majority of individuals around....maybe it (the institution) >> isn't >> > >> > "shared" enough in its applications... maybe it favors the >> "interests" >> > >> of >> > >> > the few over the interests of the many....that is often the way it >> goes >> > >> in >> > >> > rebellions.....they are all too plain... everybody knows what the >> > >> problem >> > >> > is.... hence the revolution (HAR). >> > >> > >> > There are many good reasons to recognise and suppress the >> barbarian >> > >> > temperament. / Archytas >> > >> > Sexual mores are tough.... I have thought of and recognized sexual >> > >> thematic >> > >> > dialectics in the works of others, You are right, in these >> matters, >> > >> there >> > >> > are plenty of "moral" taboos (which make eminent sense, often) and >> they >> > >> > often get transgressed....incest, first-cousin marraiges,slashing >> our >> > >> > private parts to simulate menstruation to rid ourselves of dreaded >> > >> effects >> > >> > of sex with women or sending our daughters out to suffer group >> rape to >> > >> > satisfy our "honour", cultural relativism.... all of that.... >> tough.... >> > >> but >> > >> > I would suggest that these sexual "moral" issues, like all the >> rest... >> > >> go >> > >> > through the "rebellion" cycle.... sooner or later (often depending >> on >> > >> > culture) even these tough issues tend to sort out.....Case in >> point, >> > >> not >> > >> > all that long ago, homosexuality was considered as part and parcel >> of >> > >> those >> > >> > moral sexual taboos..... >> > >> > >> > We need some kind of meta-analysis - in process philosophy the >> ground >> > >> is >> > >> > always, potentially, up for review. Science has "parology". / >> > >> Archytas >> > >> > Yeah.... I think I agree with that.... (I say , dumbfounded, >> pointing a >> > >> > finger {humbly} at nominal9 thematic dialectic logic... HAR) >> > >> > >> > Much as we want to protect against child >> > >> > abuse, we should want to defend against the economics of the >> Undead - >> > >> > which I would see as allowing such abuse under a complex and false >> > >> > show of morality. Austerity shits on the poor in order - er - to >> > >> > improve their lot through love love. Any ideology will do - as >> Soviet >> > >> > Paradise and Mao demonstrated - and the rich have since history >> began. >> > >> ? >> > >> > Archytas >> > >> > >> > Any comment to that on my part would be.... useless.... total >> > >> agreement, >> > >> > could'nt put it better. >> > >> > >> > transparent money / Archytas.... >> > >> > I'm interested in that notion... can you give me an education? >> > >> > >> > There are answers we could try and some small pockets of >> cooperative >> > >> > living./ Archytas >> > >> > You know my heart is with "cooperation"......but sadly, I think we >> both >> > >> > ... >> > >> > read more ยป >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
