___
It is not difficult, at all---to take into oneself some kind of scientific theory. Two examples: the general idea of blood circulation (which is not intuitive and which we need to have pointed out or explained to us), and the formation of prices by markets, or the idea that prices are formed by markets or some kind of market pressure.
Scientific ideas are ultra-absorptive. I mean absorbed into us. Our everyday lives are informed by scientific theories even though we may not be able to ourselves articulate these theories in words. This is to say that you do not have to be a skilled writer to absorb a scientific theory, but a reader. You only need to be a reader, so the point here is that we absorb or take in scientific ideas easily.
And in this way also those particular orthodox-mainstream ideas and theories that are known as economic ideas. This set of ideas known as "economics," then, informs our whole take on being alive and our whole general attitude. This is our attitude towards our society and being in it---it is very basic, cultural stuff. It is based on thinking there are these "market forces." I have been studying this for some time now; I am beginning to question it. But otherwise we believe the "explanation." One is tempted to say that the explanation is causing the prices to be established. At any rate, I am not so sure the orthodox-mainstream view of society on economics and price is in fact the truth, and it may be wrong. (I believe that it is an erroneous explanation of the way in which humans create product items or put them on the shelf and affix prices to them. This radical questioning of our assumed view of how these things word is based on the continuous questioning and study of a lifetime.)
These economics topics constitute a theory that pervades the science world but goes far beyond that. It is not limited at all to scientists. The basic understanding which as said may be wrong, is repeated by businessmen; and, by all of us. It is repeated not just by scientists, but by everyone.
It is not far-out to suggest that many of those holding this economic view have a vested interest in it---it maintaining it, which hardly constitutes a reason that it is correct! So, having a vested interest does not necessarily mean it is correct. Although in a sense we may admit that this interest, in promulgating and believing a particular view is, indeed, "economic"---in a some sense.
We do not need to know much about blood circulation in order to take in the basic scientific view either. Again, this is the general view held by most everyone in the society. Perhaps we remember the pictures and diagrams---from our school days? Note, in this case, that this information goes just a bit deeper than we can cut (so to speak) with the naked eye. In school, new information is now coming in. It is coming in---into awareness---in the form of for example these diagrams of the capillaries and so on. This scientific information fits our prior experience well and is easily absorbed. And without even knowing it we are soon in possession of the scientific "circulation" view. There wasn't much struggle, was there? Now you know more? Do you?
All of that circulation theory is well and good---in this case I am not trying to refute anything--- but yet we can also say it is one story amongst others. Do you not believe me? Maybe you don't. That there are other stories? But... ...a doctor would know a much deeper, more detailed version. Maybe he knows a different version, and it puts him on a different level, or maybe just a more detailed one and it is basically the same story or same science. I don't know which it is. But if I think of the person with only the basic version of the science I think of a person who received the general idea, probably in school, and saw some pictures of the capillaries and arteries/veins, painted red or blue. Those guys received the basic information on circulation; and that the oxygen (do you believe in oxygen?) goes in, and refreshes the blood, makes it red, etc. He/ she has one story. Does the doctor have a different view? I'll let you ask him or her. I'll admit that generally speaking we could say that these two stories, or levels of the story, added up, amount to one view---of blood.
I want to go further. What if you went the other direction and had never, ever experienced this new story that replaces the earlier one? Are you the worse? What if you had never heard the new bloody story from teachers at school, in order to replace it in your consciousness, or not scanned the internet or read a book for it? What if you had never taken in the so easily-absorbed "nutrient" of the science theory?
If you had to rely upon a simpler idea of how blood is relevant to your life, would you be actually be any worse for it? You, as a "primitive," would still know about blood. You would know that you bleed when you are cut. And you would have ideas or feelings about it. That would be clear with neither science nor schoolbook. You would probably have a few other bits of knowledge from the community you live in. Someone else might have confirmed for you what you had suspected anyways, but may not have fully articulated (even to yourself), that it is very, very dangerous to bleed too much---beyond a certain amount. What if you only had a normal, or primitive, or human, or cultural understanding---about what blood means? Would it have made any difference? You would be ahead in some ways, and behind in other ways. You would have a different understanding, not a better one. We regard one particular view, the science view, as superior. Is that justified? Or is it just our view? (It is our view---our ethnocentrism, or our bias.)
The easily accepted and taken-in version or view entails rejecting a lot of "other" concepts or ideas---other ideas about BLOOD. And now, as I reject the "old" view I have always had (which is the "new" or science view we just discussed), I can "feel" my blood in my body. I never thought of it before today. Now I am doing it! So, after I have discarded something that I have unquestioningly clung to like a monkey with a coconut, for my whole post-secondary school life, I begin to feel out all the "other" views. These are of course the other "blood" views. Other "blood views." Other bloody "blood views." I can feel the "pressure." You can feel like your body is a sort of bag of blood----and it is full of feelings like the feeling of blood pressure. Something like that, anyway. You can pause and do this (you have to stop reading for at least a moment.) All you need to do is turn your mind to it. Be a bloody primitive (but remember: we also learned something about economics.)
Some of you might not like to hear this. There are some of you who do not want this new information; you are the same ones that don't accept global warming. But by accepting the "received wisdom" of society you have lost access to alternative ideas. The idea of blood circulation replaces other ideas, the other ideas you would have without it.
So don't be so arrogant. Don't be smug. Don't be so sure of your scientific knowledge. It is not difficult at all to take into oneself some kind of scientific theory. But when we are doing so we are losing access to other things.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Reading Heisenber, Werner
____
Scientists are talking about things that really happened but what really happened is their own research.
Scientists are talking about things that really happened but what really happened is their own research.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Boehner, And "Agreement"
The agreement on the debt ceiling, says Boehner, will ..."end this crisis in a manner that meets our principles of small government."
What will the impact be, then, of smaller government? What good is smaller government going to do? It is the economy that is the problem. In a capitalist economic system, or capitalistic society, the economy is NOT in the hands of government. What good is smaller government going to do?---what's Boehner's point?
The goverment shall now cut about 1 or 2 hundred billion dollars of spending annually. How will that help the economy, particularly?
Will the economy suddenly become freed from all that total government control that we have at present? If Boehner's point is that of smaller goverment, and he is the custodian of that point, or if that is his principle, then Boehner is saying of any potential economic crisis, "private sector to the rescue."
Do the Republicans have some kind of plan for re-organizing the private sector? No. THat is up to Boeing and GM, and Caterpillar tractor. All they have to do is govern themselves, which is what they've already been doing; in other words, the private sector will take care of it automatically. I'm excited. I've always loved the corporations, you see, and now they are going to be our new heroes. Yeah! Go, private sector! Come on! Cheer! Be patriotic!
What will the impact be, then, of smaller government? What good is smaller government going to do? It is the economy that is the problem. In a capitalist economic system, or capitalistic society, the economy is NOT in the hands of government. What good is smaller government going to do?---what's Boehner's point?
The goverment shall now cut about 1 or 2 hundred billion dollars of spending annually. How will that help the economy, particularly?
Will the economy suddenly become freed from all that total government control that we have at present? If Boehner's point is that of smaller goverment, and he is the custodian of that point, or if that is his principle, then Boehner is saying of any potential economic crisis, "private sector to the rescue."
Do the Republicans have some kind of plan for re-organizing the private sector? No. THat is up to Boeing and GM, and Caterpillar tractor. All they have to do is govern themselves, which is what they've already been doing; in other words, the private sector will take care of it automatically. I'm excited. I've always loved the corporations, you see, and now they are going to be our new heroes. Yeah! Go, private sector! Come on! Cheer! Be patriotic!
Dow off one hundred points or more
Personally, I like depressions (I know this is an exciting topic. I shall indeed endeavor to try to update this blog tomorrow)
What does "Bias in Media" mean?
This just in via Reuters. They take no responsibility for it. This is supplied from another news service, through Reuters.
(pasted in): * Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release OK---++WASHINGTON, April 7, 2008 .. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ OK
Accuracy in Media (AIM),
the media watchdog group that campaigned to keep Al-Jazeera English off American airwaves in 2006,
said today that Dave Marash's decision to leave the channel confirms its warnings
and fears. Marash, the top U.S. journalist at Al-Jazeera English, says that anti-American bias
at the network was a factor in his decision to leave.
(Jack comes to the rescue): What is bias? When I read the New York Times I read for three sentences and I see bias. I read the major U.S. newspapers as biased, heavily so. The debate about bias in media is heavily nonsensical. We should just ignore it.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
NEws FLash
SPECIAL FROM THE NYT:
After sitting almost silently on the sidelines for weeks, Mitt Romney on Monday declared that he was opposed to the debt ceiling compromise hammered out in Washington over the weekend.
Mr. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and Republican presidential candidate, said in a brief statement that he would not support the bill.
“While I appreciate the extraordinarily difficult situation President Obama’s lack of leadership has placed Republican members of Congress in, I personally cannot support this deal,” he said.
In a statement just before a vote on the legislation, which Republican Congressional leaders are urging their members to support, Mr. Romney said that the bill “opens the door” to higher taxes and blamed the president for a failure of leadership.
“As president, my plan would have produced a budget that was cut, capped and balanced – not one that opens the door to higher taxes and puts defense cuts on the table,” Mr. Romney said. “President Obama’s leadership failure has pushed the economy to the brink at the 11th hour and 59th minute.”
Quick-draw artist. It's always the other guy. Always, in "our" guy Romney, just the dirty little desire to pick a fight. If it's anger and rancor you want, this is it.
After sitting almost silently on the sidelines for weeks, Mitt Romney on Monday declared that he was opposed to the debt ceiling compromise hammered out in Washington over the weekend.
Mr. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and Republican presidential candidate, said in a brief statement that he would not support the bill.
“While I appreciate the extraordinarily difficult situation President Obama’s lack of leadership has placed Republican members of Congress in, I personally cannot support this deal,” he said.
In a statement just before a vote on the legislation, which Republican Congressional leaders are urging their members to support, Mr. Romney said that the bill “opens the door” to higher taxes and blamed the president for a failure of leadership.
“As president, my plan would have produced a budget that was cut, capped and balanced – not one that opens the door to higher taxes and puts defense cuts on the table,” Mr. Romney said. “President Obama’s leadership failure has pushed the economy to the brink at the 11th hour and 59th minute.”
Quick-draw artist. It's always the other guy. Always, in "our" guy Romney, just the dirty little desire to pick a fight. If it's anger and rancor you want, this is it.
Monday, August 1, 2011
News (FT - British financial newspaper)
Phew. Both the US and the eurozone seem, for now, to be between crises. Investors should use this breathing space to study the bigger picture. The problems in the two largest developed economies are only a part of a wider global rebalancing, tectonic shifts which are reshaping everything from British corporate profits to Chinese capital spending programmes.
The great transition is well under way. As a percentage of rich nations’ gross domestic product, emerging nations’ output (measured in spending power) has risen from parity to almost 145 per cent in the past six years, International Monetary Fund data show.
JACK'S COMMENT BELOW
The technological capacity itself is there for the less wealthy countries to develop skyscrapers, higher-yielding agricultural techniques, or anything else that the developed world knows how to do. Without considering the financial part of it at all we would still have to conclude that the continually increasing developed country technology and capacity makes it feasible for country "a" to develop, as long as that country gets the technology. Any country that receives the technology could do it, unless they are located in the middle of a swamp or a desert, but even then they could probably just draw on some techniques that some expert has already developed in some part of the capitalist world. The capacity is there but we are just arguing about the means to develop that capacity through finance --- the actual technology exists. To put it into practice, you just need to move that technology to another piece of land (country).
You could take the same crew of one thousand persons with their cranes and materials and so forth and move it to a new country every year and in ten years you'd have ten countries with their own hooked-up starter system.
The argument is about the financing. It is about financing such a project, and that seems to me a different argument from whether the material possibility exists. That is the thesis of this post. The capacity is there. The question is of whether it shall happen, or perhaps whether it should happen. Not that anyone has that kind of moral control.
In a capitalistic world, businessmen always seem to be out there, willing to do stuff. Developing countries are therefore able to obtain that technology, at long last, and, as we said, if they can get the technology over to their piece of the world's geographical surface, they can develop.
Now to a few philosophical considerations (as if there were anything else) and then I'll cease this. Whether all those countries will do it intelligently and sustainably is another subject. It is not the world of the 19th century that we are applying this technology to but a different situation, both in terms of the multiplicity or sheer number of newly developing countries and in terms of the differences between the kind of global experience we are experiencing today and existed then.
