totals.
On Jul 8, 6:47 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I prefer solutions that don't involve a third brain or being alien -
> 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. )- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment