Brad: Virtually everything you say is correct. However, with az bit of
rigor, we can more sharply define all the elements of this discussion to
simple understanding -- something that the Real Sciences should have
done instead of leaving it to the Unreal (Social) Sciences. (I'm not
condemning the Social Scientist, but it is high time that they began to
think like and become Real Scientists also.)
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. wrote:
>
> Hyman Blumenstock wrote:
> [snip]
> > MONEY has never been the answer to anything. It has been rightfully
> > stated that "the love of money is the root of all evil."
> [snip]
>
> It has also been wisely observed, by Richard Nixon, that
> while having money does not solve all problems, lack
> of money *creates* lots of problems.
True, but only because whereas Money was invented to act as a relatively
lowly surrogate to Scarce Food during the Agrarian era, to more easily
DENY access to the scarce food supply to those deemed least entitled to
eat, Nixon was referring to the outlandish metamorphosis of that lowly
surrogate of the staff of life itself, to becoming the pinnacle of man's
obsession while denigrating the staff of life into nothingness.
>
> > The "bleakness" is the stupidity of those who insist upon having their
> > collective heads up their collective asses and give full faith and
> > credit to the Social Sciences.
>
> Michel Foucault, in _Discipline and Punish_, succinctly
> described the origin of self-called Social Sciences which
> have as their aim not the understanding of the potential of
> humanity (e.g., the lived experience of the persons *doing*
> the scientizing), but the administration of human
> beings, and their re-constitution as pseudo-*things*
> (students, welfare recipients, prisoners, mental
> patients, etc.).
Precisely the intent of the leading Social Science, Economics, wherein
only one of man's two motivational elements is addressed, Security, and
that is to be threatened unless man performs usually unwillingly by the
threat of "earn a living" or (unvoiced) "die." That man also seeks Self
Esteem as a far more suitable Motivational factor, and needs no threats
or pushing, is completely ignored.
>
> *However*, there is a different kind of Social
> Science (what the Germans call the: "Geisteswissenschaften" --
> the sciences of spirit), of which Foucault's book is
> itself an example, and which also includes the
> work of persons like Erving Goffman, C. Wright Mills,
> Edward Hall, Edmund Husserl, Alfred Schutz, Clifford
> Geertz, Sandor Ferenczi, Donald Winnicott, etc.
This can all be boiled down to the Self Esteem cited above.
>
> Let us not throw the baby out with the
> bathwater, or, rather, to push this analogy,
> let us save the baby from the polluted stream
> into which capitalism (etc.) has dumped it.
>
> Yours trying to help demystify the social world....
I believe that the Social world is as simple as stated above. That all
we need now is already in place and functioning. That not one person on
either side of the fence need lose one iota of what he holds dear
(either Quality performance, or the pursuit of an ugly Money profit) so
that there need be no compromise to an immediate resolution of all the
world's problems. Security involved ONLY an adequate, free supply of
Food to everyone. Then Self Esteem is provided by allowing everyone to
pursue whatever it is that turns him the most. All misery, crime,
violence and war is the result of the denial of adequate Security, by,
in modern times while we are obsessed with Money, denying an adequate
Money supply to everyone to attain his Security.
>
> \brad mccormick
>
> --
> Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but
> Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world.
>
> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA
> -------------------------------------------------------
> <![%THINK;[SGML]]> Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
