tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post1810037195714328518..comments2024-03-18T19:09:18.510-04:00Comments on Mike Norman Economics: Basic Income Basically Begrudged? mike normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comBlogger98125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-53690179442438987742017-02-06T22:47:34.957-05:002017-02-06T22:47:34.957-05:00It is Bob.
"Today, fall in love again with t...It is Bob.<br /><br /><i>"Today, fall in love again with the ones you love".</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-19604579218103931922017-02-06T20:28:49.752-05:002017-02-06T20:28:49.752-05:00A dad will sacrifice for his daughter, and she in ...A dad will sacrifice for his daughter, and she in turn will sacrifice for her children. It is part of the cycle of life.<br /><br />There are parents who do not see their children for years because they are hard at work in factories in distant cities. There are parents who give their children little of themselves because they are busy being billionaires.<br /><br />It is all rather grotesque.Peter Panhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473311771939167712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-41590865104578209882017-02-06T19:17:41.991-05:002017-02-06T19:17:41.991-05:00Imagine a child, standing in a field of wheat, see...Imagine a child, standing in a field of wheat, seeing it swaying in the breezes. Because <i>‘the good, the beautiful, the true’ </i> in her is simple and open, the beauty in the child sees the beauty in the field.<br /><br />Her dad standing beside her sees $signs and worries about the rain arriving at just the right time, and the dry spell arriving at just the right time, to get the best out of the crop and pay back the bank.<br /><br />Then a hail storm arrives and lays waste the entire crop.<br /><br />So, two consciousnesses, viewing the same field through the filter of two different minds.<br /><br />One will see the power Nature may exert and the other the same plus selling the farm.<br /><br />Kabir would say that only those who know the self within, would know they had something within them that could never be destroyed, that is the source of all value. People thought Kabir was a ‘poet’! :-)<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-35867027057735111642017-02-06T13:24:57.230-05:002017-02-06T13:24:57.230-05:00In reality, I'm a bumblebee.
From Zhuangzi (C...<i>In reality, I'm a bumblebee.</i><br /><br />From <a href="https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Zhuangzi" rel="nofollow">Zhuangzi</a> (Chuang Tzu)<br /><br />"Once upon a time, I, Chuang Chou, dreamt I was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, a veritable butterfly, enjoying itself to the full of its bent, and not knowing it was Chuang Chou. Suddenly I awoke, and came to myself, the veritable Chuang Chou. Now I do not know whether it was then I dreamt I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly dreaming I am a man. Between me and the butterfly there must be a difference. This is an instance of transformation." — translated by James LeggeTom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-35906350694530850102017-02-06T13:19:33.615-05:002017-02-06T13:19:33.615-05:00Neil is saying what Marx said long ago. It's t...Neil is saying what Marx said long ago. It's the culture and institutional arrangements.<br /><br />There are two ways to do this. Change those peacefully through the political process, or, as Lenin recommended, violently by eliminating the aristocracy and bourgeoisie classes. <br /><br />Just taking the money away will not permanently resolve the issue of asymmetric social status and distribution of political power that leads to asymmetric material and financial distribution.<br /><br />In other words, address the system that produces the outcomes as a system rather than piecemeal.<br />This is the solution proposed separately by Abba Lerner and Adolph Lowe (Adolf Löwe).<br /><br />See Mat Forstater, <a href="http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp/254.pdf" rel="nofollow">Toward a New Instrumental Macroeconomics: Abba Lerner and Adolph Lowe on Economic Method, Theory, History and Policy</a>.<br /><br />But being a policy issue it is really a matter of politics.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-62033123196931090952017-02-06T13:06:02.599-05:002017-02-06T13:06:02.599-05:00“Different philosophies are different ways of view...<i>“Different philosophies are different ways of viewing the world.” [Tom]<br /><br />Sounds like the use of divers divining sticks – through them you ‘feel’ the water. Timeless.</i><br /><br />Nisargadatta Maharaj was asked what the difference is between what the enlightened person sees and the unenlightened person. He answered that the enlightened see what really is (consciousness), while the unenlightened see through a lens (mind) colored by desire and aversion.<br /><br />The same pie (consciousness) can be cut in different ways, but once the pie is cut those divisions and their relationships that were imposed hold.<br /><br />There are different ways of seeing the gross world. Most Western philosophy, but not all, has been about seeing the gross world through some frame that the philosopher articulates.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-56645202449279170962017-02-06T12:55:31.677-05:002017-02-06T12:55:31.677-05:00The question is not what is post modernism, the qu...<i>The question is not what is post modernism, the question is that many (most?) post Keynesians are not into post modernism and I haven't seen you disputing their position. Generally, those post Keynesians point to others' ideologies as if ideology only affected other people.<br /><br />Are post Keynesians immune to ideology, as those post Keynesians believe? That question admits two answers: yes or no.<br /><br />If I missed something, well, where are the links?</i><br /><br />I probably should have said "after-modernism" rather than post modernism. I used small letters rathe than caps to indicate that I was using the terms somewhat differently that Classical, Modern and Post Modern. My division is ancient, dark age (in the West), medieval, modern and after modern, and I see these periods somewhat differently from Classical, Modern, and Post Modern, which are generally related to thought, whereas mine are more related to history as a whole.<br /><br />When I said that the modern period end with Hegel, I meant that the period shifted away from "metaphysical" and "essentialist" accounts toward the scientific on one hand and existentialist and structuralist approaches on the other. This is really a different type of thinking, similar to the abandonment of mythological account in preference of intellectual accounts at the time of the Axial Age. It's a big transition that the world is still catching up with.<br /><br />But a seed for this was in the historical and dialectial approach of Hegel, who showed how different frames interact and replace each other over time based on his qualitative analysis.<br /><br />Regarding economics, including Post Keynesianism, economics is now done primarily within the same framework, if one does not chose to be marginalized. That frame is presumed rather than assumed, that is, it is a hidden assumption. Philosophers would say that for the most part those doing economics are naïve in that they don't reflect on foundations. I have often said this here and elsewhere.<br /><br />Economists generally presume naïve realism and act as if the mind is a mirror of reality. This is not consilient with the rest of science. So-called behavioral economists are often not economists but psychologists, for instance. They point out the flaws in behavioral assumptions. Physicists show how economists don't actually understand how science works and therefore are unable to construct models that are actually scientific in the view of working scientists in other fields.<br /><br />Marx was a philosopher and proto-sociologist so he took a different tack and showed how different frames apply historically, he claimed based on economic infrastructure. He also understood that these different frames were operative politically and that workers had to be educated in how a frame was being imposed on them to take advantage of them.<br /><br />This is all marginalized in the way that economics is taught and practiced in the US and UK, and I presume in Oz, Canada and NZ as the Anglo-world.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-64742472846780903462017-02-06T12:28:44.439-05:002017-02-06T12:28:44.439-05:00instrumentalist (or maybe consequentialist would b...<i>instrumentalist (or maybe consequentialist would be better)</i><br /><br />That are similar but different. Consequentialism generally is used to pertain specifically to ethics, e.g., in contrast to deontology. Instrumentalism generally pertains to logic in the broad sense, e.g, contra essentialism. Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-54453765706183908492017-02-06T12:26:31.159-05:002017-02-06T12:26:31.159-05:00Neil
Can't fund think tanks with relationship...Neil<br /> Can't fund think tanks with relationships. you can't bribe government officials with relationships. you can't pay off government officials when they get out of the public sector with relationship. you pay people with money you buy things with money.<br /><br /> This whole money is not important thing is taking the money as a neutral Vale to absolutely ridiculous extremeAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-990444858195432082017-02-06T12:25:13.877-05:002017-02-06T12:25:13.877-05:00a little later she mentions another of her bugbear...<i>a little later she mentions another of her bugbears: metaphysics</i><br /><br />Trust me, everyone has a metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and aesthetics that is integral to the foundation to their worldview. And everyone has a worldview. It is not possible to think, function, or communicate without a frame of reference with some boundaries and criteria as anchor points. This is an a priori requirement, being a matter of logic.<br /><br />For most people, this is implicit and not reflected upon, part of one's hidden assumptions that are hidden from oneself even.<br /><br />"Philosophers" articulate the various positions (frameworks) and their implications.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-68205678085952089472017-02-06T12:19:19.996-05:002017-02-06T12:19:19.996-05:00The word 'equal' applies to quantities.
