The word Economy, or oeconomy, is derived from oikos, a house, and nomos, law, and meant originally only the wise and legitimate government of the house for the common good of the whole --- the whole family. The meaning of the term was then extended to the government of the greater family, whatever that may be. It seems to make good sense that the word "economy" relates to some defined sub-unit, and not to the open space of international trade. My theory at this time is that there is no theory of what on earth we mean by "economy" in the first place. This is simply not something that people ask.
My final comment:
There will always be a great difference between domestic government, in which a father can see everything for himself, and civil government, where the chief sees hardly anything save through the eyes of others.
**
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Kings and people(s)
**
Of course persons are social, and they socialize even if it is only the kind that is transnational. They torture and imprison their own people while hobnobbing with foreign dignitaries. Here's an essay of mine.
...the historical change in world politics came when the human species shifted from a politics in which there existed a simultaneous separation and fraternization to a technological control possibility. There is at one time a period of politics characterised by the duality of fraternization of kings (e.g. marriages from one royal family of one country to another royal family in another country) occuring at the same moment with the practical and physical separation of king (an ultimate singularity) from people. The people/persons (I find the two terms ambiguous) are of course called the "subjects" of the government, which has control over them. A period of simultaneous fraternization and separation now shifts to a period of a technological control possibility.
We can now begin to understand what "progress" is. Progress involves the elimination of a physical separation that had at one time existed, as a matter of practicality and low technology, between the rulers and the people (peuple, if you like French). But now that we are so close to them, the rulers reason, what can we do? Shall we oppress them, or give them some kind of system in which they can have human dignity, human rights, freedoms, opportunities, possibilities, etc.?
In other words, advances in technology or science make it possible for rulers to have direct control. The observation is one that our history books confirm. These history books explain this. At a certain point security apparatuses are placed over the masses. Historians also say that the modern state comes into being as physical possibilities of communication and connection increase. The result is that we sometimes act as if roads and highways and rail lines are good, per se. Is this necessarily so? Why then do we always say it is good? It seems to me that this is ideological. The actions of intellectual hacks grow out of ideological decisions that get made. These fundamental decisions of what the ideology must be then help the intellectual hacks of this benighted world "voluntarily" say the right thing according to the ideological "turn" that has been accomplished --- for example that roads and connections are good things, necessarily. The writers know to repeat the basic formula. They know what ther are supposed to say. It is all ideology. This is why we are saying that (big) pipes, roads and (internet) highways are good. We articulate what the 'ideological superstructure' wants us to. Why should they necessarily be good? They could do various types of harm as well. The modern world has its city folk, and its country folk as well.
No one could stop the change. The emergent possibilities are that either the rulers could attain absolute control - almost certainly they'd then oppress the subjects - or the persons involved could acquire some control themselves. That is a kind of shorthand version of our situation. The modern option we generally endorse (because we are so "nice" and well-trained) is that they should be able to control their own lives.
Generally speaking our awareness is focused on the case of western Europe, where eventually it was the concept of democracy and not something like fascism or totalitarianism that seems to have emerged the victor. (Western Europe is also where they had some wars, killing many). Capitalism helped rather than hindered in the pro-democracy process (1). At this point, then, democracy is taken by the (nice) historians as that which triumphs. The powers of kings are limited. That part I think is indisputable: and, semblances (at any rate) of democracy took root.
Telling the truth is always dangerous. But I'll do it. I think I might make so bold as to say that today we are seeing a reversion away from this general trend towards democracy --- and it's not because of the people of Gabon or something. In other words it is not at all because of a lack of capacity on the part of people; they are still people after all, and the persons forming the human collective or human race are not the problem: my experience is that there's nothing wrong with the masses. In fact, we have got them pretty well educated as a result of all this progress and technology. (I also could say that I know them personally, I've met them, and I can guarantee that they are OK.) Rather it is because powers such as China and Russia and indeed the U.S. and indeed Britain, are unable to commit--they can't commit. They are unable to make a real decision in favor the well-being of this population whom they govern. They are now proving unable to commit themselves to this tradition they are themselves part of. They fail to understand the choice. They fail to definitively commit themselves to this basic choice we outlined above. There are two possibilities for the more technological sort of nation, but the choice to uphold our own hard-won democratic traditions is not made.
