Re: Basic Income
Countries like Sweden which taxed their wealthy heavily, but allowed for display of wealth, propered, even though the very wealthy left for lower taxed regimes. Sweden felt the pinch in the last decades with growing unemployment and stagnation, though ofcourse, the standard of living is still relatively very high. Countries which imposed equality, like the Soviet Union, did not. There must be a way to reward high achievers in ways other than money, although material benefits don't hurt. That equality was not really achieved, material and most significantly, privilege - differences were far from extinct. Also "imposed" things never work well, or very long. The advantage of monetary rewards, of course, is that the recipient can express the reward in any way s/he wants, whereas other rewards depend on the taste or interest of the bestower. We need some creativity here, as well as a new god. (some might say the old one was perfectly good before He/Her/It was usurped by the false Marketplace god) Given just the physical (enough food/health, tools, materials) and social (education/freedom/platform), creativity surges without special material awards. People enjoy being creative. People do things they enjoy doing, without special awards (I hope you can think of examples...). Special awards are used in a world where only special awards allow enjoyment... Eva David Burman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question: Was there ever a Yugoslavia?
There is no democracy on a cruise ship, but people seem to like 'em. They have a choice not to go. Democracy means that people choose their own laws together, and they are aware why the laws are necessary and that they can change them when circumstances change. The present version is only a small step towards this, as the law is made in and represent the interest the capitalist state, that exists to save the system that serves only those in power. And nobody else. Based on the present economic structure a technocracy would be exactly the same. Instead of politicians, the scientists would be lobbied, e.g. the present debates on smoking, aids, MSE, genetical engineering, nuclear power, etc, etc. Those with the economic power will control the scientists, just as they control the politicians now. In the era of approaching global literacy and global information flow, no totalitarian regime can be stable, however "good intentioned". They would rely on too narrow pool of decisionmaking, and decisions won't be executable without a democratic will of a large majority anyway. People are only enthusiastic the execution of decisions they had a chance to make themselves, understand, and agree. Eva Jay [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: collapse defined
All together now: let us discuss things and care for things, until we're all healthily tired, and then a good nite's rest (with the beeper turned off!) -- and more shared meals ["communion" with a small "c" -- I almost said: "communism" with a small "c", but I'm too much of a self-proclaimed "wild duck" to entirely feel comfortable with that...]! If you use the original definition of the word,the wilder duck you ae the better... Eva \brad mccormick -- Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world. Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] 914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA --- ![%THINK;[SGML]] Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Second Shoe (and its lost soul)
Durant wrote: This suggestion complies with the notion that capitalism was a dynamic, progressive, new development compared with the previous feudal rigidity. It played it's role, now it is but an obsticle in the way of the next stage... Eva I am not an expert on the history of Early Modern Europe, but one only need read Elizabeth Eisenstein's monumental text: _The Printing Press as an Agent of Change_ (Cambridge Univ.), which she says she wanted to title: The Master Printer as an Agent of Change , to understand that something has been lost between the true giants of early capitalism: the great master printers whose work laid the foundation for the modern world, and "the bourgeois". [snip] Is there an alternative? Could *Business Schools* be reorganized to teach entrepreneurship as an ethical vocation? I know "the market" is the destroyer of all human values, but managers need not *only* be passive carriers of the laissez-faire retro-virus. They can *MANAGE*. I believe such a notion is the basis and life-long commitment of Peter Drucker's work, and at least some others. Why not MBAs and CPAs and LLDs (oops: JDs) as consciences of the marketplace (which latter, of course, is something larger than just "the market", for it includes social discourse *about* "the market" and the decisions of that collaboration what to *do* about "the market"). \brad mccormick -- Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world. Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] 914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA --- ![%THINK;[SGML]] Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
Re: Re Basic Income
Dear Rob: A small correction on authorship. The quote was made by the columnist Weisman, the remarks ascribed to Mr. Krugman refered to "capital accounts". Thomas -Original Message- From: Rob Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Thomas Lunde [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Future Work [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: September 5, 1998 7:55 PM Subject: Re: Re Basic Income Thomas Lunde wrote the following quote from Mr. Krugman, economist at MIT: "subordinating the needs of finance to those of people" What a unique idea! It's a refreshing change after the '80's mantra "Greed Is Good, Greed Is God" popularized by Oliver's Gecko and the oil companies' Reagan. But will it catch on? rob robinson netperson / mark twain democratic club / whitter-la mirada, california
Re: collapse defined + Prigogine
-Original Message- From: Jay Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: September 5, 1998 8:12 PM Subject: Re: "collapse" defined + Prigogine Just imagine how fast the US would unravel if foreign oil were cut off. People in California who have to drive 40 miles to get a loaf of bread would starve. Entire cities in the desert would have to be abandoned due to lack of water. This is why the Y2K issue is grabbing the headlines: one screwup in the wrong place and the entire system grinds to a halt. Jay Thomas: The following article came of the net a few days ago. I think it corraborates Jay's observation rather well. The only other think I believe should be noted, is that Jan1, 2000 occurs in the dean of winter for those of us who live in Northern climes. Any distruption in power, transportation, food and heat leaves us doubly vulnerable. When the individual officers, who have access to the worst case scenerios start making investments to protect their families, I think it is time to pay attention. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 23:04:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FC: If the military is getting Y2K jitters... from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Further to Jacques Bernier's earlier posting of a Canadian Press release on the Canadian military's Y2k preparations, this article appeared in a regional newspaper last week, before the CP article. There is no URL available. - Halifax Chronicle-Herald August 29 1998 Military prepares to battle Y2K bug By Gordon Delaney, Valley Bureau Greenwood - Military personnel at CFB Greenwood and 12 other bases across Canada are preparing for the worst when the millennium bug hits computers on January 1, 2000. A plan is in place to buy large new generators, identify buildings as possible human shelters, test alternative communications systems, conduct emergency exercises and stockpile food, base officials say. "There is going to be a significant impact on military operations," Lt.-Col. William Legue, deputy base commander and logistics officer at Greenwood, said in a briefing to media and municipal officials this week. [...] The bases have been ordered to have a contingency plan prepared by October 15 and begin emergency exercises by the spring, Lt.-Col. Legue said. "The threat is from a wide range of problems, from a toaster not working to not being able to put food on the shelves in grocery stores." Some experts are predicting large-scale power outages and disruptions in telephone and other services as a result of the milennium bug, or Y2K (Year 2000) problem, as it's known in the computer industry. [...] Lt.-Col. Legue said the base wants to work with local communities to prepare for that ominous New Year's Day. Military personnel have been ordered not to take vacation or make travel plans around January 1, 2000. "We in uniform expect to be extemely busy at that time." He advised civilians in neigbouring communities to make sure they are self-reliant when the day comes. The base will be able to help local authorities if asked but resources will be limited, he said. The military will buy more generators to provide power to a few large buildings that could be used as shelters if needed. Some military personnel, like Capt. Bob Sealby, Greenwood's Year 2000 coordinator, are buying generators for their homes. Capt. Sealby is also stockpiling food. "There are going to be problems," he said. "No one knows to what extent, but you have to be prepared for the worst-case scenario." - One of my co-workers, who has in the past chuckled at my preparations, said that after reading this article, for the first time she is scared. I had to make several photocopies of the article for co-workers who wanted a copy to take to show a friend, neighbour or family member who they have been having a hard time convincing that Y2k is a serious matter. Kreskin -- POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology To subscribe: send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text: subscribe politech More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ --
Re: Re Basic Income
Thomas Lunde: In summing up this lengthy rebuttal, I have had to do some soul searching about my concepts. Basically, I believe people come before profit and that people are more important than profit. If by this you mean that people should not be economically exploited, and that they should be paid the full measure of their worth in productive processes, I would fully agree. However, there remains the problem of determining what their full worth is. In Economics 101, under "perfectly competitive equilibrium", everybody is paid their full worth, and there is no possibility of monopoly profit, since monopoly does not exist. However, like the much maligned economist's assumption of "rationality", perfectly competitive equilibrium is an abstraction. Economists know that it does not exist, but that it is nonetheless useful in furthering economic analysis. In the real world, there are all kinds of market distortions and monopolistic elements which make a logically valid pegging of "full worth" pretty nigh impossible. So other means must be found to avoid the economic exploitation of labour. One is collective bargaining - power against power. Another is arbitration - let a higher authority decide. The latter was recently used to determine whether women were being paid fairly in the Canadian public service. The matter went before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which ruled that women were not being paid fairly in comparison with men doing equivalent work. The result: the Government of Canada is faced with billions of dollars in back pay and higher wage levels from women from here on. Ed Weick
Re: The X Files (deus ex machina excuses) Off topic....