F...<i>The word 'equal' applies to quantities.</i><br /><br />False if it means that "equal" applies only to quantities, which is implied by the context. <br /><br />"Equal" has many uses in different contexts, some of which are factual as it positive law, where "all legal persons are equal" has defined meaning.<br /><br />Joan Robinson knows this of course. She is apparently implying that equal used non-quantitively is a normative and prescriptive use. I would generally agree, although it is also possible to use equal qualitatively as well as quantitatively, but that is arguable based on analogous relationship to quantity.<br /><br />However, norms that are ideological in the sense of criteria, boundary conditions and operational principles in a framework not generate facts but become factual in sense, e.g., in law.<br /><br />1. Absence of privilege, for example, by birth ("blood"). This is a key principle of liberalism. US citizens are not allowed to accept foreign titles of nobility. That is not only a rule determining the framework. It is a legal prescription. In the US, the interpretation of laws is based on precedent and those become facts of law that are true in practice and outcomes.<br /><br />2. Equal treatment before the law. All legal persons must treated in the same way or the legal process is vitiated. A person in the US Navy who was prosecuted for having classified information is defending himself on the grounds that he is not being treated under the same standard as HRC.<br /><br />3. Equal rights. Rights guaranteed by law, e.g., in the US Constitution, must be applied in the same way under due process. In Citizens United the Roberts court decided that equal rights applies to all legal persons, natural and fictitious. <br /><br />4. Political equality. One person, one vote. No person's vote counts differently than others. In the US this applies only to natural persons — so far.<br /><br />These are norms established by law as part of the frame of reference of political liberalism as set forth in the law of the land of the US, US subordinate law, and subsequent precedent. As such they become facts that can be ermined by checking. It is a fact in the US that all persons are equal before the law under the US Constitution, which is elaborated in judicial precedent concerning equal treatment. The court is going to have to decide whether in fact the law was applied differently to HRC than in the case before the court.<br /><br />Traditional conservatism is characterized by authoritarianism, monarchy and aristocracy, state religion and nationalism as "blood and soil."<br /><br />Traditional conservatism is based on a different frame of reference in which different rules apply that result in different facts, including privilege, double standards, and the absence of rights and liberties. <br /><br />The American Revolution was fought over traditional conservatism as an English colony versus classical liberalism as new nation under a constitutional republic similar to the Roman republic. <br /><br />Today, most American conservatives, paleo-conservatives, neocons, etc. — are classical liberals politically and economically, but conservative socially. <br /><br />Paul Ryan - "I really call myself a classical liberal more than a conservative." Madison Masonic Center October 14, 2016<br /><a href="https://youtu.be/dWwDvNA6qKU" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/dWwDvNA6qKU</a><br /><br />Search on that and you will find a fire storm from the alt right. The hard core alt right is traditionally conservative and anti-liberal.<br /><br />Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-23018188450262263792017-02-06T11:40:06.155-05:002017-02-06T11:40:06.155-05:00It's just got the causality all wrong. Neil W...<i> It's just got the causality all wrong. </i> Neil Wilson<br /><br />Then you should not be against eliminating welfare for the rich, Neil, yet you are anyway*.<br /><br />Let's see, Neil, how elite many of your so-called elites are without government welfare, eh?<br /><br />*e.g. your opposition to eliminating government insurance of privately create liabilities ("loans create deposits") since the rich are the most so-called worthy of what is then, in essence, the PUBLIC'S CREDIT but for private gain.