Why not do a cartoon take-off of Rich's article today, and Blitt's cartoon, with the Maverick Executive (America's special interest MNC Big Mustang), biting back Barry Blitt's Big Dog, on the behind, through the ring ropes, even as he is still sitting in the corner of the ring?
Big Dog could be spilling his coffee everywhere as he is jumping up, shocked by the bite, Maverick's teeth still in him, visible from the side.
The Maverick, HALF MAN HALF HORSE, looking a lot like Robert Macaire, should be looking a little drunk, dressed in a luxurious smoker, cigar in the other hand, and even while biting Big Dog, will be holding, casually, even wantonly, a dry martini, with olive, in the other.
The Caption above:
It's What's for Dinner.
The Caption below:
How The Maverick Executive Likes His Hors d'oeuvre
See Blitt cartoon adjacent to Rich's column NYT today.
I like Blitt's somewhat 'Daumieresque' style of depiction. He can do a wonderful action scene, and physionomy caricature, both very well. Very rare.
BOOMERBUSTER
OLD CELLO
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Saturday, September 11, 2010
RE WORLD IS FLAT CARDBOARD MADE IN CHINA BOX CRUSHED CARTOON HOLLOWING OUT MISE EN SCENE
The caption above:
"The World Is Flat"
Picture a 'tag team' wrestling match.
The teams are, say, the West, US and EU,
on one team, two Asian wrestlers forming a team, they could look like sumos, you pick them, on the other.
The teams are at the end of the match.
The US wrestler is LITERALLY 'flat' on the ring floor. He can't tag anyone.
This player is in the shape of an empty cardboard box, he has been wrestling as an empty box with legs and arms and, and is now being crushed flat by his Asian opponent in this scene.
He has a dollar sign on his visible top side being stomped flat, preferably by a very large sumo type wrestler sitting on him.
Elsewhere, his box torso is stamped 'Made In China'.
He has a flattened Uncle Sam hat. It too has a China stamp.
The Eu wrestler, euro symbol somewhere, is being held back (from the tag of his 'partner') in its corner of the ring by various other handlers, say by a Greek in an ancient loin cloth, and others.
The caption below reads:
"Team Play Aftermath of Hollowing Out."
"The World Is Flat"
Picture a 'tag team' wrestling match.
The teams are, say, the West, US and EU,
on one team, two Asian wrestlers forming a team, they could look like sumos, you pick them, on the other.
The teams are at the end of the match.
The US wrestler is LITERALLY 'flat' on the ring floor. He can't tag anyone.
This player is in the shape of an empty cardboard box, he has been wrestling as an empty box with legs and arms and, and is now being crushed flat by his Asian opponent in this scene.
He has a dollar sign on his visible top side being stomped flat, preferably by a very large sumo type wrestler sitting on him.
Elsewhere, his box torso is stamped 'Made In China'.
He has a flattened Uncle Sam hat. It too has a China stamp.
The Eu wrestler, euro symbol somewhere, is being held back (from the tag of his 'partner') in its corner of the ring by various other handlers, say by a Greek in an ancient loin cloth, and others.
The caption below reads:
"Team Play Aftermath of Hollowing Out."
Friday, September 10, 2010
RE NYT TONELSON KEARNS ARTICLE TRADING AWAY THE STIMULUS
Something like this approach should have been under way, for the past 40 years now.
Americans don't really even understand what is at stake at this point.
They think a free society needs free trade.
It's a dumbed down situation.
Politicians and their big backers decided that they wanted a dumbed down electorate situation, good for business; they concluded that was in their interests.
Unfortunately, now, for them, and for all of us, at some point soon,
GAME OVER.
Refer to previous posts here, eg "Trading American Interests" article by Eckes, Trading Places, etc.
As I pointed out in a prior post, a 'Smoot Hawley' solution is kind of weak, long after the production horse has 'left the barn';
not that reindustrialization cannot and should not be tried and eventually accomplished, but one needs a resolute, far sighted, powerful central government to do such a thing, and an electorate somehow brought on board, and the US has never had that, except as a concession in time of war.
