A Path of Pre Modernism
Corban Lester
unless pushed into radicalism by an external force.
I believe subversion is the dominant paradigm, to which we all could
rightly kneel in gratitude to the Post Modern intelligentsia.
This being said, the dominant paradigm of today is unsustainable. There
are those who would prefer nurturing (coddling) to 'supreme justice
(freedom)'... comfortable survival (dare I say... happiness?) at the
cost of conspicuous individuality. Most are led by some (selfish
bastards) into a false sense of their own egos, and exploited (they are
common idiots, you see) thus.
There is an epiphany that we are suffering the general betrayal of a
worldwide policy of self-servitude. That the individual (they
themselves) mercilessly bullies the community. To the point where
community has all but ceased from realization.
Then there are new monarchists. There are those that see a
constitutional serfdom as the answer communism couldn't see. Class war
is every bit everybody's business, and those who ignore its ascent into
the day-to-day conscious of the moderate masses, may be too late in
staking their position.
This is a call to debate. I ask that, should you choose to argue against
this assertion, that you make your point(s) tersely.
Thanks.
Corban of Leicester
Hubert CAMPO
Why do you always so easily assume that the world in which we live today is
a horrible place, the worst that has ever existed?
Any Martian with a life span of a 1000 years would think of us as spoilt,
weird, narcissistic. He would be surprised at our phantomlike 'problems',
our short lived, narrow minded, blind existences. He would know that people
from the 16th century, travelling along with him in his space ship to the
20th century would think they had arrived in heaven, and not that they had
come back to their own planet earth, 400 years later!
The suffering, the cruelty, the madness of their days is something we no
longer have to experience.
Take for example one single existential element: most of us live our lives
with a life expectancy of 75 years. Just think of it you can only hope for
30!!
No Martian would understand why you feel a need for 'subversion'!
Is it perhaps because you want to revolt against our rational society, which
creates the conditions for the sciences? Mathematics, physics, biology,...
are the only things worth to know, they represent the only, truly powerfull
knowledge capable of changing the world, creating new conditions and life
expectancies for all men and women.
The neo-rationalist
Corban Lester heeft geschreven in bericht
<3623787F...@ethergate.com>...
Corban Lester
serious challengers? Please respond to the original post. But do read it
thoroughly first. Regards, all, fellow thinkers and actors alike. =)
Hubert CAMPO so short in attention span asserted:
> Why do you always so easily assume that the world in which we live today is
> a horrible place, the worst that has ever existed?
Did my post say that? Do you know me from somewhere? (LOL)
> Any Martian with a life span of a 1000 years would think of us as spoilt,
> weird, narcissistic.
Certainly would. I would think, at least. Especially the "weird" part. =)
> <snip: blah, blah, martian in a spaceship, blah blah, travelling companion
> from circa 1600 earth, blah)
> The suffering, the cruelty, the madness of their days is something we no
> longer have to experience.
That is elitist bullshit. Read the damned newspaper. The scale and cruelty of
the modern world (largely at the cost of the poor) is simply intolerable. We
should be ashamed of ourselves, feeding and benefiting from a system that rises
to 'civility' on the backs of the 'riffraff' -- now referred to as 'foreigners'.
And I'm not just talking about Kathy Lee, either. Anyone with any decency would
wear Dr. Martens. There's a reason they cost more.
> No Martian would understand why you feel a need for 'subversion'!
> Is it perhaps because you want to revolt against our rational society, which
> creates the conditions for the sciences?
Is it perhaps that you did not thoroughly (or with insight) review my post? I
started by saying that 'subversion as the dominant paradigm is not sustainable.'
Thus criticizing it. Make sure you at least attempt cognition before jumping up
and shouting a challenge.
> Mathematics, physics, biology,... are the only things worth to know, they
> represent the only, truly powerfull
> knowledge capable of changing the world, creating new conditions and life
> expectancies for all men and women.