<br /><br />Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-60795082497887812852017-02-06T11:26:43.150-05:002017-02-06T11:26:43.150-05:00"The money is the thing because thats what al..."The money is the thing because thats what allows them to mobilize resources. "<br /><br />It really isn't. The have a little black book and know people. They can get things arranged because of who they are. <br /><br />The really rich and really famous end up having things given to them, often very expensive things, because of who they are. It's a form of patronage. <br /><br />You can never take enough off them to impact their capacity to operate. The doors are already open to them. They have a stack of favours from lots of other very powerful people already in the bank. <br /><br />It's why the Robin Hood game is doomed to fail. It's just got the causality all wrong. It's got the psychology all wrong. It's got how the game is played all wrong. <br /><br /><br /><br />NeilWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11565959939525324309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-88958366322342220002017-02-06T09:05:56.665-05:002017-02-06T09:05:56.665-05:00In reality, I'm a bumblebee. Thank-you post-mo...In reality, I'm a bumblebee. Thank-you post-modernism!Peter Panhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473311771939167712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-27348404109329554482017-02-06T07:53:36.953-05:002017-02-06T07:53:36.953-05:00Sorry Neil, but I disagree. The money is the thing...Sorry Neil, but I disagree. The money is the thing because thats what allows them to mobilize resources. I think you are kidding yourself about relationships. Everything costs money.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15433129947896088098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-45133428281635230752017-02-06T04:58:14.229-05:002017-02-06T04:58:14.229-05:00“Different philosophies are different ways of view...<i>“Different philosophies are different ways of viewing the world.”</i> [Tom]<br /><br />Sounds like the use of divers divining sticks – through them you ‘feel’ the water. Timeless.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-52819255670908711202017-02-06T04:50:13.404-05:002017-02-06T04:50:13.404-05:00"The real problem is that money allows its ow..."The real problem is that money allows its owner to mobilize real resources."<br /><br />That's the myth, which a load of political scientists then think they can fix by removing the money. <br /><br />That's the equivalent of thinking you can restore the egg from a cake simply by putting it in a fridge rather than an oven. <br /><br />The wealth of the rich has bought them *connections*. People who know them. People they can influence. <br /><br />You cannot remove that power by removing the money. In fact all you do is poke the hornet's nest. <br /><br />I was watching Wray on <a href="https://youtu.be/-7StbLkjBQk" rel="nofollow">Real Progressives </a> where the host expressed his frustration at the left who keep going on about taxing the rich when we don't need to do that. <br /><br />Randy said that he believes that the people pushing the taxation argument simply don't want the programmes to go into place. Essentially they just want to be associated with the buzz around the idea, not actually fix the root cause of the problem.<br /><br />You get that a lot with charities, where they apply poultices to problems rather than sorting them out. Because if they sorted them out the charity, and therefore their claim to the moral high ground, would cease. <br /><br />And Randy said that the way to deal with the rich is to stop them getting the income in the first place. Which fits with the psychological science behind loss aversion. You don't give people something and then take it off them. You make sure they don't get it in the first place. <br /><br />How do you do that? With a Job Guarantee holding up wages and intense competition forcing investment of surplus. That shifts the capital/labour ratio and gets us the virtuous circle of high investment and high wages. And competition is good, right. Those free marketeers cannot complain about more competition and more markets without sounding like they are gouging. <br /><br />So that's the pitch we need. <br /><br />The rich will use their power to stop you ever getting a 'tax the rich' programme in place. So those that push that angle are value signalling amongst themselves, not serious political players. The way you get your programmes in place is to find those who are nearly rich and let them know they'll be really rich if they back your ideas. <br /><br />Nick Haneur is halfway there already - for example. NeilWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11565959939525324309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-83642602980881648182017-02-06T03:50:43.484-05:002017-02-06T03:50:43.484-05:00Tom Hickey (February 6, 2017 at 1:25 AM) said...
