Some Thoughts From Can America Survive
Unless a solution is found to the problem of disposing of nuclear waste, continued use of fission is causing an environmental disaster of large proportions. In fact, because the cost of eliminating the radioactive waste (or storing it for thousands of years) is not known, it is not known whether nuclear fission has an energy yield of greater than one. It may well be the case that the current generation is imposing on future generations an energy cost (for storage of radioactive waste from nuclear fission) that far exceeds the amount of energy that we are obtaining from nuclear fission. Mankind¹s current generation has clearly discounted the cost to future generations to essentially zero, or it would not use nuclear fission until a method was found for eliminating the radioactive waste. Of course, this would not be the first time that a human generation has totally disregarded the welfare of future generations. The present generation of human beings is in the process of depleting all of the world¹s natural gas and oil, and much of its coal. These fuels are obviously of high value and are irreplaceable once they are gone they are gone forever. The present generation does not care a whit about the fact that it is denying them to all future generations, forever. The same is true of species that it exterminates. They are gone forever. The current generation of human beings is in the process of making the planet totally uninhabitable for all future generations. The industrialized human species economic man is morally bankrupt. It is ravaging the planet, consuming all of its wealth as rapidly as it can, all in the interest of making a fast buck, regardless of the consequences to other species or even later generations of its own. It is a cancer on the planet, devouring its bounty and beauty, destroying an exquisite balance of nature that has lasted for eons, and leaving in its wake a ravaged planet infected with radioactive and toxic waste, polluted lakes, rivers, and seas, decimated forests, extinguished species, and a poisoned atmosphere. Thomas: My, my, he does wax eloquent - but is he right? It's a change of perspective isn't it. If your focus is on cheap energy then his are the ravings of an idiot who wants to curtail a vital civic need, ie cheap energy. If your focus is economic and cheap energy is needed for industrial growth, then his is a dangerous voice. But - what if his perspective is the correct assessment? Then cheap energy and industrial growth become ills equal to genocide or germ warfare. What if the correct viewpoint is sustainability rather than growth. Then, we are following Hitler, following policies that will exterminate the human race, rather than just the Jewish race. On FutureWork, our topic is work - which we, along with the rest of society assume is essential for survival. But what if work is the path to no survival? Are we then not philosophers arguing over how many needles can fit on the head of a pin, without asking what the purpose of the argument is? When we examine work, which surprisingly enough we do, in my opinion, in the most eclectic of fashions, all sorts of presuppositions, myths, assumptions, verities, facts and truths come to light before our collective minds and various experiences and learnings. The Internet gives the tradional and eccentric, the conventional and the doomsayer a forum for discussion. Is this not futurework? As each of us read - and agree or not with each posting, are we not retraining ourselves for some valuable but yet unseen futurework? I believe we are. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde ?
Re: FW Sennett on Insecurity, Feature from the Jobs Letter No. 102 ( 29 June 1999 )
A few comments on Sally's Posting of Sennetts material. Of course I and I'm sure most of us on FW would find alignment with Sennet's thoughts and conclusions and it would be redundant to go through this posting because he has said it as well or better than I could say it. The problem, as I see it, is how can we get those who are articulate in seeing the problem our way, is how to involve the media in such a way that a debate can be started between those who hold views such as the paragrapgh below. Like the ecology movement which often talks to the converted and is ignored by the mainstream, so the problems of work is often our articulate spokespeople are talking to the converted, rather than debating those making policy. "First, there is the "nevertheless" policy, which enforces full employment after the end of normal full employment. This "New Labour" policy believes that only work guarantees order and the inclusive society. In this view, waged work has the monopoly of inclusiveness. Thomas: The "nevertheless policy" which enforces full employment etc. Shades of "The Servile State", enforces! Belloc states that whenever you are forced by the full power of the state - or by the law - then your state is servile. Can we read these lines to mean that it is not the result of work to produce goods or services, rather that the result of work is to guareentee "order" and that through working we are included in our society but if we don't work at acceptable work then we are excluded! Can it really be stated that boldly! Have we reached the state of acknowledging our servile state as an atribute of citizenship - that we are only included if we work? "The second option is to rethink and redefine work as we have done with respect to the family. But this also implies rethinking how we deal with the risks of fragile work ... "Has work always had the monopoly of inclusiveness? If the ancient Greeks could listen to our debates about the anthropological need to work in order not only to be an honourable member of society but a fully valued human being, they would laugh. The value system that proclaims the centrality of work and only work in building and controlling an inclusive society is a modern invention of capitalism and the welfare state. "We need to see that there is a life beyond the alternatives of unemployment and stress at work. We need to see that the lack of waged work can give us a new affluence of time. We need also to see that the welfare state must be rebuilt so that the risks of fragile work are socialised rather than being borne increasingly by the individual. "I would argue for a citizen's (or basic) income. My argument is that we need a new alternative centre of inclusion -- citizen work combined with citizen income -- creating a sense of compassion and cohesion through public commitment. The decoupling of income entitlements from paid work and from the labour market would, in Zygmunt Bauman's words, remove "the awesome fly of insecurity from the sweet ointment of freedom". "We must, in short, turn the new precarious forms of employment into a right to discontinuous waged work and a right to disposable time. It must be made possible for every human being autonomously to shape his or her life and create a balance between family, paid employment, leisure and political commitment. And I truly believe that this is the only way of forming a policy that will create more employment for everybody ..." -- German sociologist Ulrich Beck, from "Goodbye To All That Wage Slavery" New Statesman 5 March 1999. Thomas: Can one of those "new precarious forms" become a fixed time or quality deficit required by every citizen ie 10 years of work or so many hours in a lifetime? Or can another be, as they have suggested a redefinition of work to include child rearing and care of family as a useful societal condition - shades of WesBurt here. What other criteria might we consider - to have given to us the state of inclusiveness? How about just being born? No criteria except we exist. This kind of thinking and these kind of questions need to brought before the public. These are the kinds of questions that a true demcratic society would consider of value to discuss. How do we bring the right problems before the populace? How do we contribute to those who are articulate so that they can espouse these questions. Now it is true, that the answers of society may be different from my view - or your view, but I think we could agree, that these are the ideas a democratic populace should evaluate and decide. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde C R E D I T S --- edited by Vivian Hutchinson for the Jobs Research Trust P.O.Box 428, New Plymouth, New Zealand phone 06-753-4434 fax 06-759-4648 Internet address -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Jobs Letter -- an essential information and media watch on jobs, employment, unemployment, the future of work, and related economic and education issues. The
Re: FW JK Galbraith and Basic Income
Thomas:
One of things I have always like about Galbraith is that he accepts that the
poor are entitled and deserve some joy and comfort and security in their
lives. Something which the majority of the moderate and overly affluent want
to deny. It is as if poorness is not enough, a little suffering is good for
the soul, especially if it someone elses suffering.
You know, being poor is not so bad, and most of us who experience it find
ways to still enjoy our lives. However, it is the constant pressure from
those more fortunate that somehow if we have sex, go to a movie, have a
picnic in the park we are violating our status in life. Give us a basic
income and get off our back, I think would be endorsed by the majority of
the poor. Allow us to have dreams for our children and we will live
modestly.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
--
From: "S. Lerner" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca
Subject: FW JK Galbraith and Basic Income
Date: Tue, Jul 6, 1999, 9:52 AM
Much to my delight, the following appeared in today's Toronto Globe and
Mail: A13 ("J.K.Galbraith, who is 90, delivered this lecture last week on
receiving an honorary doctorate from the London School of Economics. It is
reprinted from The Guardian." )
Excerpt: "I come to two pieces of the unfinished business of the century
and millenium that have high visibility and urgency. The first is the very
large number of the very poor even in the richest of countries and notably
in the U.S.
The answer or part of the answer is rather clear: Everybody should
be guaranteed a decent income. A rich country such as the U.S. can well
afford to keep everybody out of poverty. Some, it will be said, will seize
upon the income and won't work. So it is now with more limited welfare, as
it is called. Let us accept some resort to leisure by the poor as well as
by the rich."