Americans don't really even understand what is at stake at this point.
They think a free society needs free trade.
It's a dumbed down situation.
Politicians and their big backers decided that they wanted a dumbed down electorate situation, good for business; they concluded that was in their interests.
Unfortunately, now, for them, and for all of us, at some point soon,
GAME OVER.
Refer to previous posts here, eg "Trading American Interests" article by Eckes, Trading Places, etc.
As I pointed out in a prior post, a 'Smoot Hawley' solution is kind of weak, long after the production horse has 'left the barn';
not that reindustrialization cannot and should not be tried and eventually accomplished, but one needs a resolute, far sighted, powerful central government to do such a thing, and an electorate somehow brought on board, and the US has never had that, except as a concession in time of war.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
RE AMERICAN LEAD MARKET GLOBALIZATION TAKING DOWN THE EU WITH IT
The title really says it all.
We really lead them into this cul de sac.
Few European nations have been very enthusiastic about expansive globalization of production. They have sort of had to get into it, as a race to the bottom of production costs.
Globalization has been, once the Marshall Plan recovery was successful, if not a uniquely American predilection, at least mainly our foreign policy agenda.
Time to pay the piper, so to speak.
Some people think this will have a peaceful and happy denoument of gradual devolution.
I am not one of those.
We really lead them into this cul de sac.
Few European nations have been very enthusiastic about expansive globalization of production. They have sort of had to get into it, as a race to the bottom of production costs.
Globalization has been, once the Marshall Plan recovery was successful, if not a uniquely American predilection, at least mainly our foreign policy agenda.
Time to pay the piper, so to speak.
Some people think this will have a peaceful and happy denoument of gradual devolution.
I am not one of those.
THURSTON MACAIRE HOWELL P 15
I remember, no one even back in 1980 could really say they were wrong. The Four Tigers which later followed Japan’s lead, and now China, and others, would agree.
Yet, without subs to ours, and our ‘quote’ allies’ markets, no Japanese ‘robber barons’ would have been able to buy the time of day, much less land, in Hawaii in 1985, (Midkiff) barely 40 years after Pearl Harbor.
An export trade economy, absent military responsibilities, can be a way of gathering strength over a long period.
Bin Laden had been subsidized to fight the Soviets.
Policy makers’ horizons on whom, where, how, and why to subsidize, have been short and blinkered.
American cities, and industries without overt military implications, have largely been left out.
Yet, without subs to ours, and our ‘quote’ allies’ markets, no Japanese ‘robber barons’ would have been able to buy the time of day, much less land, in Hawaii in 1985, (Midkiff) barely 40 years after Pearl Harbor.
An export trade economy, absent military responsibilities, can be a way of gathering strength over a long period.
Bin Laden had been subsidized to fight the Soviets.
Policy makers’ horizons on whom, where, how, and why to subsidize, have been short and blinkered.
American cities, and industries without overt military implications, have largely been left out.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
re AMERICAN NATIONALISM
Unfortunately, many of the principles of what I would call American nationalism, are the very principles which have gotten Americans into the economic and ideological messes they are now deeply in.
So, a call to a new American solution, a 'New Deal', or an 'America first' nationalist statist solution, is about the last thing most Americans are well placed to ideologically understand, adopt, or benefit from, going forward.
They are too sold on other, old, individualist, anti-communist, exceptionalist, fundamentalist, hegemonic, ideas.
For Americans, 'team concepts', still ubiquitous, long after their socio-economic efficacy, the lifetime employment they once generally implied, and MBA OB allure, have vanished, are a bankrupt, outdated, and bewildering aggregation of half-baked and now-burnt notions, having little explanatory relevance anymore, but are still relied on everywhere to assert flagging vestigial corporate inclusion, as there is nothing else, no other purely pretextual paradigm, left.
The closest thing Americans have to a nationalistic tradition is perhaps best described by Huntington, Who Are We. It is not very promising as a blueprint for nationalistic ideological coalescence, going forward.
