I certainly understand >that< aspect...

Post #18,595 by bepatient 11/16/01 6:05:54 PM Reply	I certainly understand >that< aspect... ...in that while you complain about "the box" and wish for us to get outside of "the box"...I continually frustrate you by discussing things from inside "the box". Could it be that I think "this box" is the right box? For its flaws and weaknesses...its currently the best "box" to be in? And so...I focus on making adjustments to "the box". Would I like to discuss the design of the "better box"? Sure, Ashton, I really would. I would like to discuss how we can create such a box. Many have thought about the creation of that better box...tried and failed. The principle source of that failure is that these "boxers" believed that they could change basic human nature..as long as "the people" could see the promise inherent in the "better box." So...if you want to hop out of the box Ash...and discuss how we start the revolution...and discuss what it is that we are actually trying to achieve...that would be great. But the current tactic of pompous disbelief in my position that the current box is not so horrible that it needs to be thrown away outright...with no counterpoint and no offer of discussion of the other options is...well...just as disappointing to me as my positions appear to be to you. And...as for your >thoughts< on what I believe >market forces< can and cannot do...it is extremely possible that I have made a grave error in assuming that you knew that the >market forces< are actually the cumulative effect of the actions of individual human beings. Individual human beings that I appear to give alot more credit to that you...as I feel that they can impact their own destiny...while you appear to think somewhat less of them...en masse. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #18,599 by Ashton 11/16/01 8:12:27 PM Reply	OK. I see it's about Religious Faith in [Boxes] of any kind. I'll see what I can do about meta-Boxes, because I might already realize what a meta-Box signifies. Seems you Box-people are likely to do in the entire Golden Goose while... endlessly tinkering with those 20/5 tail lights.. as yer fav [Mindless Numbers]-Box mires actual human beings deeper into the La Brea of [Neatly-Boxed-Results] o O _ 0 _ _ \ufffd \ufffd \ufffd \ufffd \ufffd . . . . . . _______________ ////////////////////// ..sometimes words fail, about Boxes n'Believers.
Post #18,601 by bepatient 11/16/01 8:19:32 PM Reply	Well since you continually seem to be missing my point... ...why don't you actually give me yours? Box, socio-political system, organization of the human race on the planet...explain? How do you propose that the human race save itself, support itself, continue to exist without some formal aspect of commerce and governance? And if the race does indeed >need< these things to survive...being a social animal...what would you propose to be the ideal system...keeping the pyramid of needs intact and allowing for that pesky human trait called avarice. Inquring minds do, indeed, want to know. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #18,613 by Steve Lowe 11/17/01 12:18:50 AM Reply	This mini thread Deserves its own, no? Assuming it goes further, of course. ----- Steve
Post #18,645 by Ashton 11/17/01 4:29:53 PM Reply	Impasse. Future Fork. Assigned task is self-cancelling. BeeP appears to think that economic models are the (~ both 'necessary and sufficient'?) tools for making the kinds of overall-life decisions we are seen to use them for. While I grant their limited utility in keeping track of things like humongous budgets / the 'measurement' of how successfully the Ad campaign is bringing in new money, and several other mercantile concerns - I assert that overreliance upon these models, extrapolation of their 'meaning' way too far across the boundary beyond economics - into the category of "social quality of life" - is a demonstrable (I say Major) cause of the current trend of income distribution: concentration amongst fewer and fewer. Other consequences could fill many books (and have). I say that - it is not about refining the present model. Again. Numbers cannot measure well (if at all) the egregious social consequences of ever mixing pure numerical constructs and real life. (Though the Econ Model, if it's any good - Can continue to provide its limited utility, whatever changes are made to the legal constraints as diminish, correct the growth of monopoly). BeeP's response to my criticism: ~Show me your better (economic) model (!) Tinker with the Status Quo.. a little more !! {sigh} I guess the concept of a meta-Model escaped comprehension. Since I don't believe we Can create an economic model which could address these orthogonal consequences of All purely economic theory: the condition is unfulfillable. An economic-mind is a terrible thing to waste. I'll see if I can construct a post-Revolutionary Social Contract. Sometime. Meta-Models are a bit harder than screwing with velocity of money and all those precise-sounding (but familiar!) chestnuts. (You sure as hell can't transcend the inherent limitations of The Economic Model with: The New Economic Model!) That's how we got where we are today: homogenization, increasing monopolization of all commodity supply, Billys n'Ballys growing like Amanita mushrooms. No represenation for 'workers' - except moving from one Corp to another Corp = same rulez. No healthcare, schools in shambles, prison building a Growth industry, yada yada. Ugliness all around; little commercial boxes all with the Same Logo\ufffd and: The Mall replaces living. (Shopping as life?) Add ones I missed here ____. E.O.T.(hread) - Need new forum: Rescuing the Murican Social Contact Y2K (from the Economists?) Ashton (Never mind; it won't be Popular where it matters - where the Power resides. It Won't be on any ballots Here! Blood first, I suspect.)
