Speaking of unemployment

[mtmynd]

NS: Too late to “pass,” my friend, since you’ve already stated the position you know to be held by “over 6 billion.”

Re"MT: You seem to be so determined in your hard determinism that you cannot grasp the idea that over 6 billion hu'mans don't share your own philosophical game with the same insistence you obviously expound.

Do you seriously believe 'hard determinism' is an accepted philosophical choice by the vast majority? If so, may I ask why you wrote - "we are all fairly familiar with what the majority of humanity does, which reveals indirectly what they are thinking. Six thousand years running of recorded history, gives us all a good window on the “general run.” And again: "The general run of humanity rarely questions much of anything, and of the few whom occasionally do, few do it well." These statements infer you have little respect for the majority of hu'manity, at least for their thinking ability. Do you put yourself in this select group of the 'few (who) do it well,' amigo?

Re: MT: Any threats to our ego can bring on a defensive posture and may include using words that determinists may find unsuitable.

Which you replied: I did not say that. I said that “ALL of humanity is both foolish and egotistical.” Not just freewillers.

But my reply was in answer to your statement -
NS: The freewiller is eager to be praised/blamed for his foolishness. To do otherwise would be too threatening to his ego, i.e. better to be thought a ‘fool’ than a ‘foolish puppet.’

... which is obviously aimed at what you call 'freewiller'.

NS: But, like you rightly say, step away from the philosophers (on both sides), and you will find a vast sea of poor thinkers who are firmly fixed (unthinkingly) on ‘freewill.’

So, this vast sea of poor thinkers are, in your opinion, poor in thought solely based upon what they refer to as 'free will,' is that right? Anyone who embraces this 'free will' is nothing more than a poor thinker. Amazing. Why can't those poor thinkers accept determinism and 'hard' determinism since that is far superior based upon ancient texts written by like-minded thinkers who have become stumped and no longer able to continue thinking beyond the self-imposed limitations of determinism.

GodAllah leads the determinist by their hair, pulling them in whatever direction this godallah wishes, all the while the poor thinking individual, this poor soul without choice, is literally being dragged wherever this godallah desires for 'His' own entertainment.

Yes, NS... a superior logic the determinist has created. Nobody to hold blame or reason or even logic, only a god pulling them about without any sayso.

All determinism relies upon passed events to 'prove' itself... all happens accordingly... just look at the past and see the beauty and logic that has passed.

[hester_prynne]

The one who claims credit for the choices of another is a thief, and the one who claims no credit for any choice, but rather credits the one who actually makes the calls is a pussy.

This is getting interesting.
Mark me as a freewiller. FreeHester. I enjoy being a fool and much prefer it over foolish puppet. Fools are real, not made of wood like puppets. Foolish Puppets are an unwitting front for weird goings on.
Determinists need them.
Freewillers don't care.
Unless someone fucks with them too much.

Blowin in the wind
HP

[stilltrucking]

I know I am a pussy.
Recently someone on studio eight told me to "man up"


I determined long ago that I don't enjoy p*ssing contests. My mind is not that easily entertained unless there is actual urine involved.

Which war games were you a participant in Non Sum. Was it the South East Asian war games?

[Non Sum]

MT: Do you seriously believe 'hard determinism' is an accepted philosophical choice by the vast majority?

NS: I thought we Both agreed that ‘free will’ “is an accepted philosophical choice by the vast majority,” Or, did you change your mind? I haven’t.

MT: These statements infer…

NS: Statements are incapable of ‘inferring.’

MT: …you have little respect for the majority of hu'manity,

NS: Tell your ‘statements’ that they are inferring incorrectly. Humanity possesses a plethora of respectable gifts, most of which I do not possess in any notable degree.

MT: at least for their thinking ability

NS: Don’t make the error of confusing total intelligence with the ability to think analytically and critically, which is just one of many intellectual factors (I.Q.’s). Musical intelligence would be another I.Q. If I were to say that, ‘the majority of humanity are not musicians, and of those who have some musical ability, most of them are rather poor at it,’ would I be showing humanity ‘disrespect,’ or simple observation? Couldn’t I have said the same thing about ‘mathematical ability, artistic ability’ among numerous other I.Q. factors?

MT: Do you put yourself in this select group of the 'few (who) do it well,' amigo?

