At 07:27 AM 12/9/97 -1000, you wrote:
>
>>> >#2. That participants are willing to put everything on the table -- are
>>> >willing to abandon any "belief" in the face of contrary scientific
>evidence.
>>> >This would include the "belief" that the right economic theories can
>save
>>> >us.
>>
>>Yes, everything should be on the table, but the table is finite. Success
>>requires all the items on the list of necessary items. That includes
>
>
>Apologies to all. I realized my comment was unclear when I subsequently
>mentioned it to my wife and SHE didn't understand what I meant. <G>
>
>It's phrase used when negotiating. "Everything on the table" means that
>people are willing to abandon all previously held positions in favor of
>more compelling ones. But we would use science instead of money to move
>people.
>
>I agree with Barry that we have to cut the baloney with Occam's Razor.
>
>I liked Alan's comment about evolutionary economics. The ecol-econ crowd
>has it half right by trying to account for the ecosystem, but they haven't
>incorporated the new model of Homo.
>
>Rather than work on evolutionary economics, I think we should start work
>on "evolutionary politics". It's clear to me that the solution must be
>found in non-money-based politics (coercion).
I tend to agree and work with CDD Canadians for Direct Democracy to that end
http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (listserv)
>
>(Anyone on this list know anything about evolution? <G>)
Not much, but Ken Wilber has written great stuff on the subject-
http://www.shambhala.com/wilber
>
>Jay
>
>
>