New conditions? Temporarily, at best. I once worked with the maintenance crew at
a children's hospital. You wouldn't believe the tons (literally) of outdated
medical machinery laying all over the place. They keep having to move it around
because it will never be used again and its too costly to dispose of
legitimately. We're not talking beds and tables and microscopes either. Utterly
worthless machinery that will continue to pile up in whatever corner we can find
for them to make way for new 'solutions' to make our world better. The system
will continue to function in this way until technology simply has no more
physical room to make for itself. There is a dark side to everything that is so
miraculously wonderful about the modern age. And granted, it is, in many ways
the best period to be alive in man's known history. But I challenge anyone that
says that the cost of the social repercussions of the Modern and Post Modern
social orders have exceeded the benefits. THIS WAS THE INTENT OF MY ORIGINAL
POST. I aim to open a dialog about a certain level of social reversion (if you
will)... to offer a new way to be 'progressive'. I again call to all
challengers.
Corban Leicester, esq.
Hubert CAMPO
concerned. My apologies.
But why do you assume that there is a 'system' that makes the others poor?
People don't build systems just to cause harm to their neighbours. The only
system they are interested in is one that makes them affluent.
Why should I read the newspapers? What is 'The News'? The news is a product,
made under capitalist conditions of labour, following the capitalist rules
of the market. The news is MADE, not FOUND. One should be naive to think
that the news is a true reflection of what is going on in the world. News
has become hype, promotion, manipulation, BIG money.
Why should one be ashamed of this world? Be proud of it! Your opinion of
this world is shaped by the perverted mechanisms of the information
channels. What they call news is just a profitable selection of the worst
there is to be found all over the globe. People seem to have a perverted
preference for everything weird, morbid or cruel. So that's what they get.
Intellectuals want their own portion of it in the form of pessimisistic
irrational concepts riddled with fallacies and exaggerations.
It is a fallacy and a cliché to say that our wealth and 'civility' is
created on the backs of the 'riffraff'. Or that it is created 'at the cost
of the poor'. Imagine a world in which all the poor were removed: there
would still be wealth and culture. The poor are a burden and a problem, not
a source from which the rich can steal. I am not rich, but even if I was, I
don't see why my relationship with the poor should be characterised by a
feeling of guilt. Poverty is a challenge to our civilisation, nothing more,
nothing less.
I don't mind the elites. It's a plain fact that people are not equal.
Equality is not what we want and is not what we are. There is nothing wrong
with it if you belong to the top in your profession. Usually the elites
don't produce 'bullshit'; they produce the best there is. Post- modern
'thinkers' deplore the fact that their place is no longer among the best.
Georg Steiner and many others already drew the attention to the fact that
humanities studies no longer attract the most talented (sorry, this is not
personal). Which is why post modernism is only capable of deconstructing
things.(Think of all them mediocre humanities professors who really don't
know what to say anymore but who are forced to publish a book or an article
every now and then, only to justify their status and high salaries)
As far as your remark about the dark side of our modern world is concerned:
indeed it cannot be denied that new technology creates all kinds of unwanted
side effects. But it seems to catch up on that each time. Si tu veux une
omelette... Science has a very dynamic concept of what is 'true'. Over the
last 30 years students have had to learn at least 3 different theories on
the nature of the atoms. But none of them is discarded completely. They
still are partly useful. They keep spiralling towards the truth. If we want
science and technology to help us, we shouldn't worry about the debris which
is found along its path.
When you 've read all this you must have come to the conclusion that a
hardboiled right wing redneck, in a black shirt, has entered your newsgroup.
Well that's not what I am. I consider myself as a progressive. Which may
suggest that progressivenes can be interpreted in different ways. In my view
true progressivenes has to do with optimism. For that reason it is also a
belief. My belief and my optimism? Scientia vincere tenebras.
the neo-rationalist
Corban Lester heeft geschreven in bericht
<36254A9D...@ethergate.com>...