NS: I put you, due to your natural gifts, training, and practice, among the select group of those who do art well. Just as I put Stevie Ray Vaughn among the select group of musicians who do da blues well. Just as I, due to my natural gifts, years of training, and practice, am among the select group of those, who had better by after all of that, do critical analysis well. You, Stevie, and I, are not being egotistical to simply acknowledge our strengths, nor humble in acknowledging our weakness.

MT: ... which is obviously aimed at what you call 'freewiller'.

NS: I first showed how the freewiller’s ego defines his choices, and then went on (hopefully you read that as well) to show how the determinist’s ego defines his choices. So, what is your point exactly?

MT: So, this vast sea of poor thinkers are, in your opinion, poor in thought solely based upon what they refer to as 'free will,' is that right?

NS: Would you form such an idiotic opinion as that, based upon one single topic? Then why do you suppose that anyone else would? Are you trying to be insulting? Most of your last few posts seem to aimed at the person you are debating, rather than the issues themselves. Am I angering you? It appears that you are being argumentative. I am sorry if I gave you offense. Perhaps, we should break this off?

MT: dragged wherever this godallah desires for 'His' own entertainment.

NS: You are assuming motives. ( ‘Allah’ means ‘The God.’ So, you are writing “god The God.”)

MT: Yes, NS... a superior logic the determinist has created. Nobody to hold blame or reason or even logic, only a god pulling them about without any sayso.

NS: The point of the quote is not about literal ‘gods,’ but rather ‘factors’ beyond the individual’s control, be they universal cohesion, psychological (i.e. genetic/environmental), etc. which are ‘pulling’ us all about sans say so. ‘Gods’ are merely a personification of impersonal natural forces. I would have thought a poet, such as yourself, would have caught that, especially knowing me to be an atheist.

MT: All determinism relies upon passed events to 'prove' itself... all happens accordingly... just look at the past and see the beauty and logic that has passed.

NS: All events are past events. How could you reflect upon (study) any phenomenon if it had not yet occurred?

[mtmynd]

NS: All events are past events. How could you reflect upon (study) any phenomenon if it had not yet occurred?

I see so many of 'us' anxious to name and explain life without having lived life fully enough to sufficiently do justice to their explanations. We are learning beings and as such whatever conclusion we may reach today may just as well differ tomorrow, not unlike all things in our natural world. So why do we assume the stance to defend yesterday and allow today to slip by unnoticed?

[Non Sum]

MT: So why do we assume the stance to defend yesterday and allow today to slip by unnoticed?

NS: I doubt that today can be fully noticed (i.e. seen for what it is) without taking notice of yesterday. The fruit of today is a direct result of yesterday’s plant, and that is why historians have a far keener understanding of current events than do those who are unaware of what came before. I know that it works that way in understanding today's financial markets.

”When I want to understand what is happening today, or try to decide what will happen tomorrow, I look back.” (Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.)

[mtmynd]

Well, fuck me til I'm raw! You out thunk me again, amigo. I don't stand a motherfucker's chance in the Congo against such a prized mind as yours. Mercy! And to think of all that time I've wasted thinkin' I was a thinker! You are something else, NS... truly! Out-fucking-think me every damn time. How do you do it?

[Non Sum]

MT: Well, fuck me til I'm raw!

NS: Good Grief!

MT: You out thunk me again, amigo.

NS: Cannot be done, mein freund. You offer an opinion and suggest supporting arguments, and I offer another opinion and try to support It. Hopefully, there is mutual fun and education in the process. But, there is no absolute right or wrong in this relative and subjective world that we barely share like two glancing Venn diagrams.

I really disliked ST’s take that we were in some sort of “pissing contest.” I’ve never had any taste for competition of any sort, with its ‘winners & losers.’ ‘Winning’ always feels like an embarrassment, something to apologize for. Given the distasteful choice, I always prefer the part of loser.

My hedonism seeks out enjoyable processes, rather than some brief and ephemeral result. As a life-long bodybuilder I don’t train for some up-coming event. I exercise for the sheer pleasure of exercising. I went to school, not for a career (never had one), but for the joy of learning. I’m willing to bet that your major pleasure in art is in the process of creation, and not nearly as much in (be)holding the finished product, no?

I love a discussion purely for the stimulating mental exercise it gives. I feel sorry for those who mistake it as being solely a “pissing contest,” since it implies that they are completely missing the most tasty parts, while demeaning the participant’s motives as nothing more than a shallow ego enhancement.