Re: [graffis-l] The Virtual Alchemists
The following lengthy article, I think is very important. I have long thought that the "replicator" used in the Star Trek space series was the ultimate invention. The creation of matter by basic molecular reconstruction solves that Starships food problem. On Earth, we may find that a "replicator" technology might supply needed resource material we have overused or perhaps even food that can be made as a manufactured product based on mathematically knowing all the molecular compounds and developing ways to combine them. What freedom that would bring - that each person might have the "means of production" as defined in Hilaire Belloc's book The Servile State - and perhaps more than just production, but also, the creation of all necessary and luxury items a person could desire - made from recombining at the molecular level. Is that a possibilitythat can be drawn from this article below? Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -- From: Mark Graffis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: graffis-l [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Bob Sinclair [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [graffis-l] The Virtual Alchemists Date: Tue, Jul 6, 1999, 3:15 PM From: Mark Graffis [EMAIL PROTECTED] TECHNOLOGY REVIEW MIT Bldg. W59-200 201 Vassar St. Cambridge, MA 02139 Tel 617-253-8250 Fax 617-258-5850 [EMAIL PROTECTED] CURRENT ISSUE July/August 1999 After a decade of calculations, the first wave of materials designed from scratch on the computer are ready to be made and tested. On the horizon: new substrates for optics and electronics. By [16]David Voss photo The first thing you notice about Gerbrand Ceder's materials science lab at MIT is that there are no crucibles, no furnaces, no crystal-growing instruments. Instead, you find a row of high-resolution computer displays with grad students and postdocs tweaking code and constructing colorful 3-D images. It's in this room, quiet except for the hum of fans cooling the computer power, where new high-tech ceramics and electronic materials that have never been seen or made before are being forged. They are taking form "in virtuo"designed from scratch on the computer, distilled out of the basic laws of physics. The next thing you're likely to notice is how young Ceder is. Quick to laugh but intensely passionate in explaining his work, the 33-year-old associate professor is one of a new breed of materials researchers, trained in traditional processing techniques, who have turned to discovering materials using computers. The dream is simple: Replace the age-old practice of finding new substances by trial and error, with calculations based on the laws of quantum mechanics that predict the properties of materials before you make them. You can, in theory at least, design metals, semiconductors and ceramics atom by atom, adjusting the structure as you go to achieve desired effects. That should make it possible to come up with, say, a new composition for an electronic material much faster. Even more important, tinkering with atomic structure on a computer makes it possible to invent classes of materials that defy the instincts of the trial-and-error traditionalists. It's an idea that has been kicking around for at least a decade. But with the explosion in accessible computer power, as well as the development of better software and theories, it's becoming a reality. Last year, Ceder and his collaborators at MIT synthesized one of the first materials that had actually been predicted on a computer before it existed. This new aluminum oxide is a cheap and efficient electrode for batteries. And while it may or may not lead to a better, lighter rechargeable battery, the success of Ceder's groupand related work at a handful of other labsis proving that useful materials can be designed from the basic laws of physics. Designing from first principles represents a whole new way of doing materials science, a discipline that Ceder describes as "a collection of facts with some brilliant insights thrown in." It's a transformation he's been aiming at since his undergraduate days in the late 1980s at UniversitÈ Catholique de Louvain in Belgium. "My background is heat and beat metallurgy," he explains. "But I always thought there should be more to it, some way to calculate things using all the great physics of quantum mechanics." Getting there, however, won't be easy. Scientists have known for decades that, according to the rules of quantum mechanics, if you could detail the position of the electrons swarming around atoms, you could then calculate physical properties of the material. Yet the sheer difficulty of carrying out these calculations has made the task seem
Re: Irish Workfare
Just seeking some clarification here. Thomas Lunde wrote: From The Servile State Page 122 Now there is only one alternative to freedom, which is the negation of it. Either a man is free to work and not to work as he pleases, or he may be liable to a legal compulsion to work, backed by the forces of the state. In the first he is a free man; in the second he is by definition a slave. This does not seem to address workfare. Is it not true that a person must first apply for welfare in order to receive it? If some form of work is required s/he should be so informed. At that point the applicant may refuse to work presumably. No legal compulsion there. The person may then turn to non-governmental sources for aid (charity). Thomas: ... it is the very business class, those who, as Belloc identifies as the small minority who control the means of production, who find the concepts of Socialism or Welfare state so abhorrent to their goals of personal wealth creation who are supporting the political moves that are leading the poor into slavery. While a definition of "business class" is needed here, we may _pro tem_ consider it the equivalent of business owners. In my limited experience those who are really ticked off by many welfare recipients is not the business class but the so-called working poor, those hard working individuals who barely earn more than those on welfare who do nothing in return! The working poor also includes, I'm afraid, many small business owners who barely scrape by. Those who sponsor workfare schemes are probably in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation and are following the short-run route of expedience. Just wondering ... -- http://publish.uwo.ca/~mcdaniel/
The natural structure of capitalism?