George Mc Duffee
their neighbours. The only system they are interested in is one
that makes them affluent.
True, but this seems to assume that (1) It is possible to create a
system to make oneself rich without making others poor (i.e. not a
zero sum game) (2) That the person is aware that their actions
are causing others problems / pain. Many (most?) people in
America would be horrified to discover to what extent their high
standard of living has been obtained at the cost of someone elses
minimum needs. (3) Envy and Greed are not typical human traits.
(4) Business is business and what's important is the bottom line.
George
--
If "education" is the answer, what was the question?
Gerry Quinn
>ref: But why do you assume that there is a 'system' that makes the
>their neighbours. The only system they are interested in is one
>that makes them affluent.
>
>system to make oneself rich without making others poor (i.e. not a
>zero sum game)
In general, those who wish to emphasise poverty in society like to
define it as having an income which is a certain proportion of the
median income, rather than in terms of housing conditions, televisions
and cars per person, etc. By this definition, wealth is effectively
made into a zero sum game, because if some people get wealthier,
others tend to get 'poorer', even though they have exactly as much as
they had before.
There are only two ways to mitigate "poverty" as so defined - to
distribute the property of the wealthier half, or (interestingly) to
create a two-peaked distribution, with a majority having a low but
very evenly distributed income, and a minority on a higher income, the
actual amount of which is irrelevant. (Remind you of anywhere you
know?)
- Gerry
[--]
----------------------------------------------------------
ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
----------------------------------------------------------
Hubert CAMPO
seem to think of it as a kind of hoard, a heap of gold, a treasure stolen
from a friendly people.
Wealth and affluence today is something volatile, unphysical. Wealth is our
know-how, our rationality and our capacity to organise ourselves. THe better
a nation is organised, the greater is its wealth.
Rich countries have low degrees of corruption, good education, a relatively
decent law system,...
I know it sounds blunt and harsh but the truth has an ugly face: today
poverty is just one of the many faces of backwardness.
2) Again I disagree that wealth should always be 'at the cost of someone
elses minimum needs'. This is a fallacy! They call it 'false dilemma'. Some
people are poor and live in misery while others are rich - conlusion: the
rich are guilty, they stole their wealth from the poor. Poverty however has
more than one explanation. Religions for example carry a much more larger
responsibility than is generally accepted. Religions that have no ears to
demographic reason. Read Max Weber! The same applies to wealth: it is made
out of practically nothing by creative people, while they were not obliged
to do so.
3) Envy and greed are powerful, primitive, survivalist drives that have to
be contained. Like many other forms of agression they may cause harm to
society. Over the centuries many cultures have found different ways to
neutralise them, not all of them were succesfull. Envy and greed have to be
taken seriously. That's why communism failed.To take envy and greed
seriously means that you have to allow it to exist within strictly defined
boundaries.I don't believe in uncontrolled liberalism.
4) The problem there is: who allows this bottom line to be implemented.
Usually not businessmen. They just take advantage.
the neo-rationalist
George Mc Duffee <73504...@CompuServe.COM> heeft geschreven in bericht ...
>ref: But why do you assume that there is a 'system' that makes the
>others poor? People don't build systems just to cause harm to
>their neighbours. The only system they are interested in is one
>that makes them affluent.
>
>True, but this seems to assume that (1) It is possible to create a
>system to make oneself rich without making others poor (i.e. not a
George Mc Duffee
children when offered the choice between two cookies for them
selves and one cookie for their friend / brother vs. one cookie
for themselves and no cookie for their friend / brother will tend
to choose the single cookie every time. I don't remember how well
this study was replicated or if this was attempted across
cultures, but this was a majority reaction in at least one group
of mostly white upper and middle class male children. While I
would like a different result, if this a common result across
cultures and genders it indicates a far more basic and difficult
problem than would appear on the surface. This is not to say that
such tendencies cannot be greatly reduced or even (largely)
prevented, rather that such a result will require considerable and
continuous effort.