Thanks! How nice of you.
When I first posted the two basic assumptions of Classical Political Economy, you were the only one who, while not necessarily agreeing, offered suggestions for their improvement. You've probably forgotten, but I much appreciated it.
To remind others the two assumptions are:
"Man's desires are unlimited."
"Man seeks to satisfy his desires with the least exertion."
Let me preface the next bit by saying your argument is very attractive and without doubt the ability to image is not the same in everyone. However, desiring is the prelude to action to satisfy the desire. Imagination may be limited in some people - is limited in some people - so their ability to know desirable things may be less than others, but that isn't important. All of them will have unsatisfied desires and I rather think that as they satisfy desires, so will others open up before them.
An assumption about human behavior must apply to every person or it loses it's significance. So initial assumptions must be simple and general. Further, you must keep them to a minimum. (Bertrand Russell, you'll recall, said better two than sixteen.)
Hanging clauses on them isn't good - for each qualifier makes them more specific and less likely to be true of all members they describe.
So, I finish with a human science that has a preface that doesn't give a hoot about race or gender, skills or intelligence, education or training, or any other differences in people, for the assumptions apply to everyone who is a person.
And if they didn't so apply - I would drop them. Indeed, if they weren't useful, I would drop them.
Oh, these absolutes - They are so hard to take!
Harry
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray wrote:
Oh Harry, I want to "whap" you and then you come along and write something beautiful and I realize how much I like you in spite of my disagreements at times with your premises. I almost never disagree with your attitude (i.e. the mood -> feeling -> action that springs from the wholeness of your being) which is super. I suspect you are also a very good teacher of what you are involved with in that you are not afraid to take risks and seem foolish in order to stimulate the student's desire to explore your subject in his Universe.However, I think you cannot go on saying something that is just plain incorrect. Every man's desires are limited while every man's capacity for "desire" is not (within reason). "Desire" as you use in your premise is linked to imagination or the ability to "image" and that most definitely is limited in all humans and not just one man or many men. If you simply added "capacity" to your statement I would agree but as it stands, I believe it makes you come up with the wrong conclusion since the conclusion is based on a fallacy. Or maybe my "desire" to understand what you say is limited by my "capacity" to know where you come from in saying it. Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "futurework" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "jan matthieu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Mantle, Rosalyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Anthony, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Bradskey, Teresa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Cole, Karen Watters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Dawn Anthony" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Downs , Jason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Dunn, Darcy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "H, Joan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "harrell, jane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Krueger, Jack A." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Sagowa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Sleigh, Ben and Roz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Watters, Valorie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 3:19 PM Subject: Desires (was Whining) > Brad, > > You assume too much about personal desires (what other kinds are there)? > > Is it something you cannot conceive that a person might desire more a > lifetime love - than 1,000 experiences of "indescribable pleasure, > indefinitely prolonged". > > Or, to take a walk along the Appalachian Trail than make a corporate merger? > > Or, my lying in a lush English meadow watching the clouds scud across a > blue sky - rather than speeding along in a four wheel drive SUV? > > As I said, desires are personal (no, employees cannot satisfy desires for > you). You have desires, without doubt. What do you really desire? > > How about four more children? Something that was pretty normal at one time > and usually led to lifetime bonding and support when it's needed. > > Before your hair stands on end - or perhaps falls out - think about it. Is > it possible for an average individual to have a larger family under modern > conditions? It's certainly anything but easy. If you don't want a large > family, that's fine. But, if your desire included a family, most people > n0wadays have to put it at the bottom of the list. Just nurturing one child > seems to be a full-time experience with inevitable failure lurking ahead. > > So, while we may have unlimited desires, we find many of them difficult or > impossible. So we put them at the bottom of our hierarchy. (Maybe > conditions will change.) > > Perhaps a test of our well-being might be the attainable desires that open > up before us. > > Perhaps the test of our society is the greater or lesser restriction it > places on the attainment of our personal desires. > > So, when you next look at the first assumption of human behavior "that > man's desires are unlimited" try not to think of people acquiring five > Cadillacs, or buying 6 companies. Think instead of a person perhaps sitting > alone in the middle of the night, trying desperately to complete his desire > - a perfect love poem. > > Harry > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ > > > Brad wrote: > > >Harry Pollard wrote: > > > > > > Brad, > >[snip] > > > Your Don Juan paragraph is ill-directed to someone who spent 57 years with > > > one woman. > > > >I apologize for your misreading what I wrote as a personal > >accusation instead of as a question about the > >implications of the depersonalized > >hypothesis that man's desires are unlimited. > > > >- > > > >If man's desires are unlimited then Don Juan seems to > >me to be a good example of our nature. > > > >But there > >are other ways to be infinitely insatiable. Business > >merger maniacs are another kind. > > > >One cannot satisfy > >all infinite desires concurrently. You gotta pick and > >choose, and having infinitely many women means one > >probably cannot have infinitely many corporate acquisitions, > >and either of these means you cannot have infinitely many hubcaps > >collected from the side of the road. > > > >One can only > >do one thing at a time (more or less...) -- unless > >one has: EMPLOYEES! Then one can vicariously pursue > >as many kinds of grabbing more and more, as one has > >vicarious hands to grab with.... > > > >So if man's desires are infinite, then the most infinite > >man is the one who has infinitely many employees to > >satisfy as many infinite desires as possible at once -- > >vicariously, however.... > > > >\brad mccormick > > > ****************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of LA > Box 655 > Tujunga CA 91042 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tel: (818) 352-4141 > Fax: (818) 353-2242 > ******************************* > >
****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