Certainly, the notion of "growth," as the concept is currently employed, ought to be questioned. I would say that the less-developed countries could grow a little bit, if it helps them. I'll give them that. But the "overblown" economies need to put a cap on it. They can grow a little less, they are not a run-on sentence and I really doubt that there is an unlimited capacity for growth, unless, that is to say, we look at which kind of "growth" we really mean here. So, guess what I conclude?
Well, I think that the entire notion of growth should be internationalized. It's global growth these hotshots should be talking about not single-country growth. What exactly do we mean by "growth" anyways? I know it is their main word, but we aren't talking about growth of arboreal forests, for example. I'm happy for them that they found a nice word they can agree about. "Growth:" it sounds nice to them. But "growth" is a different word in English, than it is in the economist lingo. Ultimately it does not I would think make any more sense than any other economics jargon. Nor does it save the economists' project, their "study" of economics.
I know that businesses do need growth. It means, I believe, that they need to make a profit. (Hence the overarching concept of "economic growth," right? It just means profit, right?) But I favor "growth" in intelligence. How about growth in sustainability so you don't just kill everybody? That would be a nice application for the word "growth," too.
Or: How about "dismal," that's a word. "Dismal science".
The great transition is well under way. As a percentage of rich nations’ gross domestic product, emerging nations’ output (measured in spending power) has risen from parity to almost 145 per cent in the past six years, International Monetary Fund data show.
JACK'S COMMENT BELOW
The technological capacity itself is there for the less wealthy countries to develop skyscrapers, higher-yielding agricultural techniques, or anything else that the developed world knows how to do. Without considering the financial part of it at all we would still have to conclude that the continually increasing developed country technology and capacity makes it feasible for country "a" to develop, as long as that country gets the technology. Any country that receives the technology could do it, unless they are located in the middle of a swamp or a desert, but even then they could probably just draw on some techniques that some expert has already developed in some part of the capitalist world. The capacity is there but we are just arguing about the means to develop that capacity through finance --- the actual technology exists. To put it into practice, you just need to move that technology to another piece of land (country).
You could take the same crew of one thousand persons with their cranes and materials and so forth and move it to a new country every year and in ten years you'd have ten countries with their own hooked-up starter system.
The argument is about the financing. It is about financing such a project, and that seems to me a different argument from whether the material possibility exists. That is the thesis of this post. The capacity is there. The question is of whether it shall happen, or perhaps whether it should happen. Not that anyone has that kind of moral control.
In a capitalistic world, businessmen always seem to be out there, willing to do stuff. Developing countries are therefore able to obtain that technology, at long last, and, as we said, if they can get the technology over to their piece of the world's geographical surface, they can develop.
Now to a few philosophical considerations (as if there were anything else) and then I'll cease this. Whether all those countries will do it intelligently and sustainably is another subject. It is not the world of the 19th century that we are applying this technology to but a different situation, both in terms of the multiplicity or sheer number of newly developing countries and in terms of the differences between the kind of global experience we are experiencing today and existed then.
Certainly, the notion of "growth," as the concept is currently employed, ought to be questioned. I would say that the less-developed countries could grow a little bit, if it helps them. I'll give them that. But the "overblown" economies need to put a cap on it. They can grow a little less, they are not a run-on sentence and I really doubt that there is an unlimited capacity for growth, unless, that is to say, we look at which kind of "growth" we really mean here. So, guess what I conclude?
Well, I think that the entire notion of growth should be internationalized. It's global growth these hotshots should be talking about not single-country growth. What exactly do we mean by "growth" anyways? I know it is their main word, but we aren't talking about growth of arboreal forests, for example. I'm happy for them that they found a nice word they can agree about. "Growth:" it sounds nice to them. But "growth" is a different word in English, than it is in the economist lingo. Ultimately it does not I would think make any more sense than any other economics jargon. Nor does it save the economists' project, their "study" of economics.
I know that businesses do need growth. It means, I believe, that they need to make a profit. (Hence the overarching concept of "economic growth," right? It just means profit, right?) But I favor "growth" in intelligence. How about growth in sustainability so you don't just kill everybody? That would be a nice application for the word "growth," too.
Or: How about "dismal," that's a word. "Dismal science".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)