...Tom Hickey (February 6, 2017 at 1:25 AM) said...<br /><br /><i>I had assumed it evident that my position has consistently been that "reality" is a construct, that different cohorts construct "reality" differently based on different worldviews defined by different norms. It's not possible for humans to operate outside a framework and therefore beyond ideology. It is an a priori necessity. <br />...<br /><br />It's nonsensical to ask which framework is true. They are different ways of seeing. One can see through any or all of them if one takes the time to acquire the lenses. All have something significant to contribute.</i><br /><br />Yes, yes. You assume correctly. Trust me, although I'm just a semi-literate grunt, I know the general gist of the post modern thing and if you are into that (as I know you are), well, good on you.<br /><br />And I do understand as well the instrumentalist (or maybe consequentialist would be better) stuff:<br /><br /><i>For an instrumentalist, the bottom line is "what works." However, that depends on what one wishes to do and that is dependent on one's orientation and what one wishes to accomplish, which is both personal and social.</i><br /><br />At any event, thanks for the class. But that has nothing do with what I wrote. <br /><br />The question is <i><b>not</b></i> what is post modernism, the question is that many (most?) post Keynesians are not into post modernism and <i><b>I haven't seen you disputing their position</b></i>. Generally, those post Keynesians point to others' ideologies as if ideology only affected other people.<br /><br />Are post Keynesians immune to ideology, as those post Keynesians believe? That question admits two answers: yes or no.<br /><br />If I missed something, well, where are the links?Magpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-5770022186123410802017-02-06T03:13:34.560-05:002017-02-06T03:13:34.560-05:00Interestingly, this bit never came out. Here it go...Interestingly, this bit never came out. Here it goes, again<br /><br />Not that that writer was the first to make similar claims. This is Joan Robinson ("Economic Philosophy", p. 8):<br /><br /><i>What then are the criteria of an ideological proposition, as opposed to a scientific one? First, that if an ideological proposition is treated in a logical manner, it either dissolives into a completely meaningless noise or turns out to be a circular argument. Take the proposition: All men are equal. In a logical view what does it mean? The word 'equal' applies to quantities. What -are all men the same weight? Or do they all get the same marks in intelligence tests? Or - to stretch the meaning of quantity a little - do I find them all equally agreeable? 'Equal' without saying in what respect is just a noise. In this case, the equality is just in respect of equality. Every man is equally equal.</i><br /><br />You see, not only I can read, I can also research things interesting to me. I chose that quote not only because it reflects her views on ideology (a little later she mentions another of her bugbears: metaphysics). I chose it because it echoes with another quote we've discussed here quite recently, as a matter of fact:<br /><br /><i>7. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.</i><br /><br />Yes, point 7 of the "Alt-Right 16 points". <br /><br />You see, "Economic Philosophy" started out as a lecture (the Josiah Mason lecture, to be precise) Robinson delivered in 1959 for the Rationalist Press Association.<br /><br />So what, you may ask.<br /><br />Well, this is what:<br /><br /><i>As awkward as it may be to acknowledge, there is a connection between rationalism and neo-scientific ideas about how to limit population and minimise procreation by those who are in some way or other deemed undesirable. This is something the Pope might have had in mind when, in his much publicised and denounced speech, he suggested a link between “a Nazi tyranny” that believed that some people were “unfit to live” and “atheist extremism” that leads to a “truncated vision of man”. This glib equation between Nazis and atheists was denounced as a “libel” by the British Humanist Association. But the Pope, whatever he is, is no fool. His language could be read as a subtle but unmistakeable reference to an inconvenient historical fact – British rationalism and German National Socialism shared an enthusiasm for the “applied science” of population control called eugenics.<br /><br />This enthusiasm is very close to home. The Rationalist Press Association (or RPA, founded 1899), the predecessor of the Rationalist Association, which publishes this magazine, does have a long history of publishing material sympathetic to various forms of eugenics.</i><br /><br />Rationalism's dirty secret<br />By John Appleby<br />Thursday, 23rd December 2010<br />https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/2471/rationalisms-dirty-secret<br /><br />I am sure that as a non-Marxist you find little to worry about with those links keeping popping up between your non-ideological ideology and other ideologies. To me, this gives me the creeps.<br /><br />[*] Guess who wrote that?Magpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-7995982438873304712017-02-06T01:26:11.338-05:002017-02-06T01:26:11.338-05:00continuation
