A given quantity of stuff is not a constant. That's the
point I was trying to make. Technological advance
(advance in knowledge in general...)
enables us to do more/better
with the same amount of "stuff".
To a denizen of Salem MA in the 18th
century, a bit of bread mold was nothing more than
occasion for hallucinating. To Arthur Fleming
in the 1940s it
was occasion for saving millions of lives. (That's
not exactly "correct", but it's close enough for
my purposes...)
The reintrojected projection of "reality" continues
to be one of the strongest brakes on humanity's
and persons' prospects in life. Again, Castoriadis
states all this quite well, e.g., in _Philosophy,
Politics, Autonomy_ (although Alain Resnais' film
"Mon Oncle d'Amerique" is easier and quicker to
"digest", and Edward Hall's _The Silent Language_
is a made in the USA version of the same thesis
if one wants to avoid "continental philosophy").
\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/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jay Hanson
> Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 1998 5:50 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Sustainablity Plan B (and -- perhaps -- meta-plan C)
>
>
> >>Jay Hanson wrote:
> >>
> >> > Is there not confusion within the ranks of our allegedly erudite
> >> > economic scholars who see only increased production as
> solution to
> >> > Social Problems?
> >>
> >> Obviously, if one can not "grow", then one must
> "redistribute". That is
> why
> >> it will be opposed to the very bloody end.
>
> >Brad McCormick, Ed.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >There is a third option: to reconceptualize, reconfigure,
> >reconstellate, rethink, renew, re-etceteraandsoforth.
>
> In a finite world, there is a finite amount of "stuff". I
> assume that you
> are suggesting that we talk people out of wanting more stuff?
>
> How?
>
> Jay
>