Dear Mark:
Often there are posting I would like to reply to so I don't put them in a
file folder and forget them. This one of yours was one of them and it has
stood the test of time.
-Original Message-
From: Mark Measday [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: August 31, 1998 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: The X Files ("deus ex machina" excuses) Off topic
Er, chief, this is beyond me, are you the zen master? Who is the zen
master? I'm not a zen master, just a bad case of sinusitis and
consequently not expressing myself well. Whose arms are you going to cut
off and why do you want to do it?
Thomas:
I thought Brad's answer was pretty concise, the person asking a stupid
question should have a real life experience. You want to know what the
sound of "one hand clapping is" simple, whack off the arm, and you'll have
the answer you stupid jerk.
Alternatively, and more practically,
organize a real conference or debate simulating the futurework list
where the evas', jays', rays' etc can be made material. If people pay to
come, all the better.
Thomas:
One of the joys of electronic debating is the ability to reflect before you
answer. I'm not sure how we would come out in speech. The idea that we
should make some money off the things we do for fun strikes me as a great
example of turning your hobby into a business and then your business ruins
your hobby, I think I'll stay with my hobby.
Or set up a revolutionary cell teaching
non-exploitative transactional conversational exchange values, so people
can talk again without fear of having their pockets picked. Don't really
see the advantages of amputation or learning to say no in Russian
though. Please explain the depth and complexity of your thought.
It's called having a viewpoint or perhaps a personal philosophy - one we
have actually arrived by ourselves, then being vulnurable enough to expose
that viewpoint to the critiques - or rarely praises of others. What gets
you in crap on this list is playing the conventional party record. We can't
and won't ( I have no right to speak for others here) force anyone to have a
personal viewpoint, however we will gleefully challenge anothers viewpoint,
call it philosophical ping pong, no one gets hurt, everyone gets a little
exercise and we leave the game at the table.
Kind regards,
Mark Measday
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. wrote:
Mark Measday wrote:
Yep, if that makes any sense, though I don't know about the zen bit.
So
can we expect a golden socialist future of mutual understanding
based on
some scientific knowledge tempered with wisdom? Or the same old
dialectic between opposite understandings?
MM
Thomas Lunde wrote:
In a world of pure self-interest, can there be any paradigms of
communication?
Thomas: This question sounds like one of those zen koans where
you
feel
there should be an obvious answer and every time you put one
forth,
the
master answers "nyet".
[snip]
I've been thinking about these Zen masters lately, in
part based on thinking about how they exploit their students
as cheap labor. And I had an idea for an answer to
that famous Koan:
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
The student should simply amputate one of the master's
hands, so that the master could learn.
\brad mccormick
--
Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but
Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world.
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA
---
![%THINK;[SGML]] Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
Mark Measday
UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167
France tel: 0033.450.20.94.92/fax: 450.20.94.93
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
FW: Re: Basic Income
Hi all, Another approach to an income for all: I once made the simple extrapolation that, if the decision to automate remains the prerogative of individual firms, then the collective result may eventually be a totally automated economy (a version of "The Tragedy of the Commons)! With noone having a job then who will buy the output (shades of Reuther)? Having read Louis O. Kelso and Mortimer J. Adler, The Capitalist Manifesto, and Peter F. Drucker, The Pension Fund Revolution, I wondered whether all people should be shareholders with government, if necessary, buying shares on their behalf. Now has appeared Jeff Gates's book, The Ownership Solution, detailing such an approach. http://www.ownershipsolution.com/ Whereas Tom Lunde's essay, Basic Income, seems to rely on government to issue and control funds, the solution envisioned by Gates relies on the operation of business firms through ESOPs (Employee Stock Ownership Plans) and variants including other stakeholders, consumers, local communities, etc. Bob -- ___ http://www.geog.uwo.ca/mcdaniel1.html
Re: Basic Income (Individuality and Society, Jan Szczepansk
Thanks very much for the sumup. Just a couple of notes: - If someone writes beautifully that does not necessarily mean that his conclusions are right - if someone experienced things - same applies. Otherwise you should all believe me straight away, as I am probably the only one on this list who lived and worked (as a blue-collar worker) for years, while bringing up a family under both the ex-socialist and the capitalist system... From your description I cannot see how this "freedom of individuality" can be achieved without a democratically sharing. society. Eva Eva I'll just try to quote from loving memory. Szepanski, a sociologist I think little known in "the West", begins (in 1981 Poland) by stating that he has reached an age at which, having lived through 5 political regimes, including "the incomparable monarchy of Franz Joseph II", he, like Faust, has attained the right to be addressed as: "Magister et Doktor gar". He differentiates between individual*ism* and individual*ity*. Individualism, he says, is what dominates the "Western democracies": everybody trying to be even more like everybody else by getting a bigger piece of the existing sum of goods for themselves (the zero-sum game). Individuality, on the other hand, he says is the person's unique elaboration of a new idea, which takes nothing away from anyone, but adds to the sum available to all. Szczepanski claims that all previous societies have been oriented around allocation of scarce existing goods, and that the only hope is to reorient society toward the nurturance of each individual's creative powers. We must reject *both* zero- sum alternatives of collectivism and individualism, and re-form society in the unprecedented shape of individuality, where the society exists for the sake of the nurturance of individual creative elaboration, rather than the subsumption of the individual in the "collective puropse" (which can take either the form of submissive conformism or that other thing: competition, where, no matter who wins or loses, society's predefined agenda is always advanced by all the competitors' efforts). He concludes with a quote from Tertullian: "I believe this because it is impossible." This whould perhaps all be maudlin pap were it not that the words are spoken by a person whose life experience and erudition clearly give them/him the kind of moral authority which comes from "having been there". --Like the character in Hermann Broch's novel _The Sleepwalkers_, who after having been brought back to life after being blown to bits on a battlefield of WWI, attends a prayer meeting where the preacher starts talking about Lazarus, and this man rises on his crutches and declares: "Only those who have died and risen again have the right to speak." I can only say that, when by accident I came across Szepanski's article in the IBM Research Library, I was immediately moved to tears, both for the article's simple beauty and for the things I found around me which were not similarly worthy. You asked for a "sum up or abstract", and I am pleased to recall this article. I hope I have conveyed something of it. \brad mccormick -- Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world. Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] 914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA --- ![%THINK;[SGML]] Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FW: Re: Basic Income
Hi all, Another approach to an income for all: I once made the simple extrapolation that, if the decision to automate remains the prerogative of individual firms, then the collective result may eventually be a totally automated economy (a version of "The Tragedy of the Commons)! With noone having a job then who will buy the output (shades of Reuther)? Having read Louis O. Kelso and Mortimer J. Adler, The Capitalist Manifesto, and Peter F. Drucker, The Pension Fund Revolution, I wondered whether all people should be shareholders with government, if necessary, buying shares on their behalf. Now has appeared Jeff Gates's book, The Ownership Solution, detailing such an approach. http://www.ownershipsolution.com/ Whereas Tom Lunde's essay, Basic Income, seems to rely on government to issue and control funds, the solution envisioned by Gates relies on the operation of business firms through ESOPs (Employee Stock Ownership Plans) and variants including other stakeholders, consumers, local communities, etc. Bob -- ___ http://www.geog.uwo.ca/mcdaniel1.html
Re: The Second Shoe (and its lost soul)
Is there an alternative? Could *Business Schools* be reorganized to teach entrepreneurship as an ethical vocation? Come now, if you are more ethical than the next guy, you lose the competition (you pay more wage, more for environmental protection etc.) Managers are taught to thoroughly identify with the owners of wealth, their aspiration is to be one of them. Anyway, I don't think we have enough time even if iit would work for soem obscure reason... Eva I know "the market" is the destroyer of all human values, but managers need not *only* be passive carriers of the laissez-faire retro-virus. They can *MANAGE*. I believe such a notion is the basis and life-long commitment of Peter Drucker's work, and at least some others. Why not MBAs and CPAs and LLDs (oops: JDs) as consciences of the marketplace (which latter, of course, is something larger than just "the market", for it includes social discourse *about* "the market" and the decisions of that collaboration what to *do* about "the market"). \brad mccormick -- Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world. Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] 914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA --- ![%THINK;[SGML]] Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: collapse defined
definition a social being if you are human. The most efficient society is a fully democratic one, in which everybody has Most efficient? We ask, with David Hume, how do you know you are right? ( Hint: corporations, armies, football teams, etc. are not democratic. ) Jay
Apoligies to Mark Measday
Re: Re: Basic Income
Dear Bob: I went to the URL you posted and I must admit that the testimonials were awesome. However when I tried to follow some of the suggestions in red, my browser went nowhere - so I'm left with testimonials not content. However, to show that this is an area where I have had some thoughts, I will use your comments to share them. -Original Message- From: Bob McDaniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FutureWork [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: September 6, 1998 1:49 PM Subject: FW: Re: Basic Income Hi all, Another approach to an income for all: I once made the simple extrapolation that, if the decision to automate remains the prerogative of individual firms, then the collective result may eventually be a totally automated economy (a version of "The Tragedy of the Commons)! Thomas: My thought was that every time a machine/robot/innovation replaces human labour, that labour is still factored into the product price and that savings to the producer is not passed on to the customer in the form of lower prices or too the shareholder in terms of increased profits, but is put into a general pool to pay all those whose work is eliminated by the technology. If one of our goals is to become more efficient, even to the point where nobody or only a very small number of people are going to work, we have to have someway of taking revenue out of the goods and service sector and redistributing it back into the demand side of the economy. In this I would say Jeff Gates and I are in agreement. Imagine if we benchmarked all labour costs in products now and had a set of standards to evaluate the cost of labour in new products. Lets imagine product x has a 40% labour component and the company through technology was able to reduce the labour costs to 15%, the remaining 25% could be put in an Unemployment pool to provide a Basic Income for displaced workers. Shareholders were making a return on investment before the innovation, and consumers were buying the product before the innovation. The only difference is that reduced money paid into labour results in reduced money on the demand side of the equation. When this happens often enough - as it has in the last 20 years, then you get overproduction, which is another way of saying, we can make it, but we can't sell it cause there ain't enough consumers. With noone having a job then who will buy the output (shades of Reuther)? Having read Louis O. Kelso and Mortimer J. Adler, The Capitalist Manifesto, and Peter F. Drucker, The Pension Fund Revolution, I wondered whether all people should be shareholders with government, if necessary, buying shares on their behalf. Thomas: Without having the benefit of Jeff's thought, the question then becomes do all the citizen who have been issued shares or have borrowed money to buy shares then spend the rest of their life trading shares as their only productive activity short of not trading and hoping that the shares you have will continue to provide you with a dividend. My guess is that over time, those with inside knowledge will end up owning all the shares and the poor will still be with us and the capitalists will just be so much richer. Now has appeared Jeff Gates's book, The Ownership Solution, detailing such an approach. http://www.ownershipsolution.com/ Whereas Tom Lunde's essay, Basic Income, seems to rely on government to issue and control funds, Thomas: Yes, I still see a role for government to control the mechanisms of fund distribution, though in my plan, it would be a fairly mechanical endeavor - everyone gets their $15,000 less the amount agreed on to fund defense, medicare and education and that is given over to the citizen through a vote mechanism based on a yearly budget proposal. A person could not lose the right to get their Basic Income, though they could still use credit in the marketplace and in that sense pledge it as security against immediate gratifications. the solution envisioned by Gates relies on the operation of business firms through ESOPs (Employee Stock Ownership Plans) and variants including other stakeholders, consumers, local communities, etc. Thomas: It nice to think that business would be honourable and altruistic in respecting it's shareholders. Current business practices do not always show this result as CEO's and other managers award themselves high salaries, stock options and perks. Secondly, the capitalistic system is a predatory system with each company working to actively eliminate the competition and gain more market share. Therefore someone is losing all the time, while someone is also winning. My guess is that in the long run, greed will win out. Thanks for your thoughts. Thomas Lunde Bob -- ___ http://www.geog.uwo.ca/mcdaniel1.html
Re: Question: Was there ever a Yugoslavia?