I generally find it more comfortable...continuation<br /><br />I generally find it more comfortable and useful to use an idealistic framework than a materialistic one, and a dialectical method rather than a categorical one, but that's just me. They suit the way I am put together better.<br /><br />For an instrumentalist, the bottom line is "what works." However, that depends on what one wishes to do and that is dependent on one's orientation and what one wishes to accomplish, which is both personal and social. <br /><br />Adapt the tool to the job and not the job to the tool. Adapting the job to the tool is to make a particular a framework dogmatic, which imposes a needless limitation.<br /><br />But I am not a totally an instrumentalist either. I prefer certain things over others, like idealism over materialism. The reason is essentially two-fold. The first is aesthetic — feeling or sensibility. The second is intuition. One strike me as more evident. I could list the major criteria — correspondence, coherence, practicality and elegance. But reason is not really the decisive factor. It's a control. <br /><br />But if I were working predominantly in physical science a materialist POV might be more useful.<br /><br />My career in philosophy began one day in high school although I did not realize it at the time. The lit teacher happened to quote a principle of Scholasticism for reasons that I don't recall. But I never forgot the quote because somehow it rang true. <br /><br />The quote was, "Being is one, true, good and beautiful." I didn't know what it meant based on reason but something inside shouted "Yes!" The die was cast. <br /><br />Much later, I experienced directly that this is a possible experience and the one most worth having. But logic and reason cannot reach there.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-66983379970458480862017-02-06T01:25:55.937-05:002017-02-06T01:25:55.937-05:00Speaking of which. Have you started reading econom...<i>Speaking of which. Have you started reading economics? Marx?</i><br /><br />Sadly, no time to do much of that to speak of. I am not even widely read in the MMT lit for this reason.<br /><br /><i>What works is usually non-ideological, I find. If you have ever disputed that, I missed it. But this can be easily solved: links.</i><br /><br />I had assumed it evident that my position has consistently been that "reality" is a construct, that different cohorts construct "reality" differently based on different worldviews defined by different norms. It's not possible for humans to operate outside a framework and therefore beyond ideology. It is an a priori necessity. <br /><br />Most people just conflate the way they construct the world with "reality" and think they being objective about it.<br /><br />There are also different styles of thinking so there are methodological differences, too. <br /><br />I therefore see no contradiction in "alternative facts" in that "fact" reflect how one construes experience. <br /><br />I studied the history of philosophy. Different philosophies are different ways of viewing the world. In grad school one soon learns that one has to put oneself inside a particular philosopher's head, so to speak, in order to understand what the person is driving at. After a while, it is easy to shift among viewpoints and construct the world differently based on the framework that is operative. For instance, right now I am acquiring the alt right framework so I can understand where they are coming from without projecting.<br /><br />Many people just read what they agree with, which means "agrees with their construction." Others enjoy getting into alternate constructions to learn how other cohorts construct a world.<br /><br />Literature in general can be viewed in this way. The Durrell's Alexandria Quartet and Fowles' The Magus are quite instructive in this regard, as is Kurosawa's film, Rashomon. The Matrix meets this head on.<br /><br />Types of constructs can be arranged in different categories, e.g., wrt to metaphysics in terms of realism, idealism, materialism, etc. For example. Marx and Hegel employed a similar method (dialectic), but Hegel was an idealist and Marx a materialist. I happen to prefer idealism over materialism as a framework, but I appreciate the power of Marx's analysis, too. <br /><br />I certainly don't see it as Hegel or Marx as though they are contradictory opposites. On the basis of their own methodological preference, they represent successive moments in the historical dialectic. Nietzsche and Schopenhauer were also dialectical responses to Hegel at the time, although their constructions based on willing were somewhat opposing. These were not the only responses to Hegel, There was Husserl, too, — "back to things themselves" — as well as others. Hegel had a strong influence on the development of John Dewey in the US. They all developed fascinating frameworks whose reverberations across time are still visible. One could say that Hegel marked the end of modern period and what came after was post modern. This period is still dominant, but a new response in the historical dialectic is rising.