I owe you my sincere thanks, Cecil, for giving me so many great intellectual workouts. I did not, nor could I ever, “out-fucking-think” you. You see it, and say it, your way; and I mine. And, when they are not closely aligned, we have a wonderful opportunity for an exciting exchange. It worked well for Socrates. It (i.e. advocacy) works well in dramatically finding guilt and innocence in our courts.

So long as neither of us fall into thinking this is a contest with pissing ‘winners & losers’, and garnering the anger that can result in, we will always both be winners “every damn time.” That’s “how we do it.”
NS (Never Suck-seeds)

[mtmynd]

After a good breakfast and a pleasant shower, my thoughts raced across my last reply here and I said to myself, "perhaps that late night reply came out a bit too heavy..." It was a long day and this old body needed a good sleep.

Lo and behold! you had beaten me to it and it was the way it should have been.

Our discourses over the many moons we have been having since PN days have resulted in some good mental workouts which, as you say, 'mutual fun and education in the process.' I will admit to an occasional annoyance which is my inability to clarify whatever position may be under discussion, but this is nothing to hamper our talks, I should hope. But even a good game of badminton requires this old man to give it a rest for awhile and breathe in some fresh air.

Another day at the show, which we hope will be as profitable as yesterdays... and if not, it is still a good place to spend a weekend despite the occasional 'big gust' from the west.

[WIREMAN]

....off for a week between jobs.....an iron workers vacation.....in the daze past they used to send u to another job for a couple weeks.....makes ya tight w/the dinero.....i need to make wired ones anyway....and music....so i enjoy this respite......hope i make it 5 years to social security and can make art.....i think i could make it if we'd ever beat this economic calamity....at leastthe arts going so cheap i've amassed a dynamite collection.......i love paintings...they are my indulgence.....and passion....
future joe....wire in cartoon mode

[Doreen Peri]

hope i make it 5 years to social security and can make art.

You can retire at 62? I thought you needed to be 67.

I'm looking forward to that, too, Mark! (just didn't know I could retire at 62! whoa! cool!)

[mtmynd]

One can choose retirement at 62 and receive 75% of the allotted benefits depending upon your age. I chose 62 because I was unemployed and needed the money. But waiting until 66 (born between 1943 and 1954 will get you 100%. I personally think 75% 4 years earlier is a pretty good deal if you can't wait those additional 4 years.

[stilltrucking]

Speaking of unemployment


I have not read the book Plentitude The Economics of True Wealth But she is on the Diane Rehms Show talking about it now.


http://thedianerehmshow.org/

[one of those jerks]

Cutting and pasting from here

Structure of Excuses

What can be done about mass unemployment? All the wise heads agree: there are no quick or easy answers. There is work to be done, but workers aren’t ready to do it — they’re in the wrong places, or they have the wrong skills. Our problems are “structural,” and will take many years to solve.

But don’t bother asking for evidence that justifies this bleak view. There isn’t any. On the contrary, all the facts suggest that high unemployment in America is the result of inadequate demand — full stop. Saying that there are no easy answers sounds wise, but it’s actually foolish: our unemployment crisis could be cured very quickly if we had the intellectual clarity and political will to act.

In other words, structural unemployment is a fake problem, which mainly serves as an excuse for not pursuing real solutions.


I’ve been looking at what self-proclaimed experts were saying about unemployment during the Great Depression; it was almost identical to what Very Serious People are saying now. Unemployment cannot be brought down rapidly, declared one 1935 analysis, because the work force is “unadaptable and untrained. It cannot respond to the opportunities which industry may offer.” A few years later, a large defense buildup finally provided a fiscal stimulus adequate to the economy’s needs — and suddenly industry was eager to employ those “unadaptable and untrained” workers.

But now, as then, powerful forces are ideologically opposed to the whole idea of government action on a sufficient scale to jump-start the economy. And that, fundamentally, is why claims that we face huge structural problems have been proliferating: they offer a reason to do nothing about the mass unemployment that is crippling our economy and our society.

So what you need to know is that there is no evidence whatsoever to back these claims. We aren’t suffering from a shortage of needed skills; we’re suffering from a lack of policy resolve. As I said, structural unemployment isn’t a real problem, it’s an excuse — a reason not to act on America’s problems at a time when action is desperately needed.

.