So, a call to a new American solution, a 'New Deal', or an 'America first' nationalist statist solution, is about the last thing most Americans are well placed to ideologically understand, adopt, or benefit from, going forward.
They are too sold on other, old, individualist, anti-communist, exceptionalist, fundamentalist, hegemonic, ideas.
For Americans, 'team concepts', still ubiquitous, long after their socio-economic efficacy, the lifetime employment they once generally implied, and MBA OB allure, have vanished, are a bankrupt, outdated, and bewildering aggregation of half-baked and now-burnt notions, having little explanatory relevance anymore, but are still relied on everywhere to assert flagging vestigial corporate inclusion, as there is nothing else, no other purely pretextual paradigm, left.
The closest thing Americans have to a nationalistic tradition is perhaps best described by Huntington, Who Are We. It is not very promising as a blueprint for nationalistic ideological coalescence, going forward.
RE EU EURO
When the Euro crashes, eventually, how much of what will they each give their citizens, for their Euros, in exchange?
Will they each go back to their old currencies?
Will they peg them to anything, besides fiat?
By then, who will still hold them? How many?
What will they have been hoarding instead, by then?
Take a wild guess.
Will they each go back to their old currencies?
Will they peg them to anything, besides fiat?
By then, who will still hold them? How many?
What will they have been hoarding instead, by then?
Take a wild guess.
Monday, September 6, 2010
A PROPOS A VISION OF THE FUTURE AN IDEOLOGICAL CUL DE SAC
A propos David Kaiser's current topic, a few remarks re what I would call an idelogical cul de sac into which American politics has now pulled.
We have finally come to a point, I believe, where even some of the most devout market capitalist and/or conservative ideologues, thinkers not pundits, although they would still give different explanations depending on party (eg socialist sabotage, Republican sabotage, etc.),
may be beginning to see the 'end of history', to which their free market and weak government programs, both parties, have now lead (the Democrats have long been on the free market train, by the way, longer than the Republicans):
How much smaller can government get, under the status quo system? (Certainly can't get that much weaker, in spite of their views.)
Krugman talks in an editorial today about a political trap, and he has compared this I believe, with an economic analysis of an 'economic' trap. Sort of gives one a sense of a cul de sac, too.
I sympathize with his side of the issue, the need for greater job stimulus, as far as that paltry topic goes.
As Reich described the economic slide, the other day in a NYT editorial, I am afraid that such a mere WPA type job stimulus (eg mickey mouse census worker 'jobs'!) won't really help Americans recover what has been lost in that slide, Reich says lasting 30 years, I say 50 or so.
As I said in a prior post, don't we need a New Deal? Who's kidding who?
The political cul de sac reminds me of the old remedy of bleeding the sick patient. Here are the tools which have always been at the electorate's disposal:
Turn the incumbents out; tax, or spend, or tax, or spend, or tax, or spend, or tax, or spend, and so on,.................................. to infinity.
More free trade, more open markets, less regulation, more free trade, less regulation, more free trade.............................................to infinity.
If he doesn't get better, better bleed him some more with both, tax or spend, more free trade, less regulation.
Market capitalism as a more or less one trick Maverick pony.
If we aren't prospering, markets must not yet be open enough, or we haven't taxed or spent enough.
On another topic:
Note that China recently expanded its public sector in response to flagging world demand. Maybe that is a big mistake, but I believe others long needed to smell the coffee.
Another natural resource topic, besides the end of cheap oil, has been the tremendous large long term contracts some developing governments have made for essential resources.
Weak laissez faire lazy fare, mere tax or spend, regimes haven't been able to follow suit.
If the resource source nations, for these huge deals renig, guess what?
We have finally come to a point, I believe, where even some of the most devout market capitalist and/or conservative ideologues, thinkers not pundits, although they would still give different explanations depending on party (eg socialist sabotage, Republican sabotage, etc.),
may be beginning to see the 'end of history', to which their free market and weak government programs, both parties, have now lead (the Democrats have long been on the free market train, by the way, longer than the Republicans):
How much smaller can government get, under the status quo system? (Certainly can't get that much weaker, in spite of their views.)