To: Serious reformers on several mail lists. Hi Folks, In a 99-07-07 series of five insightful posts to list [EMAIL PROTECTED], Thomas Lunde writes in the fifth post: "What to me is surprising is the failure to recognize that the natural structure of capitalism is towards monopoly. Monopoly is attained and maintained by the concept of profit. Mergers, stock ownership, credit, all fall to those who have been the beneficiaries of large consistent profits which give them the surplus to absorb more of any given market area or product area or as in the case of stocks, holding massive amounts of wealth, much like a cow that can continually be milked. There is no social benefit to this, no moral value that can be extrapolated from this, it just is a nice byproduct of a system design." WesBurt writes in reply: What to me is surprising is the failure, of the intellectually gifted members of society, to recognize that the natural structure of capitalism towards monopoly, which they deplore, is attained and maintained by bringing young people into the workforce as financial cripples, not by the natural depravity of bankers, employers, and wealthy people. By financial cripples, I mean young people who are either under nurished, under educated, deep in debt, or all three. I doubt if we could find a Polish pig farmer, in this day and age, who was stupid enough to do that to his most valuable cash crop, but that has been the public policy of English speaking employers since they enclosed the common lands in the 16th and 18th century to increase the landlord's money income. Now this public policy was mentioned in some detail in Isaiah 5:8-15 and later by such English authors as N. S. B. Gras, Harriet Bradley, R. H. Tawney, and A. H. Johnson according to my copy of THE COLUMBIA ENCYCLOPEDIA, so this public policy was not invented by English speaking employers, but they seem to truly believe that it remains their only salvation. Here are two examples of the best solutions our intellectually gifted folks have to offer: Example # 1 ~ From URL http://simedia.org/main/jltobin.html The Tobin Tax and a new era of global economy by John Laird (Snip) Yes, globalization requires action beyond merely the trade and investment spheres, but here is the hard part: effective global regulation requires governments to give up portions of their national sovereignty and to designate that surrendered sovereignty (along with the required resources) to international conventions and institutions. (Snip) (WSB: If each nation stabilized its own economy and established justice in its own society, the global problematique could be handled easily by cooperation between nations, without giving up any part of their national sovereignty. WSB) Example # 2 ~~~ From http://www.intellectualcapital.com/issues/issue247/item5327.asp A Review of The Stakeholder Society by Bruce Ackerman and Anne Alstott Yale University Press, 296 pages Years after Tom Paine helped spark the American Revolution with his essay Common Sense, he advised the revolutionary government of France to cement its newly won political equality with economic citizenship. The means to true commonwealth, he wrote, was universal stakeholding. Paines plan: Grant every youth turning 21 a cash grant of 15 pounds sterling to get started in life; later, at age 50, every surviving worker would receive an annual retirement allowance. The Stakeholder Society No less revolutionary is the proposal today by Bruce Ackerman and Anne Alstott to promote equal opportunity by giving every American, at age 21, an $80,000 grant to spend as he or she sees fit. The amount reflects the average cost of a private college education, which Ackerman and Alstott -- both professors at Yale Law School -- clearly hope will expand access to higher education. Yet this is no mere college scholarship program. The authors expect that the primary beneficiaries of these start-up grants would be the millions of forgotten Americans who decide that even a two-year college is not for them. More than anything, this book is a battle cry for the rapidly receding American value of equal opportunity -- not equal outcomes, but a level playing field to compete in the game of life. The authors note that the 25% of todays 20-somethings who get their tickets punched with a B.A. or professional degree are, by and large, born on second base. Income and wealth inequality is rising rapidly as the New Economy rewards the sort of education, skills and connections that accrue disproportionately to those born on the right side of the tracks. Giving Joe Six-Pack a stake Rich kids get a big head start in life, they write. While only 60% of high school grads from low-income families go on for any higher education, 93% from high-income households go on for at least some college. This
Re: FW JK Galbraith and Basic Income
This is a utopia if based on capitalist
economics. (Or have I already mentioned this?)