Democracy is in danger as the U. S. turns its back on, for example, the world poor. Why not help them? Why not talk about them? For God sake! It seems very ominous not to even talk about them. They are not sufficiently aided --- I guess. I do not feel we are getting any information. That's ominous. These large numbers of persons are not only not sufficiently aided but, ominously, not even discussed in the media (hence we need to "guess" as to their level of material well-being or else hide from one another what the facts are). Media, government and corporations all fail the cause. The cause is the option of democracy, and the intellectual elite in general are failing to protect the population of their countries --- and therefore of the world, since those two are connected. The ordinary people can carry out their human tasks. However, in order to do so, they need the minimal level of support from elites, a class which, after all, does indeed still exist. Those elites ought to do their job.
(1) here, the author has very specific ideas, found elsewhere
Of course persons are social, and they socialize even if it is only the kind that is transnational. They torture and imprison their own people while hobnobbing with foreign dignitaries. Here's an essay of mine.
...the historical change in world politics came when the human species shifted from a politics in which there existed a simultaneous separation and fraternization to a technological control possibility. There is at one time a period of politics characterised by the duality of fraternization of kings (e.g. marriages from one royal family of one country to another royal family in another country) occuring at the same moment with the practical and physical separation of king (an ultimate singularity) from people. The people/persons (I find the two terms ambiguous) are of course called the "subjects" of the government, which has control over them. A period of simultaneous fraternization and separation now shifts to a period of a technological control possibility.
We can now begin to understand what "progress" is. Progress involves the elimination of a physical separation that had at one time existed, as a matter of practicality and low technology, between the rulers and the people (peuple, if you like French). But now that we are so close to them, the rulers reason, what can we do? Shall we oppress them, or give them some kind of system in which they can have human dignity, human rights, freedoms, opportunities, possibilities, etc.?
In other words, advances in technology or science make it possible for rulers to have direct control. The observation is one that our history books confirm. These history books explain this. At a certain point security apparatuses are placed over the masses. Historians also say that the modern state comes into being as physical possibilities of communication and connection increase. The result is that we sometimes act as if roads and highways and rail lines are good, per se. Is this necessarily so? Why then do we always say it is good? It seems to me that this is ideological. The actions of intellectual hacks grow out of ideological decisions that get made. These fundamental decisions of what the ideology must be then help the intellectual hacks of this benighted world "voluntarily" say the right thing according to the ideological "turn" that has been accomplished --- for example that roads and connections are good things, necessarily. The writers know to repeat the basic formula. They know what ther are supposed to say. It is all ideology. This is why we are saying that (big) pipes, roads and (internet) highways are good. We articulate what the 'ideological superstructure' wants us to. Why should they necessarily be good? They could do various types of harm as well. The modern world has its city folk, and its country folk as well.
No one could stop the change. The emergent possibilities are that either the rulers could attain absolute control - almost certainly they'd then oppress the subjects - or the persons involved could acquire some control themselves. That is a kind of shorthand version of our situation. The modern option we generally endorse (because we are so "nice" and well-trained) is that they should be able to control their own lives.
Generally speaking our awareness is focused on the case of western Europe, where eventually it was the concept of democracy and not something like fascism or totalitarianism that seems to have emerged the victor. (Western Europe is also where they had some wars, killing many). Capitalism helped rather than hindered in the pro-democracy process (1). At this point, then, democracy is taken by the (nice) historians as that which triumphs. The powers of kings are limited. That part I think is indisputable: and, semblances (at any rate) of democracy took root.
Telling the truth is always dangerous. But I'll do it. I think I might make so bold as to say that today we are seeing a reversion away from this general trend towards democracy --- and it's not because of the people of Gabon or something. In other words it is not at all because of a lack of capacity on the part of people; they are still people after all, and the persons forming the human collective or human race are not the problem: my experience is that there's nothing wrong with the masses. In fact, we have got them pretty well educated as a result of all this progress and technology. (I also could say that I know them personally, I've met them, and I can guarantee that they are OK.) Rather it is because powers such as China and Russia and indeed the U.S. and indeed Britain, are unable to commit--they can't commit. They are unable to make a real decision in favor the well-being of this population whom they govern. They are now proving unable to commit themselves to this tradition they are themselves part of. They fail to understand the choice. They fail to definitively commit themselves to this basic choice we outlined above. There are two possibilities for the more technological sort of nation, but the choice to uphold our own hard-won democratic traditions is not made.
Democracy is in danger as the U. S. turns its back on, for example, the world poor. Why not help them? Why not talk about them? For God sake! It seems very ominous not to even talk about them. They are not sufficiently aided --- I guess. I do not feel we are getting any information. That's ominous. These large numbers of persons are not only not sufficiently aided but, ominously, not even discussed in the media (hence we need to "guess" as to their level of material well-being or else hide from one another what the facts are). Media, government and corporations all fail the cause. The cause is the option of democracy, and the intellectual elite in general are failing to protect the population of their countries --- and therefore of the world, since those two are connected. The ordinary people can carry out their human tasks. However, in order to do so, they need the minimal level of support from elites, a class which, after all, does indeed still exist. Those elites ought to do their job.