<br /><br />It's nonsensical to ask which framework is true. They are different ways of seeing. One can see through any or all of them if one takes the time to acquire the lenses. All have something significant to contribute.<br /><br />continuedTom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-53999075410986864302017-02-06T00:04:42.443-05:002017-02-06T00:04:42.443-05:00Not that that writer was the first to make similar...Not that that writer was the first to make similar claims. This is Joan Robinson ("Economic Philosophy", p. 8):<br /><br /><i>What then are the criteria of an ideological proposition, as opposed to a scientific one? First, that if an ideological proposition is treated in a logical manner, it either dissolives into a completely meaningless noise or turns out to be a circular argument. Take the proposition: All men are equal. In a logical view what does it mean? The word 'equal' applies to quantities. What -are all men the same weight? Or do they all get the same marks in intelligence tests? Or - to stretch the meaning of quantity a little - do I find them all equally agreeable? 'Equal' without saying in what respect is just a noise. In this case, the equality is just in respect of equality. Every man is equally equal.</i><br /><br />You see, not only I can read, I can also research things interesting to me. I chose that quote not only because it reflects her views on ideology (a little later she mentions another of her bugbears: metaphysics). I chose it because it echoes with another quote we've discussed here quite recently, as a matter of fact:<br /><br /><i>7. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.</i><br /><br />Yes, point 7 of the "Alt-Right 16 points". <br /><br />You see, "Economic Philosophy" started out as a lecture (the Josiah Mason lecture, to be precise) Robinson delivered in 1959 for the Rationalist Press Association.<br /><br />So what, you may ask.<br /><br />Well, this is what:<br /><br /><i>As awkward as it may be to acknowledge, there is a connection between rationalism and neo-scientific ideas about how to limit population and minimise procreation by those who are in some way or other deemed undesirable. This is something the Pope might have had in mind when, in his much publicised and denounced speech, he suggested a link between “a Nazi tyranny” that believed that some people were “unfit to live” and “atheist extremism” that leads to a “truncated vision of man”. This glib equation between Nazis and atheists was denounced as a “libel” by the British Humanist Association. But the Pope, whatever he is, is no fool. His language could be read as a subtle but unmistakeable reference to an inconvenient historical fact – British rationalism and German National Socialism shared an enthusiasm for the “applied science” of population control called eugenics.<br /><br />This enthusiasm is very close to home. The Rationalist Press Association (or RPA, founded 1899), the predecessor of the Rationalist Association, which publishes this magazine, does have a long history of publishing material sympathetic to various forms of eugenics.</i><br /><br />Rationalism's dirty secret<br />By John Appleby<br />Thursday, 23rd December 2010<br />https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/2471/rationalisms-dirty-secret<br /><br />I am sure that as a non-Marxist you find little to worry about with those links keeping popping up between your non-ideological ideology and other ideologies. To me, this gives me the creeps.<br /><br />[*] Guess who wrote that?<br /><br />Magpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-80754998345175813002017-02-05T23:54:44.057-05:002017-02-05T23:54:44.057-05:00Actually, and for the record, this