Post #18,647 by bepatient 11/17/01 4:52:39 PM Reply	No...that was NOT my response. BeeP's response to my criticism: ~Show me your better (economic) model (!) Tinker with the Status Quo.. a little more !! {sigh} That was most decidedly not my response. My challenge was... How do you propose that the human race save itself, support itself, continue to exist without some formal aspect of commerce and governance? I'd say thats as far from "tinkering" with the status quo there is. Thats asking you to explain...(en anglais, s'il vous plait) this >ideal< that you have that you continually >sigh< about me not understanding. Then..we can debate a plan to take us there...or at least debate its possibility of existance. But to continually play the critic to my posts without >EVER< offering any alternative but to sigh at my lack of understanding and my decided lack of application of my intellectual capacity is getting pretty fucking old. Lets talk about what >you< want...ok? Thoughts, ambitions, etc...what is it that we are doing wrong that your ideal would make right? What do we need to do to feed everyone, cloth everyone, educate everyone and allow everyone to persue those things wwhcih will keep them happy 24/7/52/100? Until you can offer me an alternative to even discuss...I'd say critiquing my thoughts on how to fix what we have is a tad premature, no? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #18,650 by Ashton 11/17/01 5:45:25 PM Reply	I'll concede your phrasing there. And raise you. Since it Was your phrasing there. :-) I'll split the labor with you, of playing Rousseau (Anglais ou Franc\ufffdise, un peu?). I'd think we'd have to ~agree first on the dimensions and some specifics of: what IS 'wrong' / dysfunctional now - before riding off in all philosophical directions toward YAN ---> Utopia. (After having perused the sourcebook on Dystopias, in recent weeks - I know better Why I do not believe in the attainability of Models (always appreciated why that Was folly, just know better Why, now)). Let's see what Your list of defects is, since you accuse me of assuming you have none. I cannot summarize the general case of The World and All, except as philosophical masturbation. Useless - too high a scale for homo-saps; we lack the referents. I never imagined you didn't have such a list, just - see your main posts as ever supporting, defending the present schemes and especially: Econ rubrics across the spectrum of their consequences. (Note: that is my impression of the content of many posts, not an opinion of 'what you might actually think' = that rarely emerges AFAICR) Tit for tat, oh weaver of Devils Advocacy from safe neutrality.. Over. Duplicating this at top, per request above, to escape any possible right-shift: Hey! a few others might have ideas in pretty little heads (?) It's too Big an issue to be left to mere Economists or humble Curmudgeons ;-)
Post #60,250 by pwhysall 10/30/02 2:00:02 PM Reply	Entropy just went up. And it couldn't have happened to a nicer physicist :-) Scott: Imma hunt you down and kill you twice for this :) Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #60,307 by Ashton 10/30/02 6:19:36 PM Reply	Entropy decreased. So then.. where were all them Solution Providers and their lists? Do I gotta work it All out fer youse guys? Can lead a horse to manna but.. Conclusion - *nobody has any ideas. Ergo, Entropy is decreased; Answer Unearthed: World of Duality remains in perpetual low-scale psychic noise (that 3\ufffdK (3?) microwave background). Build-from or die-within. * or is supremely disinterested in offering same == same effect. Ashton Solution Providers we provide the trough. customer must drink. :-\ufffd Hint: "We put all our politicians in prison as soon as they're elected. Don't you?" "Why?" "It saves time." -Terry Pratchett- via Silverlock

Welcome to IWETHEY!