Dear Eva: Let me weigh in with a few comments. -Original Message- From: Durant [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: September 6, 1998 3:59 PM Subject: Re: Question: Was there ever a Yugoslavia? I think that Jay and I are not so sure that democracy *can* work on a planet with 5 * 10**9 people whose needs need to be supplied, when every increment of quantity generally entails an exponential "delta" of complexification of coordinating mechanisms. I just cannot see how a dictatorship would lessen the complexity of solutions. Thomas: Eva, I totally agree with you, the complexity of the solutions would still be that same and instead of having a fairly independant and neutral bureaucracy to carry out solutions, we would instead end up with a bureaucracy that had no alternative except to move towards the will of the dictator. Eventually, probably quicker, we would lose the effectiveness of a neutral burearcracy which is one of the strongest features of a democratic governance. If authoritarian regimes were unstable before, why should they work better in the future? Thomas: They wouldn't. I am totally bewildered and frightened about so many people taking this idea as a serious alternative. Thomas: As I noted several posts ago, to me the failure of the democratic model is that the leaders are politicians who have as primary goal - the retention of power. If we are to assume the a leader elected democratically should express in 90% of the cases the will of the people and in 10% of the cases put forward for consideration by the people suggestions for change and solving problems, then a democratically elected leader should provide the best leadership. Instead, the democratic leaders, Clinton, Blair, Chretien, Kohl continually promise to pursue policies that reflect the will of the people while in actuality they are involved in putting policies in place that will gain them enough resources to be elected again. In most cases, these are policies that favour those with money who can contribute to their war chests and sway the population at the time of election. I think we need a higher class of leaders with more clearly defined roles, with greater limitations on their powers and my suggestion is that leaders should be trained in consenus building, conflict resolution, judgement criteria and morality. And probably other things I can't think of at the moment. When such potential leaders have finished this extensive training, then they should seek election for a particular philosophy that they feel would work best for the country. This would allow us to improve the quality of leadership. We wouldn't think of sending a general into battle who has not had a long and difficult apprenticeship within the military organization and expect competent military decisions. One only has to look at the leaders, kings and military commanders of the feudal ages to recognize that birth or patronage do not produce the qualities of leadership. Yet, in politics, in Canada for example, we had Brian Mulroney who was elected Prime Minister without ever holding a public office before - in Trudeau's case it was only for several years. What about all the "individuality" and stuff like that you like to brand about when the idea of (democratic) socialism is mentioned? Thomas: Again, I agree with you Eva, that some of the arguments that have been made are disengenuous (= having secret motives, not sincere) in regards to other positions that these individuals have taken. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde Eva
Re: Some Thoughts
Dear Heiner: Sorry for not including the original post of yours from which I got the URL to Peter's web page at www.metaself.org/. So here is your orginal post and the URL's should anyone else want to read them. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde YOU REALLY HAVE AN INTERSTING LIST THERE: "Culture and Future! I would like to make you aware of http://www.metaself.org/ maybe you start with: A Metaphor Model of the Self http://www.metaself.org/model/ Social Relationships and Virtues http://www.metaself.org/model/2realm.html this are the basics I fully subscribe to and can recommend after reading night and day. It is the basic building block also to my work and I would have loved to haveit 8 years ago. WE CAN BRIDGE NOW THE CANYON and GO BEYOND WORDS AND LANGUAGES! Heiner - SHARING FUTURES http://newciv.org/cob/members/benking/ WHAT IS NEW !?: ON CREATIVITY UNDERSTANDING http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/genre/benking/landscape.htm http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/genre/benking/visual/visualization.htm http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/uiu_plus/isss98/house-of-eyes.htm ** Wisdom, imagination and virtue is lost when messages double, information halves, knowledge quarters,... ** -Original Message- From: Heiner Benking [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Thomas Lunde [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: September 6, 1998 11:04 AM Subject: Re: Some Thoughts which Peter do you refer to and which message from him, I feel I am in poyaesthetic multi-sensorial work and so I would love to follow up. Heiner Thomas Lunde wrote: Dear Peter: Your website was refered to me by Heiner Benking on a posting to FutureWork. I don't know if you are familiar with the work done by Bandler and Grinder and others with a discipline called NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming). If not, you might find some interesting ideas regarding people who view the world from different perspectives. A small number of classes have emerged such as tactile, feeling, visual, auditory and how in language, each class identifies itself with the predicates and metaphors it uses to describe reality. Don't have time to go into examples, but a web search on NLP will turn up a ton of resources. Good work, good observations, in my opinion you can contribute to work that has already progressed quite a way in this direction. If you have a mailing list for future observations, I would be interested in being included, perception is one of my strong interests. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -- SHARING FUTURES http://newciv.org/cob/members/benking/ times, spaces, voices, views, values,.. in SHARED PERSPECTIVE Voice: +49 731 501 -910 FAX -929 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Heiner BENKING, PoBox 2060,D- 89010 Ulm,GERMANY WHAT IS NEW !?:ON DIALOGUE http://ciiiweb.ijs.si/dialogues/page1.htm http://www.uia.org/dialogue/webdial.htm http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/genre/benking/dialogue-culture.htm http://www3.informatik.uni-erlangen.de:1200/Staff/graham/benking/voicetxt.h tml WHAT IS NEW !?: ON CREATIVITY UNDERSTANDING http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/genre/benking/landscape.htm http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/genre/benking/visual/visualization.htm http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/uiu_plus/isss98/house-of-eyes.htm ** Wisdom, imagination and virtue is lost when messages double, information halves, knowledge quarters,... **
Re: Apoligies to Mark Measday
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Lunde [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Future Work [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: September 6, 1998 6:00 PM
Subject: Apoligies to Mark Measday
Dear Mark:
Before you flame me, let me apoligise, as I read this posting, the comment
"you'll have the answer you stupid jerk." was meant to indicate the person,
ie the Zen master asking the stupid question - not you. A case of being a
little to much in a hurry at that particular moment.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Lunde [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Future Work [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: September 6, 1998 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: The X Files ("deus ex machina" excuses) Off topic
Dear Mark:
Often there are posting I would like to reply to so I don't put them in a
file folder and forget them. This one of yours was one of them and it has
stood the test of time.
-Original Message-
From: Mark Measday [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: August 31, 1998 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: The X Files ("deus ex machina" excuses) Off topic
Er, chief, this is beyond me, are you the zen master? Who is the zen
master? I'm not a zen master, just a bad case of sinusitis and
consequently not expressing myself well. Whose arms are you going to cut
off and why do you want to do it?
Thomas:
I thought Brad's answer was pretty concise, the person asking a stupid
question should have a real life experience. You want to know what the
sound of "one hand clapping is" simple, whack off the arm, and you'll have
the answer you stupid jerk.
Alternatively, and more practically,
organize a real conference or debate simulating the futurework list
where the evas', jays', rays' etc can be made material. If people pay to
come, all the better.
Thomas:
One of the joys of electronic debating is the ability to reflect before you
answer. I'm not sure how we would come out in speech. The idea that we
should make some money off the things we do for fun strikes me as a great
example of turning your hobby into a business and then your business ruins
your hobby, I think I'll stay with my hobby.
Or set up a revolutionary cell teaching
non-exploitative transactional conversational exchange values, so people
can talk again without fear of having their pockets picked. Don't really
see the advantages of amputation or learning to say no in Russian
though. Please explain the depth and complexity of your thought.
It's called having a viewpoint or perhaps a personal philosophy - one we
have actually arrived by ourselves, then being vulnurable enough to expose
that viewpoint to the critiques - or rarely praises of others. What gets
you in crap on this list is playing the conventional party record. We
can't
and won't ( I have no right to speak for others here) force anyone to have
a
personal viewpoint, however we will gleefully challenge anothers viewpoint,
call it philosophical ping pong, no one gets hurt, everyone gets a little
exercise and we leave the game at the table.
Kind regards,
Mark Measday
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. wrote:
Mark Measday wrote:
Yep, if that makes any sense, though I don't know about the zen bit.
So
can we expect a golden socialist future of mutual understanding
based on
some scientific knowledge tempered with wisdom? Or the same old
dialectic between opposite understandings?
MM
Thomas Lunde wrote:
In a world of pure self-interest, can there be any paradigms of
communication?
Thomas: This question sounds like one of those zen koans where
you
feel
there should be an obvious answer and every time you put one
forth,
the
master answers "nyet".
[snip]
I've been thinking about these Zen masters lately, in
part based on thinking about how they exploit their students
as cheap labor. And I had an idea for an answer to
that famous Koan:
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
The student should simply amputate one of the master's
hands, so that the master could learn.
\brad mccormick
--
Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but
Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world.
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA
---
![%THINK;[SGML]] Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
Mark Measday
UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167
France tel: 0033.450.20.94.92/fax: 450.20.94.93
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re Basic Income
Ed said: In Economics 101, under "perfectly competitive equilibrium", everybody is paid their full worth, and there is no possibility of monopoly profit, since monopoly does not exist. However, like the much maligned economist's assumption of "rationality", perfectly competitive equilibrium is an abstraction. Economists know that it does not exist, but that it is nonetheless useful in furthering economic analysis. Thomas: If economists know this and continue to defend the system by glossing over a distortion, then how can they claim objectivity and scientific rigor. On the one hand they collect statistics, develop models, create mathematics to show relationships, all based on a faulty premise - this is scientific fraud. Dear Thomas, I am becoming just a little exasperated. I'm not sure of where this is going to lead. But on grounds that some people may be enjoying this debate, I will continue a little longer. Since when did economists in general defend the system? Some did, others did not. Marx was an economist who both recognized the tremendous potential of capital but totally deplored its impacts. Malthus explored the relationship between limited resources and growing population, and came to some pretty dour conclusions. Keynes, and others, recognized the inability of capitalism to sustain full employment and the need for fiscal and monetary intervention in the economy. Ever so many economists have concerned themselves with the maldistribution of income, and with international inequities. Some have been enormously concerned with the degree to which industrial activity is sustainable. Far from defending the system, economists have been in the forefront of those who question it. Read Lester Thurow, Paul Krugman, and Herman Daly. And if you want to go back just a little further and more to the radical left, read Paul Sweezy (or Sweezy and Baran) and Samir Amin. Economists can claim two kinds of scientific rigor. One is essentially the same kind as that of the mathematician. They start with certain premises and assumptions and follow a train of logic to its conclusions. The other is that of the positive scientist. They formulate a hypothesis and then go out into the real world to see if there are data out there to substantiate it. Both methods are valid. Both are grounded in what thinking people have experienced and seen around them, and both have shed light on human behaviour. However, economists have never treated either as providing the be all and end all of knowledge. They have always seen everything as open to question. I do hope this helps. Ed Weick