(1) here, the author has very specific ideas, found elsewhere
C.I.A. program under Bush regime
" Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, called the failure to inform Congress "illegal." "
Everything they did was illegal.
-
Everything they did was illegal.
-
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Comment on Scott Horton's Writing in Harpers Mag
"Outlaws", by definition, are those who go around breaking the law, basically. I think I can safely say that that’s the definition of “outlaw” but elites rarely call themselves or their own by the term outlaw. This, conversely, also explains why the outlaw tends to become glorified/valorized in the culture. If they cannot be elites, then what can they be? Michel Foucault has something in the book he wrote (“The Politics of Truth”) that is a bit relevant: if Mr. "B" is not “that” kind of outlaw --- then which kind?
What is more than likely the case is that "b" (let's help him hide by switching from upper case to lower case at random) and company did not give a rat's ass about the law. They just wanted to do their own damn thing I guess. That's horrifying --- that kind of disregard. And, yes, it means that they are "outlaws." Really. But then, I just used scare quotes again.
And why is that? Why don't we get to call them outlaws… First of all it's because they are actually worse than outlaws, and secondly, it's because b.b. gunn and Cheney, who ride shotgun together, or something, and shoot turkeys, are not outlaws --- not exactly. They aren't hiding in the rocky valley --- or up on Sugar Mountain. They aren't lame ducks anymore, or sitting ducks, although "sitting duck" sounds like the hunting partner Cheney got to torture by shotgun that fine day. If they are "outlaws" in what sense? -nobody is looking for them. They are -for some reason -not even in demand for those interview or “feature” thingies newspapers do. They aren't hiding, and they aren't on law-enforcement's "(Most) Wanted" list: not at either the local, state of national level. And anyways while we're at it why not make the people who voted for them the outlaws? You'd have to round up 12 or 15% of the population. What kind of a country do you think this is?
It's a democracy and I guess that means the president gets to do whatever he wants. I am sure B. and Cheney are sitting around somewhere and feeling proud – I should say smug, sorry. They certainly are proud and smug at having broken the law. They would like to break more. ("Hi. Are there any more laws I can break?") The guy is clearly an outlaw. These people are perverts and they should be in mental hospitals and they're dangerous. But --- to say, as the Harper’s mag article does, "they waged war against the law itself" ??? What does that mean? They waged war against another state --- the state of Iraq. They attempted to kill, and did succeed in killing thousands of soldiers of the country of Iraq. But who, pray tell, is guilty of that? The United States of America is. Scott Horton may as well say that he wants to put the entire U. S. military in jail. No: kill them. I don't think the Marines would appreciate that and I don't think it would work.
Now, if I was a magazine writer, I would have to say something definitive here. Make some kind of conclusion, you know? But I’ll just leave you with this.
The law was something that got in the way of these persons. What Bush loved was power and his own sense of self-importance. That is typical of any egotist.
What is more than likely the case is that "b" (let's help him hide by switching from upper case to lower case at random) and company did not give a rat's ass about the law. They just wanted to do their own damn thing I guess. That's horrifying --- that kind of disregard. And, yes, it means that they are "outlaws." Really. But then, I just used scare quotes again.
And why is that? Why don't we get to call them outlaws… First of all it's because they are actually worse than outlaws, and secondly, it's because b.b. gunn and Cheney, who ride shotgun together, or something, and shoot turkeys, are not outlaws --- not exactly. They aren't hiding in the rocky valley --- or up on Sugar Mountain. They aren't lame ducks anymore, or sitting ducks, although "sitting duck" sounds like the hunting partner Cheney got to torture by shotgun that fine day. If they are "outlaws" in what sense? -nobody is looking for them. They are -for some reason -not even in demand for those interview or “feature” thingies newspapers do. They aren't hiding, and they aren't on law-enforcement's "(Most) Wanted" list: not at either the local, state of national level. And anyways while we're at it why not make the people who voted for them the outlaws? You'd have to round up 12 or 15% of the population. What kind of a country do you think this is?
