I would have to say that all RC property and wealth "belonged" to
Rome, in a sense.//What about the Armada victory? A navy has to start
somewhere, afterall. :-)//Yes- I took away some thoughts to savor and
save after the Tudor classes. The prof had attended Oxford and had
delightful asides. I called him about a paper and lo and behold he
lived in one of my childhood homes! He invited me to go through but I
declined- it would have disturbed my memories, perhaps. He retired a
few years ago.// Money just replaced lineage and land...more portable.
But it cannot replace education and other qualities.//I read you last
night and felt blue afterwards- reminded me of Anthony Burgess-
"Nothing Like the Sun"- in its energy. I often pray for you and
others. But I loved Chaucer (read in Middle English) and Milton and
only audited Shakespeare as a course or picked up works in other
courses. I have some favorites of Yeats and read up on Maud Gonne who
On Mar 30, 1:28 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure the Papacy ever owned the dissolved monasteries rigs,
> though the process did fund about 30 ships. A hundred years later we
> were floating joint stock companies to attack Spain - a failed Drake-
> Norris expedition being the first (£80K only returning £30K in
> plunder). The Royal Navy comes much later with the Act of Union
> (1707) and it's around then money was raised by the Bank of England.
> I would have fancied a maritime Robin Hood raid on the Vatican myself.
> I don't see this rich thing as about class - it's more to do with
> social structuring through 'money as power' - as a famous poem stated,
> there's no point in changing the rulers.
> THE GREAT DAY (W.B. Yeats in Montague 1974:239)
> Hurrah for revolution and more cannon-shot!
> A beggar on horseback lashes a beggar on foot.
> Hurrah for revolution and cannon come again!
> The beggars have changed places, but the lash goes on.
> Not only do we have to get rid of the rich, we need to ensure no new
> group forms - this was the idea of classical economics - to remove the
> drain of economic rents on production. All the current fuss is
> because we failed to do this - nearly all the complaints about welfare
> drains to the poor and so on are irrelevant. The welfare queens are
> the banks.
> The obvious thing is that we are being told, after massive increases
> in technology and productivity, we are worse off. On preference I'd
> want no part in the idiot system but it's hard to keep wolves from the
> door without taking the establishment mark - unless you luck in to
> something. Tudor history help much when you worked at the S & L rigs?
> (in the same way my quantum chemistry didn't when teaching bankers) -
> I have a feeling we may discover how useless the banksters have really
> been this year.
> On 29 Mar, 21:23, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I also remember how the german currency went to worthless also.. I am
> > thinking about what the man said abou the fiction of currency
> > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 4:54 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Spot on on Lagarde rigs. Her flat was raided in a criminal enquiry.
> > > She may have had a role in a dodgy French arms' deal with Pakistan
> > > where bribes were kicked back to fund the Franco-GOP candidate in a
> > > presidential election. I can remember playing musical chairs as a kid
> > > - I liked the running about and bumping into girls (this was the other
> > > way round) but had no clue the idea was not to be left standing,
> > > wondering why deviant adults kept stealing the chairs. I submit the
> > > long adult version with child replaced by gawping scientist.
> > > It is impossible to apply hard science to these issues. I do sometimes
> > > try to think as a scientist without knowledge of economics – difficult
> > > as I teach the subject in business context. I always find, in this
> > > thought experiment, that I just would not start with concepts from
> > > economics. A key finding in 'anthropological archaeology' is that the
> > > lives of a certain class of people got worse with our turn to
> > > agriculture – something we might call 'broken back syndrome amongst
> > > the sod turners'. A book of examples later, I conclude the problem
> > > with real-world economics – the theories-in-action as opposed to
> > > espoused – is that it has no way of fairly organising work and reward
> > > against such ideals we might cherish like real democracy and proper
> > > guardianship of the planet. This no doubt looks like naive thinking. I
> > > then find myself thinking about how we organise such matters as 'a
> > > trip to Mars' (Newton, Einstein, the 3-body problem, moving space and
> > > down to stuff like the crew having to line (with proper hygiene) the
> > > craft with their excrement to protect against 'space weather'. Lots of
> > > other complex systems flow – the arms' race of co-evolution, combating
> > > Lyme's disease, parasitism as the most common lifestyle – and I find
> > > myself questioning why I an feel some much more competent as a
> > > scientist than economist or increasingly disaffected cog in the
> > > political machine.
> > > Popper once pointed out that Freud and Marx could not be scientific
> > > because if you went against the theories you were immediately in
> > > denial or false-consciousness. As we repeatedly see "economics"
> > > destroy the potential of most ordinary lives (and those of the few
> > > through hedonism in a libidinal economy) we are told it is because we
> > > just won't engage in real free markets – the neoclassic form of the
> > > denial-false-consciousness routine.
> > > I'm less inclined to worry who is next to go under as a country in the
> > > great depression (I guess Luxembourg, Switzerland, UK – though all
> > > bets are off if the USD goes down) – but on how and why we are in
> > > thrall to a mad control fraud that keeps on failing. Invited on a
> > > space ship to Mars built by economists I would simply wish the crew
> > > godspeed and utter a silent atheist prayer, noting that oars are an
> > > unlikely propulsion system. If the crew were Critical Theorists I'd
> > > want to save, I'd be happy in the thought none of them could row.
> > > Deep down we seem scared of the idea of a world of people with enough
> > > "money and security" to be able to tell power they will only work for
> > > "things and a quality of life" they want. I have instant reservations
> > > about this state myself as a manager and through experience of free-
> > > loading and the dire trivia most people "want" – from plastic crap,
> > > neat mobile phones to Saudi princes raiding Syrian refugee camps for
> > > wives. Nonetheless, with much of 'Robot Heaven' with us in principle
> > > and some practice, the lack of modern thought experiments (such as
> > > what place Calvinist work ethic would have in 100% Robot Heaven – how
> > > could we morally keep people poor when machines do all the work etc?)
> > > and repeated fetish concerns with homilies from the 18th century
> > > leaves me cold.
> > > The current model seems no better than handing over bags of electronic
> > > cash to people who trouser it and at most engage in acts of charity
> > > similar to pouring slops over a medieval monastery wall. In the UK we
> > > have a Chancellor so smart he has just created a British Fanny Mae/
> > > Freddy Mac! As one country after another faces becoming Cyprus (by the
> > > end of next week we will be discovering we don't know the half of that
> > > – note three old-fogey judges are already rostered for the cover-up)
> > > we have no politics of lancing the banking boil generally and
> > > production-based (responsible type) schemes for people to work their
> > > way out of the mess without seeing the toil go to paying off bank
> > > debts.
> > > I agree with Allan that all this is really about the rich stealing.
> > > What we lack is a conception of a fairer society that makes sense of
> > > what people would be in it. I share rigs' concerns with the 'ash-grey
> > > uniform of equality' and big government, but we can at least dream up
> > > something in which this would not come about. "They" certainly seem
> > > to be putting the wind up us - making us feel money in the bank may as
> > > well be hidden about the house - yet somewhere we seem to have
> > > forgotten how quickly economies can recover as Germany and Japan did
> > > after WW2.
> > > On 29 Mar, 14:39, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > henry the 8th was all about divorce.. So it is okay to steal what is
> > > > freely given to the church and use it to line you pockets or royal
> > > > treasury.. what you are saying is it is okay to steal as long as you
> > > can
> > > > blame others for your wrong doing.. there is a great litany of excuses
> > > the
> > > > rich use for stealing ... wonder if these excuses work with God as you
> > > > understand him..
> > > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 1:04 PM, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > The wealth and lands of the Church were part of papal wealth. The
> > > > > royal treasury was empty. Yes- the British navy took off under the
> > > > > Tudors. The divorces came later along with his "solutions". (I did
> > > > > take a 2 quarter course in Tudor history but request some slack for
> > > > > facts.) One could also point to the later Enclosure act that ended the
> > > > > common lands and set up the British aristocracy leading to slum-cities
> > > > > and the ills of the Industrial Revolution. It's musical chairs. The
> > > > > greedy still create their own enviornment but change the nouns and
> > > > > verbs - they still need power to attain their ends: politics or wars.
> > > > > On Mar 29, 3:30 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Rigsy Henry the 8th got his navy on the backs of the poor.. not the
> > > > > > Papacy .. all he did was destroy a bunch of monasteries.. but there
> > > > > > was never enough money there to fiance his navy.. get real.. stole
> > > > > > from church because they would not let him have his way with
> > > > > > divorces.. how many did he go through either by divorce or killing
> > > > > > them.. one thing for sure he is no hero.. more of a cowering thief.
> > > > > > the greedy created their own environmental and fears and then created
> > > > > > and taught people to fulfill their fears so they can scream they are
> > > > > > right and point fingers.. all signs of the cult of the golden calf.
> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 2:04 AM, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > It's not a myth- it's a fact. One you don't like along with
> > > zillions
> > > > > > > of others. And the rich do create opportunities for others. There
> > > are
> > > > > > > misers, of course, but the poor can also be miserly. Let's get our
> > > > > > > moral judgements on a realistic plane as human nature has its good
> > > and
> > > > > > > bad points in all economic
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to email@example.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.