Ray E. Harrell wrote:
>
> Sorry guys & gals,
>
> but it ain't that simple. Just ask Hall, Geertz or any of the others
> who have come to realize that the world does not only have two
> sides. Brad, that Maslow hierarchy exists as a holistic frame, in
> the moment, not as an order of events. I would encourage a look at
> his Eupsychian Management for a better look at the hierarchy. I
> realize that I might embarrass myself stepping into all you
> intellectual's circles, but there do seem to be areas here where the
> practical can give some help to the theoretical.
Ray:
You have the cart before the horse. "Practical" comes only after the
"theoretical" proves itself to be so, a common success among the Real
Sciences. Also, you are displaying a common Social Science fallacy,
that all things are already known, and esconced in someone's writings.
That all you have to do is to discover that writing, and you also know
everything. Also, as to the value of any writing, just list the
successes that can be attributed to it if followed. Among the Real
Sciences, name any textbook that already knows everything there is to
know. Explain then how the Real Sciences know phenomenal success, while
the Unreal Social Sciences can claim only failure.
>
> As for the glory of science and it's ability to analyze and come to
> solutions. It would take the fascist power of the shaman/warrior
> Gengis Khan to create the state you guys are talking about.
The leader of any group is there upon the sufferance of the group, the
group being naturally being more powerful than any lesser group. Unless
it allows it. It is a correct philosophy that will shape the destiny of
the group. We have been inflicted with a shameless fraud called
Economics the Science of Scarcity that maintains unnecessarily the
misery of the ages during this modern Post-Agrarian era.
> His
> state required total political fealty but had the most free state in
> realtion to the arts, crafts, religion, and family culture, yet
> devised.
How does this compare to a close knit, efficient organization, wherein
every member therein is fully and freely supplied with whatever he
needs, and each assumes the role of a cog within the group using as much
as possible of his special expertise in cooperative conjunction with
every other cog, under the dictatorial direction of the CEO and his
subordinate managers, and the engineering department, to effect a goal
useful to society, the personal goal a sense of Self Esteem at a job
well done that benefits society. Is this contrary to the freedom you
seek? Is this not the means with which we have achieved a hitherto
unimagined wealth of GDP that could be created only by group efforts
such as this?
> I'm afraid this cry to science that you all are making
> sounds like the typical cry of every great Democracy of the past (with
> the exception of the Native ones here). "Where is my Superman?" " I
> need someone to walk the 'hero's journey' to give up my responsiblity
> for myself so I can get on with the fragmentation of my
> existence." On the other hand, the oldest alternative might very
> well still be the best in this situation.
>
> Shamanism or as the Canadian peoples call "Indigeneous Science"
> begins with taking a drum into the forest, digging a hole and putting
> your feet where no one has ever walked, finding the beat of the earth
> and then observing the adage: "Pay Attention to Everything." That
> is the child's first "science" lesson. After that you go back and talk
> to your teacher and tell them everything you observed. After that you
> label everything in your mind. Written symbols, in this context, are
> not for learning how to be mentally lazy and forget what you saw.
> Symbols are only the triggers to enfolded reality.
>
> Perhaps a little read in David Bohm? Or more recently David Peat.
> Maybe as you get smaller and smaller and the the physical becomes the
> same issue of probabilities as the social sciences you will understand
> that you just see a little better in the Social Sciences and that the
> physical scientists are still in the shaman's apprentice stage filling
> up the room with the water of their tears of impotence. You all
> have to do it together. That is the great lesson that everyone
> denys and thus plans their death alone to avoid. How's that for
> melodramatic Sally and Arthur? Sorry just got carried away.
I'm afraid that the Social, better called the Unreal, Sciences are not
Real Sciences for having failed to understand the very simplistic
essence of humanness, that is much too much overcomplicated in the
literature. As we are a part of Nature rather than the commonly
presumed apart from Nature, we as humans subscribe to the very same
simplistic equation that has proven so successful in the Real Sciences
-- that Result is Proportional to Forcing Function and Inversely
Proportional to Reaction. In human terms that will equate to
Achievement is Proportional to Motivation and Inversely Proportional to
Frustration. Except that as we are all endowed with Self Awareness,
that Motivation is a dual element comprising Security (assurance that
our near future is not unduly threatened) and Self Esteem (that our very
existence is of potential value at least to society). Economics is
concerned ONLY with threatening Security (earn a living or die), and
completely ignorant of Self Esteem as a much more appropriate incentive
to get things done.
The essence of Social Problems is that the Social (Unreal) Sciences have
taken self aggrandizement seriously when threatened with loss of
function a century ago when Food inadvertently became abundant enough to
eliminate Social Problems. Instead of announcing a new era entirely
different from the age old Agrarian era, (though the title Post Agrarian
era is accepted), and switching from textbooks titled "Economics, the
Science of Scarcity" (of Food, what else), to a new textbook called
"Economics 2, the Science of Abundance," they tried to maintain the age
old focus of Social Problems, and their prestigious jobs, advising
Presidents and Kings, by destroying Food, subsidies to growers NOT to
produce, a practice still going on.
Failing to restore Food scarcity, they cleverly managed to switch the
emphasis from Scarce Food to Scarce Money, a fantasy as unreal as Alice
in Wonderland. And there we stand today, with a vast overcomplicated
Rube Goldberg machine no one understands, making a lot of noise and fuss
and accomplishing absolutely nothing beneficial except to those of the
Money Mongers who happen to periodically sweep all the money from the
losers, virtually everyone, to the winners, themselves. In the process,
all of us will suffer as our civilization goes under with the continual
squandering of the earth's precious resources in the pursuit of Money
"profit."
But condemnation is not the end of the answer. The answer is to see
that everyone has free and immediate access to Food, and that alone will
alleviate virtually all Social Problems. That can be done by emulating
what we did during the depths of the Great Depression when upon being
attacked we lifted ourselves up, threw all economic shibboleths to the
winds, and just DID what had to be done. First, we saw everyone fed,
even sparse military rations. Then we assigned everyone a job to be
done. Self Esteem was clearly evident among all those people who even
would sacrifice their own lives to further the cause. We can do the
same now in peacetime, by having the government subsidize the private
sector, cost no object, to embark upon all the things that need doing.
This includes Restoring the environment, Fixing everything that needs
fixing, Space Programs, Pursuit of Knowledge, Anything, until there is
no one left unemployed in a job suited to whatever is his special
expertise. Use Deficit Spending for funding until we can let all this
nonsense fade from the scene by attrition. Forget all the scam of
"taxpayer's money" "national debt" as a deliberate attempt to misguide
the public, as these are all unrealistic, meaningless fantasies. We can
mollify those too much under the insidious spell of Money, by giving
them all they can possibly take. How much of it can they exchange for
REAL WEALTH, "land, labor and production" without creating a burden upon
themselves of managing mountains of junk they can never consume nor use
given the natural restraints of capacity and time and space.
>
Hyman
>