Krugman talks in an editorial today about a political trap, and he has compared this I believe, with an economic analysis of an 'economic' trap. Sort of gives one a sense of a cul de sac, too.
I sympathize with his side of the issue, the need for greater job stimulus, as far as that paltry topic goes.
As Reich described the economic slide, the other day in a NYT editorial, I am afraid that such a mere WPA type job stimulus (eg mickey mouse census worker 'jobs'!) won't really help Americans recover what has been lost in that slide, Reich says lasting 30 years, I say 50 or so.
As I said in a prior post, don't we need a New Deal? Who's kidding who?
The political cul de sac reminds me of the old remedy of bleeding the sick patient. Here are the tools which have always been at the electorate's disposal:
Turn the incumbents out; tax, or spend, or tax, or spend, or tax, or spend, or tax, or spend, and so on,.................................. to infinity.
More free trade, more open markets, less regulation, more free trade, less regulation, more free trade.............................................to infinity.
If he doesn't get better, better bleed him some more with both, tax or spend, more free trade, less regulation.
Market capitalism as a more or less one trick Maverick pony.
If we aren't prospering, markets must not yet be open enough, or we haven't taxed or spent enough.
On another topic:
Note that China recently expanded its public sector in response to flagging world demand. Maybe that is a big mistake, but I believe others long needed to smell the coffee.
Another natural resource topic, besides the end of cheap oil, has been the tremendous large long term contracts some developing governments have made for essential resources.
Weak laissez faire lazy fare, mere tax or spend, regimes haven't been able to follow suit.
If the resource source nations, for these huge deals renig, guess what?
RE KRUGMAN'S NYT 1938 AND 2010 ARTICLE
Great short essay.
Especially the part about getting out of the Depression being accidental.
Keynes' General Theory was not published until 36. The New Deal, an ad hoc series of good, but half measures, and still not major political reform.
The big purely lucky break was a war, but the really important thing was it was a war, most importantly, fought and won elsewhere.
Too bad, then, before then, and now, we have always been short intellectual power and political will. As I have pointed out, it has been a political systemic thing.
Nobody really touches it. Hardest thing in the world.
Real major redevelopment type political reform has been off the table for Americans since the Civil War, itself a fiasco.
They will go down, so to speak, with the ship.
Especially the part about getting out of the Depression being accidental.
Keynes' General Theory was not published until 36. The New Deal, an ad hoc series of good, but half measures, and still not major political reform.
The big purely lucky break was a war, but the really important thing was it was a war, most importantly, fought and won elsewhere.
Too bad, then, before then, and now, we have always been short intellectual power and political will. As I have pointed out, it has been a political systemic thing.
Nobody really touches it. Hardest thing in the world.
Real major redevelopment type political reform has been off the table for Americans since the Civil War, itself a fiasco.
They will go down, so to speak, with the ship.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
RE FRANK RICH FREEDOM'S JUST ANOTHER WORD ARTICLE
At least Rich is able to mention various different areas, rather than just one myopic topic, of the American political enterprise, that somehow (mysteriously for him?) seem connected (at least in the essay), in their failure, and in their need for some new insight, program, or framework. He even refers to another writer on military affairs, whose ideas he agrees with.
But he does not get to the point of saying anything it seems, unless I missed it, about what might really be needed, either in terms of political reform, or in terms of some new way ahead.
A mere critique, even a correct one, of how both parties have failed the American people, without more, is not that new, really, now, and not that much in doubt, by those who have more than a media understanding of things.
But mere public wringing of hands, and gnashing of teeth, however truthful, does not get anyone anywhere further, now, really.
But he does not get to the point of saying anything it seems, unless I missed it, about what might really be needed, either in terms of political reform, or in terms of some new way ahead.