Welfare capitalism was tried, and when the upswing
collapsed, it failed. Even the richest states are in debt,
even when they only spend pitifully small percentages
on welfare.
Eva
Thomas:
One of things I have always like about Galbraith is that he accepts that the
poor are entitled and deserve some joy and comfort and security in their
lives. Something which the majority of the moderate and overly affluent want
to deny. It is as if poorness is not enough, a little suffering is good for
the soul, especially if it someone elses suffering.
You know, being poor is not so bad, and most of us who experience it find
ways to still enjoy our lives. However, it is the constant pressure from
those more fortunate that somehow if we have sex, go to a movie, have a
picnic in the park we are violating our status in life. Give us a basic
income and get off our back, I think would be endorsed by the majority of
the poor. Allow us to have dreams for our children and we will live
modestly.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
--
From: "S. Lerner" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca
Subject: FW JK Galbraith and Basic Income
Date: Tue, Jul 6, 1999, 9:52 AM
Much to my delight, the following appeared in today's Toronto Globe and
Mail: A13 ("J.K.Galbraith, who is 90, delivered this lecture last week on
receiving an honorary doctorate from the London School of Economics. It is
reprinted from The Guardian." )
Excerpt: "I come to two pieces of the unfinished business of the century
and millenium that have high visibility and urgency. The first is the very
large number of the very poor even in the richest of countries and notably
in the U.S.
The answer or part of the answer is rather clear: Everybody should
be guaranteed a decent income. A rich country such as the U.S. can well
afford to keep everybody out of poverty. Some, it will be said, will seize
upon the income and won't work. So it is now with more limited welfare, as
it is called. Let us accept some resort to leisure by the poor as well as
by the rich."
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Irish Workfare
The problem turns, remember, upon the control of the means of production. Capitalism means that this control is vested in the hands of few, while political freedom is the appanage of all. It this anomaly cannot endure, from its insecurity and from its own contradiction with its presumed moral basis, you must either have a transformation of one or of the other of the two elements which combined have been found unworkable. These two factors are (1) The ownership of the means of production by a few; (2) The freedom of all. To solve capitalism you must get rid of restricted ownership, or of freedom, or of both. What political freedom?? (and what the *^%$* is appanage, the dictionary didn't find any means to connect it to your sentence.) Your premise is false. Capitalism doesn't mean political freedom, most of the time not even nominally. Economic unequality cannot provide political equality, when economic power means political power. Therefore there is no reason why non-capitalism should lead necessarily to non-freedom. The conditions needed for a successful/democratic socialist transformation were missing in the historical events so far. This is straightforward analysis of historical data. A successful transformation has not happened yet, which does not mean it cannot, when the conditions are right. New systems have this nature of not yet ever being around. Now there is only one alternative to freedom, which is the negation of it. Either a man is free to work and not to work as he pleases, or he may be liable to a legal compulsion to work, backed by the forces of the state. In the first he is a free man; in the second he is by definition a slave. We have, therefore, so far as this factor of freedom is concerned, no choice between a number of changes, but only the opportunity of one, to wit, the establishment of slavery in place of freedom. You suggest, that people are "free to work" at present? Because you are wrong in that case. Nobody, who HAS TO get up and go to work for an income that is necessary for living a life that is considered to be satisfactory in the given social/cultural setup, is free. The wast majority of us are wageslaves, whether we are happy with our particular situations/conscious of it or not. The state is an instrument of the status quo, it exist to enforce our status as wageslaves, and maintain the status of the owners of the means of production (private property). If we were free, no enforcement/state would be necessary, as we would work because we see the need for it or because we enjoy it, or both. Such a solution, the direct, immediate, and conscious reestalishment of slavery, would provide a true soltuioh of the problems which capitalism offers. It would guarantee, under workable regulations, sufficiency and security for the dispossessed. Such a solution, as I shall show, is the probable goal which our society will in fact approach. To its immediate and conscious acceptance, however, there is an obstacle. This is indeed, frightening. Especially as it seem to be repeated more and more often; the gist of it being, that democracy