It's a democracy and I guess that means the president gets to do whatever he wants. I am sure B. and Cheney are sitting around somewhere and feeling proud – I should say smug, sorry. They certainly are proud and smug at having broken the law. They would like to break more. ("Hi. Are there any more laws I can break?") The guy is clearly an outlaw. These people are perverts and they should be in mental hospitals and they're dangerous. But --- to say, as the Harper’s mag article does, "they waged war against the law itself" ??? What does that mean? They waged war against another state --- the state of Iraq. They attempted to kill, and did succeed in killing thousands of soldiers of the country of Iraq. But who, pray tell, is guilty of that? The United States of America is. Scott Horton may as well say that he wants to put the entire U. S. military in jail. No: kill them. I don't think the Marines would appreciate that and I don't think it would work.
Now, if I was a magazine writer, I would have to say something definitive here. Make some kind of conclusion, you know? But I’ll just leave you with this.
The law was something that got in the way of these persons. What Bush loved was power and his own sense of self-importance. That is typical of any egotist.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
I'm on a roll!
President Bush initiated a war against the country of Iraq. Perhaps it was based on some kind of animosity towards Saddam Hussein. He well may have had no reason. That's possible. We'll never know, will we? Eventually a half million persons perished although, admittedly, I stopped counting about three years ago. As the newspapers stopped publishing numbers. We all lost interest. What's done is done. But that is background, for the present post.
Where was the president's big failure? ...Of course, killing people is pretty standard stuff ...the powerful of this world do it all the time... Arguably his real failure is in what we so far have not been able to properly digest. We have not been able to draw our lessons. Again. We need to understand. The nation I mean. When do we go to war and when not? For example --and we'll just focus on the elites and intellectual classes --these two groups need some kind of a theory. But ---- and this is my point ---- after our nation's experience Bush's presidency and his practices or his behaviors we not been able to draw a message. We have not been able to draw a message, as we need to due to the consistency that foreign policy requires. So, there's my gripe.
What happens therefore is that we have no clear precedent for future behavior. Of course, other countries are just scared of us. Big deal. But what about how America or the U. S. thinks of itself? How should we conduct ourselves in the future? Did Bush clarify what we should do in the future? I do not think so.
A few comments about Mr. G. Bush now. G. Bush seems like someone that really went off on his own tangent in life. That is very individualist. Isn't it?. He is a great individualist: Connecticut to Texas. A real self-made man. But that kind of individualism does not tell us what to do now in Iran. And where are these perps now? One may assume that persons like B. and Cheney will just continue saying "I am right," which does not help set an example for the identity of a nation. Saying only that one is better/righter entails refusal to participate in the life of others - of the nation. Hmmm … sounds a bit like the diagnosis would be dementia, related to a strange case of American “Individualism.” “I am right, and if you do not agree – screw you.” That is however not 1) how democracy works, it is not 2) how modernity has proceeded up until now and, also, not 3) really how the capitalist system functions either.
Need I say any more? The president of a modern democracy has an obligation, and this part Bush knew – an obligation to contribute to that particular nation’s role in history. Bush tried and failed, and it is because he never did identify with nation but in a case of demented American Individualism syndrome thought history pre-empted nation. He was clawing away at (or trying to efface) the existence of the group. This is the trap that the conservative tradition leads to.
Where was the president's big failure? ...Of course, killing people is pretty standard stuff ...the powerful of this world do it all the time... Arguably his real failure is in what we so far have not been able to properly digest. We have not been able to draw our lessons. Again. We need to understand. The nation I mean. When do we go to war and when not? For example --and we'll just focus on the elites and intellectual classes --these two groups need some kind of a theory. But ---- and this is my point ---- after our nation's experience Bush's presidency and his practices or his behaviors we not been able to draw a message. We have not been able to draw a message, as we need to due to the consistency that foreign policy requires. So, there's my gripe.
What happens therefore is that we have no clear precedent for future behavior. Of course, other countries are just scared of us. Big deal. But what about how America or the U. S. thinks of itself? How should we conduct ourselves in the future? Did Bush clarify what we should do in the future? I do not think so.
A few comments about Mr. G. Bush now. G. Bush seems like someone that really went off on his own tangent in life. That is very individualist. Isn't it?. He is a great individualist: Connecticut to Texas. A real self-made man. But that kind of individualism does not tell us what to do now in Iran. And where are these perps now? One may assume that persons like B. and Cheney will just continue saying "I am right," which does not help set an example for the identity of a nation. Saying only that one is better/righter entails refusal to participate in the life of others - of the nation. Hmmm … sounds a bit like the diagnosis would be dementia, related to a strange case of American “Individualism.” “I am right, and if you do not agree – screw you.” That is however not 1) how democracy works, it is not 2) how modernity has proceeded up until now and, also, not 3) really how the capitalist system functions either.