one day our ge...Actually, and for the record, this<br /><br /><i>one day our generous masters can tire of giving alms. That's why the age of enlightened capitalism, les Treinte Glorieusses, came to an end.</i><br /><br />Is a good argument why a basic income guarantee funded by taxes cannot work. I am not in favor of basic income guarantee.Magpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-54587573400266540352017-02-05T23:21:48.240-05:002017-02-05T23:21:48.240-05:00Not that that author was the first to write dismis...Not that that author was the first to write dismissively about ideology. This is Joan Robinson ("Economic Philosophy", p. 8):<br /><br /><i>What then are the criteria of an ideological proposition, as opposed to a scientific one? First, that if an ideological proposition is treated in a logical manner, it either dissolives into a completely meaningless noise or turns out to be a circular argument. Take the proposition: All men are equal. In a logical view what does it mean? The word 'equal' applies to quantities. What -are all men the same weight? Or do they all get the same marks in intelligence tests? Or - to stretch the meaning of quantity a little - do I find them all equally agreeable? 'Equal' without saying in what respect is just a noise. In this case, the equality is just in respect of equality. Every man is equally equal.</i><br /><br />You see, not only I can read, I can also research things interesting to me. I chose that quote not only because it reflects her views on ideology (a little later she mentions another of her bugbears: metaphysics). I chose it because it echoes with another quote we've discussed here quite recently, as a matter of fact:<br /><br /><i>7. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.</i><br /><br />Yes, point 7 of the "Alt-Right 16 points". <br /><br />You see, "Economic Philosophy" started out as a lecture (the Josiah Mason lecture, to be precise) Robinson delivered in 1959 for the Rationalist Press Association.<br /><br />So what, you may ask.<br /><br />Well, this is what:<br /><br /><i>As awkward as it may be to acknowledge, there is a connection between rationalism and neo-scientific ideas about how to limit population and minimise procreation by those who are in some way or other deemed undesirable. This is something the Pope might have had in mind when, in his much publicised and denounced speech, he suggested a link between “a Nazi tyranny” that believed that some people were “unfit to live” and “atheist extremism” that leads to a “truncated vision of man”. This glib equation between Nazis and atheists was denounced as a “libel” by the British Humanist Association. But the Pope, whatever he is, is no fool. His language could be read as a subtle but unmistakeable reference to an inconvenient historical fact – British rationalism and German National Socialism shared an enthusiasm for the “applied science” of population control called eugenics.<br /><br />This enthusiasm is very close to home. The Rationalist Press Association (or RPA, founded 1899), the predecessor of the Rationalist Association, which publishes this magazine, does have a long history of publishing material sympathetic to various forms of eugenics.</i><br /><br />Rationalism's dirty secret<br />By John Appleby<br />Thursday, 23rd December 2010<br />https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/2471/rationalisms-dirty-secret<br /><br />I am sure that as a non-Marxist you find little to worry about with those links keeping popping up between your non-ideological ideology and other ideologies. To me, this gives me the creeps.<br /><br />[*] Guess who wrote that?<br /><br />Magpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-11958958155851770722017-02-05T23:20:05.457-05:002017-02-05T23:20:05.457-05:00Tom Hickey said...
@ Magpie
Been reading much Ni...Tom Hickey said...<br /><br /><i>@ Magpie<br /><br />Been reading much Nietzsche lately?</i><br /><br />Is a worker who can read <i><b>that</b></i> surprising?<br /><br />To answer your question: as it happens, yes, I've read some Nietzsche. At least those bits of interest to me.<br /><br />But I didn't need him to write that: that's Marx's critique of utopian socialism. You know, don't you, that Marx (just like Nietzsche) was Prussian and that Prussians tended to have dismissive views on morality. They were right on that: one day our generous masters can tire of giving alms. That's why the age of enlightened capitalism, les Treinte Glorieusses, came to an end.<br /><br />Speaking of which. Have you started reading economics? Marx?<br /><br /><i>Of course, moralizing is ideology. Almost all politics is ideological.<br /><br />Political economy "should be" (normative) objective, but all discourse is embedded in a worldview, that is, an ideology, there being no overarching worldview based on absolute criteria.</i><br /><br />I'm lost for words, stunned. I've never seen you arguing that against the pragmatic, hard-nosed, unsentimental, technocratic, openly non-ideological, post-modern among post-Keynesians. Take this short paragraph from a young pokey star:<br /><br /><i>Doyler<br /><br />I like things that work. I’m a macro economist first and foremost. And I don’t like things that hide dysfunctionality under metaphysical cloaks. My politics? I'm a bleeding heart, naturally. But I consider them pretty secondary. <b>What works is usually non-ideological, I find.</b></i>[*]<br /><br />I'll repeat that: <b>What works is usually non-ideological, I find.</b> If you have ever disputed that, I missed it. But this can be easily solved: links.<br /><br />(to be continued)Magpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.com