is mob's rule of the great unwashed, when clever, benevolent technocrats could govern us ever so well. Capitalism hasn't got the economic mechanism to provide continuous security for anyone - and last of all for the dispossessed. No form of government can change this. Hitler needed an artificial market (military/public work) and a war, to re-kindle the failing machinary. If you follow through your thread of thought, this is where you get. There is no capitalism with a human face, whether based on allegedly benevolent dictatorship or democracy. It hasn't got the economic machinary to support it other then for relatively short periods. That's why it is outmoded and all attempt of it's further zombification is madness, when we now have the conditions to do better. Thomas: The following article is an example of a State moving slowly towards slavery. And as the article mentions, it is the very business class, those who, as Belloc identifies as the small minority who control the means of production, who find the concepts of Socialism or Welfare state so abhorrent to their goals of personal wealth creation who are supporting the political moves that are leading the poor into slavery. First, we can see that the plight of the poor has to increase in misery and finally as a sop, the authorities will bring forth as a panacea to the cruelty they have created, "under workable regulations, sufficiency and security for the dispossessed." The whole of the middle-classes are sliding down to the uncertainties and statelessness insecurity of the underclass. This experience will sling them out of the stupor created by the virtual wealth of the last 50 years. Such awareness will bring the next revolution and the long awaited syncronisation of collective social relations with the collective and
Re: [graffis-l] The Virtual Alchemists
- Original Message - From: Thomas Lunde [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; graffis-l [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: July 06, 1999 7:31 PM Subject: Re: [graffis-l] The Virtual Alchemists The following lengthy article, I think is very important. I have long thought that the "replicator" used in the Star Trek space series was the ultimate invention. The creation of matter by basic molecular reconstruction solves that Starships food problem. On Earth, we may find that a "replicator" technology might supply needed resource material we have overused or perhaps even food that can be made as a manufactured product based on mathematically knowing all the molecular compounds and developing ways to combine them. What freedom that would bring - that each person might have the "means of production" as defined in Hilaire Belloc's book The Servile State - and perhaps more than just production, but also, the creation of all necessary and luxury items a person could desire - made from recombining at the molecular level. Is that a possibilitythat can be drawn from this article below? Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -- [snip] In the latter part of "The End of Work" (sorry, Ed!) Rifkin says that the big changes in the next few decades will be in biotechnology and food production with the latter moving to a factory environment with an even smaller workforce than today. Rifkin did not elaborate on the details. My own guess is that with advances in biotech and adequate computing power it will be possible to grow yeast or some other micro-organism in vats, which when processed will have the taste and texture and appearance of steak or corn-on-the-cob or whatever we want. Pretty close to a replicator. I would not suggest, however, that such an advance would mean we could stop worrying about world population. Live long and prosper Victor Milne WebWizard HTML Design at http://www.web-wiz.org FIGHT THE BASTARDS! An anti-neoconservative website at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/pat-vic/ LONESOME ACRES RIDING STABLE at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/home.htm DDT - DON'T DO TELEMARKETING at http://www.web-wiz.org/DDT/
Re: Media / Oral Literacy
Brad, I too suspect that we are closer on these issues then it seems. Rather a matter of syllabic emphasis. Your's is more academic with mine seeming at least to be more from the practical practice. I don't appoint a hierarchy to either nor do I mean to say that I'm not academic or you are impractical. Instead I feel it to be a point of emphasis.. Consider, Ray E. Harrell wrote: I've been away so I'm not sure whether this is old turf or not on this issue. (Ditto) 1. As a performing artist who deals with the meaning of words on the stage I find literacy useful in three ways. a. as a substitute for a poor memory b. as a way of transmitting rudimentary information over a distance or hiding information from an "enemy." c. as a separate art form that contains its own rules apart from every day life and emotion. I put the internet in this last catagory. These are, of course, contentious issues. The argument has been strongly put forward that literacy changes persons' mode of oral behavior and the inner experience thereof (see, e.g.: Singer of Tales (Harvard Studies in Comparative Literature, 24) Albert Bates Lord / Paperback / Published 1981 -- I've used the book for years in my teaching but the book beginsnot with the analysis of literature but a discussion of performers and performance. The act of per-form-ing is a synergistic dialogue that transcends the particulate linearity of literacy. Most societies that developed literacy, especially the glyphic ones, did not want to develop forgetfulness or lose the holistic nature of verbal performance dialogue. Just as we still teach arithmetic to children instead of simply using calculators, they had rules for what was written down and what was only committed to memory. Plagues and Diasporas elevated literacy because of the fragility of the lives of the rememberers. I come from a society that brought out that process only in the 1830s due to the pressure of European society on our culture. We did not want to lose everything. So we wrote it down but in a new syllabury that not everyone could read. I confess to not having read this book but only reading *about* it in Walter Ong's writings). When literacy "infects" a society, the craft of the poet changes radically. One might consider the poems of Robert Lowell on theone side with e.e. cummings on the other. Previously, his tales (e.g., the Iliad) were the encyclopedia of the people, and the integrity of this information was protected by long apprenticeship and complex mettical (etc.) patterning of the material. An interesting metaphor. I'm not really sure what it meantto the Greeks. Now the people have an encyclopedia, and it's not "cost effctive" for people to either learn the craft or listen to its practice. I don't understand this either. The theater, movies, operasare all alive. The issue is not the "encyclopedia" (creative material) but the performance of such. Live versus "canned." Movies are productive in the economic value sense, while operas are not. Small rock ensembles can play to big crowds with technological enhancements. That makes money, symphony orchestras do not. It seems much more about economics than the value of the encyclopedia. Anyway it is not the same in Europe. They still perform the encyclopedia live and on stage. They used to hire America's performers to perform their works after WW II. Even Germany. Now they have grown their own and American performers have no place to go to perfect their craft. Another point (among many): Literacy brings the advent of "objective history". Nonsense!Where? Texts change much less fluidly than oral culture, So do scientific ideal states, but they don't exist in reality. That does not however, keep them from being useful. I suggest the same for written language. False but useful. and, in a primary oral culture, one did no9t need a Stalin to rewrite history, because the poets always knew which way the wind was blowing, and anything that dropped out of the poetry the poets sang was irretrievably gone. Ets. In Tenochtitlan, they didn't hesitate to change the writtentext but if you changed a word or missed a pitch or rhythm in the performance, you were fodder for the Gods. They took their verbal history seriously. You seem to be equating reality with Europe. A problem with literacy. As far as information is concerned there is a different connotation for every single word that is stressed by the voice in a sentence. Of course, and I will agree with you that a lot of people who know how to read and write don't pay attention to these crucial aspects of our comunicative life. In my experience with students and professionalperformers, there is little preparation in the schools for something as simple as defining the distinctions between word stresses. I was pleasantly surprised to read that Murray Gell-Mann (The Quark
Re: Some Thoughts From Can America Survive
Thank you Thomas for thoughtfully restating some of the questions that I have tried to ask during my three years on this list. Attention to the quality and durability of human societies demands that jobs/work not be bound by traditional economic definitions. Steve (excerpt) Thomas Lunde: But - what if his perspective is the correct assessment? Then cheap energy and industrial growth become ills equal to genocide or germ warfare. What if the correct viewpoint is sustainability rather than growth. Then, we are following Hitler, following policies that will exterminate the human race, rather than just the Jewish race. On FutureWork, our topic is work - which we, along with the rest of society assume is essential for survival. But what if work is the path to no survival? Are we then not philosophers arguing over how many needles can fit on the head of a pin, without asking what the purpose of the argument is? When we examine work, which surprisingly enough we do, in my opinion, in the most eclectic of fashions, all sorts of presuppositions, myths, assumptions, verities, facts and truths come to light before our collective minds and various experiences and learnings. The Internet gives the tradional and eccentric, the conventional and the doomsayer a forum for discussion. Is this not futurework? As each of us read - and agree or not with each posting, are we not retraining ourselves for some valuable but yet unseen futurework? I believe we are.