Need I say any more? The president of a modern democracy has an obligation, and this part Bush knew – an obligation to contribute to that particular nation’s role in history. Bush tried and failed, and it is because he never did identify with nation but in a case of demented American Individualism syndrome thought history pre-empted nation. He was clawing away at (or trying to efface) the existence of the group. This is the trap that the conservative tradition leads to.
The Beautiful Ugly Palin Report
She's also threatening the press if they repeat rumors about the construction of her house:
“
To the extent several websites, most notably liberal Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore, are now claiming as “fact” that Governor Palin resigned because she is “under federal investigation” for embezzlement or other criminal wrongdoing, we will be exploring legal options this week … to address such… [defamation].
“
[Andrew Sullivan, July 05; on S. Palin]
There is just this little bitty moment of recognition in my autistic mind when I read that bit. It is from A. Sullivan, July 05. It’s called “Lady Ga Ga Update III.” As soon as my mind reads just a few words – probably “She’s…threatening the…” – I get both the thought that these people lie, and also that when they do, they then cover up. And, if she was lying, and wanted to cover it up, the best way of covering it up would be to accuse others of lying.
People do lie. And I’m not talking about “liberal blogger S___ M____.”
“
To the extent several websites, most notably liberal Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore, are now claiming as “fact” that Governor Palin resigned because she is “under federal investigation” for embezzlement or other criminal wrongdoing, we will be exploring legal options this week … to address such… [defamation].
“
[Andrew Sullivan, July 05; on S. Palin]
There is just this little bitty moment of recognition in my autistic mind when I read that bit. It is from A. Sullivan, July 05. It’s called “Lady Ga Ga Update III.” As soon as my mind reads just a few words – probably “She’s…threatening the…” – I get both the thought that these people lie, and also that when they do, they then cover up. And, if she was lying, and wanted to cover it up, the best way of covering it up would be to accuse others of lying.
People do lie. And I’m not talking about “liberal blogger S___ M____.”
Friday, July 3, 2009
blog of June 30 (entered July 02)
The progressives and activists understand the Republicans to be standing in Obama’s way. Personally I don’t believe in activism. Everyone wants to just sort of sweep the Right out of the way - except the Right themselves of course - but the group represents something that has always been an important force in U S/American affairs. We should come to understand the situation better instead of responding in this way.
Who are the Rightists? Who are these persons, adamantly opposed to any sort of change whatsoever? They even deny that global warming exists only to have it proved so, by their society's own scientists. That never makes them change at all, though --- why are they so insistent on being who they are?!! --- They insist on views that are alienated from the facts of life and the world that has grown up around them – and us -- for two hundred years. But it's all part of society.
I would argue that Rightists represent a reality or a part of the society and therefore, they are a force, like it or not. Progressives or liberals are not going to bring about change if they, like Rightists themselves, do not understand their society.
Why are these people there? Which underlying social realities and human forces do they represent? The "modernity" we live in has a history of being a compromise that includes dissenting elements of Right or Left. Without understanding our real situation as human beings the actions of reformers are not going to be successful - nor in the final analysis really very compassionate. So, before you supposedly sweep the Right out of the way with that activism of yours, guys, it is better to understand who they are. Then you become more human, and, perhaps more respectful.
In the middle, between extremes, is the democratic method. So, the democratic method is a middle area between extremes, and what is distinct about this middle, democratic area is that there is some sort of tolerance.
Progressives, however can be just as intolerant as Right-wingers.
Who are the Rightists? Who are these persons, adamantly opposed to any sort of change whatsoever? They even deny that global warming exists only to have it proved so, by their society's own scientists. That never makes them change at all, though --- why are they so insistent on being who they are?!! --- They insist on views that are alienated from the facts of life and the world that has grown up around them – and us -- for two hundred years. But it's all part of society.
I would argue that Rightists represent a reality or a part of the society and therefore, they are a force, like it or not. Progressives or liberals are not going to bring about change if they, like Rightists themselves, do not understand their society.
Why are these people there? Which underlying social realities and human forces do they represent? The "modernity" we live in has a history of being a compromise that includes dissenting elements of Right or Left. Without understanding our real situation as human beings the actions of reformers are not going to be successful - nor in the final analysis really very compassionate. So, before you supposedly sweep the Right out of the way with that activism of yours, guys, it is better to understand who they are. Then you become more human, and, perhaps more respectful.
In the middle, between extremes, is the democratic method. So, the democratic method is a middle area between extremes, and what is distinct about this middle, democratic area is that there is some sort of tolerance.
Progressives, however can be just as intolerant as Right-wingers.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)