much as I have felt this way and no how to get to different
experience. It's not enough. There's a good book out now on 'Mao's
Famine' demonstrating he and his apparatus killed 45 million before
the 'Cultural Revolution'. Like Orn I have much time for Chomsky and
believe few of our institutions are legitimate. However, in the
barking 'freedom' that Zaire (now Democratic Republic of Congo),
Mubutu stripped away institutions in search of 'authentic Kongo' - a
fiction as even the term 'Congo' was Portuguese. The institution we
probably need to strip away is 'banksterism' to get back to some
better understood capitalism. Something Bill said long back on the
way people our age could get well-paid jobs and not be beholden to
them strikes me as about right. We have also privileged 'truth' ahead
of oneness - and truth becomes regime once one forgets this,
On Jul 5, 7:47 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll come and have a look Nanook. It's pleasing that some of us care
> about what is going on. I feel democracy has passed, like education,
> to Doublespeak. I never got on with Bellow's prose but was once
> almost in the position of one of his protagonists in Bucharest. I
> believe much of the energy needed to put things right has been wasted
> by glib assertions that what we have is so much better than communist
> dictatorship or tin-pot juntas. I find philosophy in the area arid,
> often demonstrating a total inability to think outside of stereotypes
> (Kant is the classic) or admit to obvious facts concerning ignorance
> and corruption that we have to address.
>
> On Jul 4, 9:21 pm, TheRealNanook <nan...@a3society.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Many good points in this discussion so far. Let me jumping back to the
> > initial question: "I have never seen science as anything to do with
> > democracy - democracy is a form of government I despise...".
>
> > I think there is a way to find value in democracy, as related to
> > science. But it's not in its current form, for sure. First, start
> > with #ornamentalmind's first "conception" of democracy. That is, "the
> > public has the means to participate in some meaningful way in the
> > management of their own affairs and the means of information are open
> > and free." This immediately supports #contemplative's view, that
> > "ignorant" people get to have a say as well. And, of course, it also
> > describes how our current system is a failure. Why? Because, modern
> > science is NOT a good example of democratic self-governance. Modern
> > science is steered by politics through the control of research
> > funding.
>
> > This brings up a point that #comtemplative presented, "I may be
> > ignorant, but I will not be owned! (at least not on paper) :-) "
> > This is a very typical "western" display of independence. It is a
> > characteristic of the Tea Party, for example. But it has a VERY
> > serious flaw! It fails to acknowledge the complexity of modern life.
> > In a scantly populated world of farmers, everyone could pretty much do
> > what they wanted. But in an overpopulated, resource limited society,
> > "blind" independence leads directly to anarchy and violence as people
> > struggle for survival. Recognizing this, "to secure ... Rights,
> > Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from
> > the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED." So, in order to apply this concept to
> > science, we need to address each of the related principles. This could
> > be a fun exercise. But, in short, for this discussion, let me just
> > list a few changes that I would make.
>
> > In the initial question, #archytas states, "The only non-arbitrary way
> > to defend judgments concerning research agendas in the absence of
> > absolute standards is through democratic means..." So, why hasn't
> > society searched for some "absolutes"? And if we don't find those,
> > then what about some collective preferences?
>
> > In fact, society has actually done a lot of this. We do so much
> > medical research because people have collectively stated they want
> > that. I'd include things like space, environment and weather research
> > in such a list. What I think is missing is providing an larger
> > reaching structure to guide science, and making the "guidance" process
> > both transparent and inclusive (ignorant people included : - ) ).
>
> > BUT! That's the problem we have with our CURRENT form of democracy as
> > a whole. It's not transparent because it's not being implemented
> > anywhere near close to its ideals. In Greece, the democracy that
> > became the initial model only lasted about 30 years, during the rein
> > of Pericles. Even during that short period, the philosophers realized
> > the theoretical goals had failed. Instead of a "democracy", meaning
> > rule by the people, what had actually occurred was an "aristocracy",
> > meaning rule by a few rich people who were able to sway the votes of
> > the assembly. When new external stresses arose ( i.e. War ), that
> > would not permit the time and inefficiency of democracy, the society
> > reverted to a monarchy. As the environment collapses around us, our
> > civilization will also face such time pressures. Something will
> > change, that's for sure.
>
> > ( Anyone who wants to see a new form of democracy that doesn't have
> > most of the current problems, check out my website ( A3society.org ).
> > And no, it's not a direct internet voting scheme, or a
> > representational scheme like we have, or a mixture of these. A lot of
> > basics need to change. )
0 comments:
Post a Comment