At 11 03 05, 05:42 AM, ewc wrote: >On metric stuff - I routinely quote historical weights to two standards - the >appropriate historical one and metric. If you do not quote the historical >standard you fail to understand the system you are looking at. But if you do >not quote an 'absolute' standard too then you will likely fail to see the kind >of supra-national relationships that exist. I believe by using metric in this >context I have made a few new discoveries, because previous scholars have not >used metric and have ended up with a somewhat blinkered nationalistic view of >the situation.
This is an excellent point, and fully supports the benefits of a world-wide measurement standard. But, as the remainder of your email goes on to support, you were not FORCED to quote in both units, you choose to do so because it was, in your judgement, the best way to do the work. >My additional point would be that a big part of the population are poor at >maths - and maybe getting worse. . . . So the answer in regard to (say) >medication for babies is both metrication and a rigorous professional exam >system to make sure only competent people are involved. I do not see that >selling apples by the pound has much to do with this. Which is exactly why I separated the "safety-related" from "none safety-related" isseus. >Regarding Orwell. . . But in 1984 Winston Smith complained that he could no >longer get a pint of beer and that half a litre was too little and a litre was >too much. So I plan to stand shoulder to shoulder with Orwell on this. Not >primarily because Orwell was right (tho' I think he was) - but because there >do seem to me to be sinister political overtones to the kind of authoritarian >fatalist outlook that Pat and co bring with their view of the world. The problem is not whether Winston Smith could get a pint or not. It is whether he could get one IF someone wanted to sell it to him. Presuming the bars were willing to sell it either way, then he should have been able to get it. But, as I think I am hearing you say, the authoritarians prevented him from getting his pint, not the lack of a willing seller. >A while back I referred to the first metric currency system - due to an >egalitarian Confucian Chinese guy Wang Mang about 9 AD. But about 200 years >before that China had a forced standardization of its weights and measures >system set up by the First Chin Emperor - the earliest forced unification I >know of. Now everybody knows of some of the achievements of the First Chin >Emperor. He was the guy who built the great wall. And the guy buried with >that pot army. But almost nobody knows what he stood for - a version of >legalism that took totalitarianism to its theoretical limits - reducing human >beings to robots. Here are some quotes from his philosophy - the Book of Lord >Shang (taken from memory) I can only say there is way, way, way too much interesting stuff to learn in on lifetime! Having read your quotes, plus some reviews on Amazon, the Book of Lord Shang would be really interesting, if it were not about 356th on my list of books to read! >Both my father and grandfather were called up to fight in wars created by >authoritarian ideologies. I was lucky. I suspect if my children are spared >this their children may not be. Metrication issues are - as you say - trivial >in comparison. > >I have long wondered if Orwell read Duyvendak's translation - and think I >shall disappear from USMA now to research that matter. > >Many days I think of the world outside my door as a lunatic asylum - so it was >really good to see you stand up and prove it is not (entirely) so. > >If you promise to leave my pint of beer alone I will wish you success in all >else! I may have to interfere with your pint of beer -- not due to its failure to be metric, but due to my desire to drink it! Jim Jim Elwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] 801-466-8770 www.qsicorp.com