Re: Digital Monoculture
Hi Tom, Sitting here with a computer that more resembles a "Hot Rod" and that makes me very sorry not to have taken the auto mechanics course that my mother insisted upon and I resisted. Sitting here with a machine that is not made by a big monopoly or with a decent warrenty. A machine that the small businessman, who sold it to me at an inflated price and then went bankrupt, had promised service and quality for four years. A machine that I must now spend time learning how to be an electrician, a mechanic and a programmer. A machine that takes more time then I can spend working on it. I never worked on "hot rods" I bought new cheap cars so that I could spend time with my dates or traveling the country rather than sitting in the shop. The question today is whether developing new art is more important than learning the inner workings of this mongrel. So next time I will buy Dell or Gateway or some other big company product that has a more "economie of scale" attitude and will take less of my time. Those Russian airplanes are coming in at half the price and have a lot of goodies on them with less attitude. Does it work? That should be the answer before, will it sell? up with monoculture! REH Thomas Lunde wrote: What to me is surprising is the failure to recognize that the natural structure of capitalism is towards monopoly. Monopoly is attained and maintained by the concept of profit. Mergers, stock ownership, credit, all fall to those who have been the beneficiaries of large consistent profits which give them the surplus to absorb more of any given market area or product area or as in the case of stocks, holding massive amounts of wealth, much like a cow that can continually be milked. There is no social benefit to this, no moral value that can be extrapolated from this, it just is a nice byproduct of a system design. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -- From: "Cordell, Arthur: DPP" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FW: Digital Monoculture Date: Tue, Jul 6, 1999, 2:01 PM While not directly related to FW, this seems sufficiently interesting to pass along FYI -- From: Gary Chapman To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: L.A. Times column, 7/5/99 Date: Monday, July 05, 1999 10:30AM Friends, Below is my Los Angeles Times column for today, Monday, July 5, 1999. As usual, please feel free to pass this around, but please retain the copyright notice. -- If you have received this from me, Gary Chapman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), you are subscribed to the listserv that sends out copies of my column in The Los Angeles Times and other published articles. If you wish to UNSUBSCRIBE from this listserv, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], leave the subject line blank, and put "Unsubscribe Chapman" in the first line of the message. If you received this message from a source other than me and would like to subscribe to the listserv, the instructions for subscribing are at the end of the message. -- Monday, July 5, 1999 DIGITAL NATION Troubling Implications of Internet's Ubiquity By Gary Chapman Copyright 1999, The Los Angeles Times Early last month, institutions around the world were crippled for several days by a new computer virus called the ExploreZip Trojan horse. A Trojan horse, in computer jargon, is a nasty software program that hides inside a file a user is likely to want to see or open. The ExploreZip virus -- more accurately, a computer "worm," which spreads more automatically than a virus -- affected machines running Microsoft's Windows operating system and Windows application software. Computers throughout the world were shut down, including some at Microsoft and other large corporations as well as the Pentagon. The ExploreZip worm was a more debilitating version of the Melissa virus that struck Windows machines earlier this year. Because of the apparent vulnerability of Windows-based machines, some computer experts have started to use the metaphor of a "monoculture" to describe our current computing predicament. The word "monoculture" comes from ecology and biology, another example of the merging of biological terms with computer jargon, like "virus" and "worm." In ecology, monoculture refers to the dominance or exclusive prevalence of a single species or genetic type in an ecological system -- a state typically regarded as pathological and dangerous. Agricultural monocultures, for example, are highly susceptible to blight, soil depletion, disease and other disasters. In computing, the recent use of the term has referred to the widespread dominance of Microsoft products. But we may want to extend the metaphor further and contemplate whether we're developing a universal digital monoculture, one with a troubling potential for
