[Xmca-l] Re: Appeal for help

[HENRY SHONERD]

Mike/Andy,

Apropos of imagination and prophets here is an article in the NY Times about the fall from favor of futurists, such as Alvin Toffler, who just died. He wrote Future Shock, a cautionary book about technology, in the vein of the Dedalus/Icarus narrative. I hope you can access the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/technology/why-we-need-to-pick-up-alvin-tofflers-torch.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news  <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/technology/why-we-need-to-pick-up-alvin-tofflers-torch.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news> 

Tony Blair wouldn’t have me, Andy. I’m no prophet, but going into Iraq after our 9/11 was insane. Stupidity and cupidity must go against any idea of morality: "the well-known phenomenon in which a person promoted above the ability suffers a moral degeneration”, as you put it, Andy. President George W Bush would fit that phenomenon, as would Trump. Speaking of family as a project, Both W and Trump owe their “promotions" to their fathers. Bush’s dad seemed a relatively honorable man, Trump’s not so much. 

Henry



 


> On Jul 6, 2016, at 9:59 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> 
> Henry/Andy - Hence the centrality of imagination in human experience.
> mike
> 
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 8:43 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> 
>> You're not working for Tony Blair are you, Henry?
>> 
>> You don't know the consequences of what you do, Henry. OK, you may
>> possibly know the immediate, proximate results of your action, but you can
>> have no idea of the outcome of the chain reaction you set off. Especially
>> in any "difficult" decision, given that we live in a world in which
>> everyone is acting strategically (as in game theory), devising their
>> strategy on the basis of what they think you're going to do, while you are
>> designing your strategy on what you think they think you're going to do,
>> etc. Ask any economist who is capable of given a halfway honest answer. Ask
>> Tony Blair. Ask a bookmaker. We all tend to act as if we knew the
>> consequences of our actions, but we don't. The point is aimed at ethical
>> theories like utilitarianism which say you should do whatever increases the
>> sum total of happiness in the world. This is a stupid idea, even if you did
>> know the consequences of your idea. So Einstein would never have published
>> his paper on relativity, I guess. But of course he'd only know if he did
>> the right thing 50 years later, and then it would be too late. Anyone who
>> isn't a prophet shouldn't get out of bed in the morning.
>> 
>> Andy
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> Andy Blunden
>> http://home.mira.net/~andy
>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
>> On 7/07/2016 1:14 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Andy,
>>> Your appeal has resulted in a very interesting discussion. One thing I
>>> think you said early on has been puzzling me, that we don’t know the
>>> consequences of our actions. Did I get that wrong? If not, could you
>>> explain that briefly?  Here is what you wrote that I am referring to:
>>> 
>>> "There is no "criterion", otherwise we wouldn't have a virtue ethics,
>>> we'd have a consequentialist ethics, and the thing is that we never
>>> actually know the consequences of what we are about to do.”
>>> 
>>> Henry
>>> 
>>> On Jul 6, 2016, at 1:57 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, your observation about 'hybrids" is exactly what I was asking for,
>>>> Annalisa.
>>>> 
>>>> Andy
>>>> 
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Andy Blunden
>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy
>>>> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
>>>> On 6/07/2016 4:48 PM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Not sure this qualifies for your project, Andy, but something in your
>>>>> original post reminded me of Lakoff's Moral Politics: How Liberals and
>>>>> Conservatives Think.
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Politics_%28book%29
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> What really sparked this recall for me was Lakoff's discussion of
>>>>> hybrids. For instance, a factory worker who is liberal at work (supports
>>>>> his labor brothers), but conservative at home (he is king of his castle),
>>>>> or a single mother who works in a law office: she is conservative at work,
>>>>> but liberal at home while raising her children.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Lakoff claims that the elections in 2000 came from Karl Rove's
>>>>> mastermind-activation of the frames of these hybrids, who tend to hover
>>>>> around the center (in American politics).
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Of course, I'm recalling a book I read over 10 years ago, but it
>>>>> certainly assisted in my understanding conservatives, who constantly
>>>>> perplexed me. At least the purpose of the book was successful... for me.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hope it helps.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Annalisa
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object
> that creates history. Ernst Boesch