read about Bellow after his death- that he "set up" people in real
life to watch their betrayals. I've only read 3 or 4 of his books but
feel he is biased against women- probably that Catholic sweetheart
from his youth soured his heart! :-)
On Jul 5, 1:47 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. )- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment