Squeers, your view, as expressed in the following, is like a verdent oasis in a stony desert: "Yes you would have to have a few rules, a cap on personal-wealth and assets, for instance (I remember you agreeing on this point once), but this needn't be severe, in fact only within the bounds of what's both sustainable and modest according to social norms and common decency."

You have restored my hope that there do exist some humans, a few, who can see beyond their own insatiable greed for treasure and power, a greed that will one day bring about human extinction.

No great loss I fear but sad for thinking people like you!

My thanks to Nick Rose for posting the article and to David G for your fortitude in the face of much vitriolic comment. If any one of the people making such comment were to take the trouble to read the "Shock doctrine" by Naomi Kline they might begin to know where you are coming from. I also am deeply concerned about the inequitous and exploitative nature of unfettered globalised capitalism and the Freidmann economic orthodoxy which still underpins it.

Contrary to the belief that others want to cling to I am of the opinion that capitalism as we have known it may be reaching its endgame. Of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 are international corporations. These corporations have almost total control of the worlds economic function and are peaking in their profit taking.

This redirection of wealth is depleting the spending power of the west's populace while also failing to build spending power in the poorer countries, China being a notable exception. Without spending power people can't buy, markets die and capital becomes worthless. Isn't this what happening now?
Den71

.

Dear Squeers,

.

You wrote to Wm Trevor: " I've been researching materialism and idealism, in various contexts, for three years and they tend to be mutually exclusive ".

I'm intrigued.

I understand materialism to mean " the physical world is all that exists ", idealism being " the image we have of the physical world at its best ".

The question which then arises is "are images part of the physical world ? " If they are, no problem. If they are not, I can understand why you suggest that the concepts of materialism and idealism "tend to be mutually exclusive".

Of course the images in this context are mental images, imagination, or shall we say simply, ideas. Are ideas part of the physical world ?

I must confess that I am rather tempted, in my crude, Aussie bushwhacker fashion, to pick up my axe and chop the Gordian knot in order to unbind it. Yes, I consider that ideas are part of the physical world.

I consider energy to be part of the physical world. I consider life to be part of the physical world. I understand that life resulted from a random combination of matter and energy. And that some forms of life, including human beings, have developed a degree of autonomy such that they can determine their own course of action without any outside interference. I understand that this faculty is a function of the brain, known as the thought process, thoughts, of course, being ideas.

Perhaps, one day, we will develop robots capable of attaining the same degree of autonomy as human beings, capable of having ideas as we do. Their ideas, like ours, will also be part of the physical world. Won't they ? Or will we have managed to invent the immaterial ?

But then, no doubt, mine is a simplistic view. I would be delighted if you would share something with us of your three year endeavour.

.

David G.
I too am heartened that there are people out there who can think outside the narrow province of immediate self interest. What we're all required to do is assess our personal, social and global situation honestly and critically in terms of its ethics and sustainability. Unfortunately hegemonic thought (non thought) rationalises broadly that "whatever seems good for me must be good". It's no easy to reflect critically, but any chance of change depends upon it.

Banjo Paterson,
if I get the chance I'll attempt something potted. Though I may not and I don't think your understanding is simplistic anyway.
Our experience of the world is a self-representation both empirical and confabulated. We don't "see" much detail because the "mind" isn't concerned with minutia and the brain rushes ahead to provide us with useful representation; seamless real-time footage. Much of what's available to the senses is cognitively invisible or filtered-out until the brain gets the message to notice it. Even then, the "mind" translates, or makes sense of, the data into meaningfully pre-given conceptual form. We never see the world unadulterated, and even the representation that receives priority is pre-written and thus pre-conceived, like this web page.
Well that's one bit of potted theory. I don't subscribe to reductionist materialism, which dominates but has real problems.

I knew we had much in common, Squeers... I've said I'm an 'idealistic realist', you've identified as a 'pessimistic realist' so obviously we agree we share reality.

As well as - I recall - respect for William James who said, “A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.”

Which no doubt only applies to other people.

Though he did also say, “Anything you may hold firmly in your imagination can be yours.” which, by experiment I've proved, does not apply to visible parts of one's anatomy.

I enjoyed doing economics primarily for its rigour in the study of the motivation of people in groups and the extrapolation of this into demand for goods, production, innovation, etc, and the success it had in predicting behaviour.

What has become clear is that none of NR, DG or Squeers have an inkling of economics, because if they had, they would realise their ideal person that occupies their nirvana has never existed, and probably never will.