Thanks for your positive comments Arthur. I'm going to bring a little shocking reality into this discussion - which may - if you and others can step back from your beliefs for a couple of minutes give you some insight or not...
McCluhan said that change is indicated by the artists of society, not politicians and economics. Politicians are dealing with the current problems and trying to avoid future problems. Economists base all their knowledge on past data. The idea of a change would imply that past data and current problems are the very things we are going to change from. One of the art forms of today is the Rave. The second art form is designer drugs. Ashley is my oldest daughter - we live together in a quite amicable way, much as two friends sharing an apt. The opportunity came last weekend for her to go to her first Rave. We talked about drugs. My advice, if you can - do Ecstasy - be careful of LSD, its a drug that shouldn't be used in chaotic situations - remember, it's not called a trip for nothing. Smoke grass if you want - no harm there. Don't drink alcohol and mix with drugs. Don't go home in anyone;s car who has been drinking. If they have been using drugs, they probably will not drink and drive because you are more aware of your physical condition on drugs (Druggies know when they are all fucked up) than on alcohol, which has a tendency to make you more self confident just when your neurology is impaired So what were the results the next day. "Dad, I loved it, it felt so safe, everyone felt so comfortable talking to strangers, you could dance by yourself - any way you wanted. I did 1/2 tab of Ecstasy and it was the greatest experience - I felt so like I belonged. I smoked some really good weed and met this great guy called Scott. Dad, I want to go to more Raves - it felt like the world I want to live in." My daughters generation - in my opinion, may provide as much catalyst to society as the Hippie Revolution did in the sixties. How many of you, have had the experience's she had last weekend. Probably none. Millions of young people are going to Raves. The hard drugs of Cocaine, Heroin, Opium are not at these places. Designer chemical drugs are. These drugs alter consciousness, promote feeling sensations within the body that allow greater knowledge of self and what the human body is capable of feeling. The also seem to to widen thought in that many young people become aware - for the first time - how to think and ruminate on what they felt and experienced. This is a totally different kind of learning than school or regular life is. Most of their parents have had no experience of altering consciousness other than alcohol. A depressant. Regards, Thomas Lunde ---------- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [Futurework] The New Great Transformation (was Why not :economy games" like " war games" instead of economy like war?) >Date: Tue, Oct 7, 2003, 6:51 AM > > I have much the same feeling. The transition is going to be tough. > > Perhaps all the "touchy, feely" types currently arguing for the sharing way > are really in the vanguard of something profound and to the extent we do not > take their ideas seriously, we make the transition that much more difficult. > > Thomas, my question is: For the transition to the New Way to take place it > seems likely that it rest on some sort of ideological assumptions. A new > religion, one that replaces the religion of the market. I wonder what else > will come along to help humans swallow the honesty pill, lets share pill and > lets do no harm to the environment pill. > > I believe your observations, I just wonder how it will all come to pass. > > arthur > > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Lunde [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 2:03 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Free Trade kills :: Why not :economy games" > like "war games" instead of economy like war? > > > Morning Harry: > > Enjoying California weather here in the Great Northern Plains of > Saskatchewan - hope you are enjoying the same. > > The word "market" is a great big generalization. Underneath it is 10 > million activiities. These activities are surrounded by laws and > regulations to protect people from the market and direct the market into > hopefully beneficial activities for all. Sad to say, these high ideals are > often subverted by the actors in the market. It is even more compounded by > the political actors who interact with the market for private gain over > public good. > > Given that we were all given an "honesty pill" and a "let's share pill" and > a "let's do no harm to our environment or the people in it pill" - the > idealistic market might have some chance of living up to it's idealistic > promise. Sad to say, such pills are unavailable. > > Underneath all the rhetoric is the sad truth of greed, exploitation, > manipulation and philosophical distortion. > > I will make a little prophecy. The market as we know it will change from a > profit driven activity that manipulates society to a sharing economy within > the next twenty five years. For this current market will crumble. Millions > will starve, die, be displaced and value will collapse. Out of these ruins > will come the understanding of a cooperative market that redistributes the > available goods and services in other ways. When the current crop of > "experts" die off, new thought will come. > > What the shape of this new market will be will be answered by history. We > will solve this problem and 200 years from now, people will study this last > century with as much disbelief as we now think of nobility and kingship as a > means of governance. > > Respectfully, > > > Thomas Lunde > > ---------- >>From: Harry Pollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: "Thomas Lunde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: Re: [Futurework] Free Trade kills :: Why not :economy games" like > "war > games" instead of economy like war? >>Date: Sat, Oct 4, 2003, 3:23 PM >> > >> Tom, >> >> The market is just a device for allowing people to exchange their goods > and >> services. It has no responsibility to anyone nor does anyone have a >> responsibility to it. >> >> When a market is free, everybody benefits from its use. When everyone uses >> the market and benefits from its use, then as they are the community, the >> community benefits from the market "as if by an invisible hand". >> >> And that is all the "invisible hand" means. When every member of the >> community is better off, then the community is better off. Does that make >> sense? >> >> Harry >> >> --------------------------------------------------- >> >> Thomas wrote: >> >>> > Ed Weick wrote: >>> > >>> >> Brad, you seem to proposing that the market should be viewed as part > of >>> >> society, responsible to society, and not the other way around. What a >>> >> radical thought! >>> > [snip] >>> >>>Thomas: >>> >>>This is a radical thought that has a lot of truth in it and may answer one >>>usasked question. What is first. The market or society. I would answer > - >>>society and society invents and defines the market to serve itself which > is >>>comprised of the individuals within that market - in current terms within >>>our national boundries. An enlightened society would choose activities > that >>>benefited all members of that society - why because of the benefits of >>>peace, order, safety, comfort, freedom, and choices offered to every >>>individual. Currently we reward and idealize the rich and powerful. >>>Perhaps that explains the defenders of the current society. They either > are >>>rich and powerful or aspire to be. A different ethos is possible, the >>>greatest good for everyone and therefore a different activity of supply > and >>>demand might make more sense in the process of creating more equality. >>> >>> >>> > >>> > I don't think I've just drivelled out another obvious "romantic" >>> > platitude, although I didn't give my reference: >>> > >>> > ...[T]he principle should be "Protect the worker, >>> > not the industry." >>> > >>> > "Tariffs on steel: George Bush, protectionist: The >>> > president's decision to place high tariffs on >>> > imports of steel is disgraceful", The Economist, >>> > 9-15Mar2002 (page ref. lost). >>> > >>> > This article is behind the pay-for barricade on the Economist >>> > website -- It will take someone who saves the >>> > print editions or has a subscription to get at the >>> > article. >>> > >>> > But I believe the idea was that every country should provide >>> > its workers a social safety net, and *then* remove >>> > tariffs and let uneconomical industries fail if foreign >>> > competition beat them. >>> > >>> > [Of course, this doesn't answer the question what to >>> > do about a counry that is a universal loser like the >>> > U.S. may have a predilection for tending to become -- >>> > I'm thinking here about things like "Detroit" which >>> > produces cars nobody except an American or somebody >>> > with "American envy" -- would buy.] >>> > >>> > I hope this helps... >>> > >>> > \brad mccormick >> >> >> **************************************************** >> Harry Pollard >> Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles >> Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 >> Tel: (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242 >> http://home.comcast.net/~haledward >> **************************************************** >> >> >> >> --- >> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >> Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 9/11/2003 >> > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