A mere critique, even a correct one, of how both parties have failed the American people, without more, is not that new, really, now, and not that much in doubt, by those who have more than a media understanding of things.
But mere public wringing of hands, and gnashing of teeth, however truthful, does not get anyone anywhere further, now, really.
RE NYT ARTICLE RE FLORIDA FORECLOSURES
This is the kind of finance and investment situation, which had cried out for greater and better regulation, oversight, and perhaps political consolidation as well, long before the mortgage backed securities debacle.
Now, the situation is played out, state by state, and courthouse by courthouse, with the usual tales of overbearing influence, corruption, and abuse.
Had it not been the free play of market forces that fomented the scenarios we see unfold?
Securitization, even, of the unconscious; id overcoming superego.
The foibles of the purely legal side, as these cases are litigated, are the least interesting; but those legal issues, legal concerns, frauds and legal fictions now on a colossal scale, futile objections, were the ones previously overriden by the investment machines; and overriden now by judges on the ground as well, it seems, in the headlong grind of local foreclosure case overloads, if the assertions of article are to be believed, in a legal system not at all geared for massive securitization breakdown.
Could it have been any other way?
Now, the situation is played out, state by state, and courthouse by courthouse, with the usual tales of overbearing influence, corruption, and abuse.
Had it not been the free play of market forces that fomented the scenarios we see unfold?
Securitization, even, of the unconscious; id overcoming superego.
The foibles of the purely legal side, as these cases are litigated, are the least interesting; but those legal issues, legal concerns, frauds and legal fictions now on a colossal scale, futile objections, were the ones previously overriden by the investment machines; and overriden now by judges on the ground as well, it seems, in the headlong grind of local foreclosure case overloads, if the assertions of article are to be believed, in a legal system not at all geared for massive securitization breakdown.
Could it have been any other way?
Friday, September 3, 2010
RE REICH HOW TO END THE GREAT RECESSION
Good summary of portions of why we got here.
Interestingly, Reich does not talk about any major political reforms or consolidation.
The existing political structure is good enough for his initiatives as is, it seems.
But, has it not been that status quo political structure itself that got us the 'structural' economic problems he bemoans?
Theories that, say, it was just :
unhelpful individual politicians,
or unwise or corrupt political parties,
or just decades of bad economic advice,
or smarter or luckier or more industrious foreigners,
don't wash.
The existing political system made these outcomes, and this situation, feasible,
and in some ways, I would surmise, inevitable.
Interestingly, Reich does not talk about any major political reforms or consolidation.
The existing political structure is good enough for his initiatives as is, it seems.
But, has it not been that status quo political structure itself that got us the 'structural' economic problems he bemoans?
Theories that, say, it was just :
unhelpful individual politicians,
or unwise or corrupt political parties,
or just decades of bad economic advice,
or smarter or luckier or more industrious foreigners,
don't wash.
The existing political system made these outcomes, and this situation, feasible,
and in some ways, I would surmise, inevitable.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
RE REVKIN GATES DOT EARTH ENERGY INITIATIVES
What kind of free market, carbon credit, dream world, are they really in?
To say they are not 'strong on politics', understatement.
To say they are not 'strong on politics', understatement.
FOLLOWING UP THE COMPARTMENTALIZATION POSTS
A somewhat different difficulty emerges as the process of specialization occurs, and as new strengths or perceived strengths in one area or technique become more generalized or enlarged; resulting in shrinking, sometimes, or elimination, of previously dominant or related areas of knowledge.
There can be what I would call 'good', and 'bad', examples of such generalizations and shifts within and across fields and subfields.
There are also examples of borrowings , sharings, thefts, from one field by others or another, analogies, models, paradigms, gimmicks even, what have you.
These can present, once again, opportunities that I would call 'good'; and some pitfalls, both for practitioners and others affected directly or indirectly, which I would call 'bad'.
There can be what I would call 'good', and 'bad', examples of such generalizations and shifts within and across fields and subfields.
There are also examples of borrowings , sharings, thefts, from one field by others or another, analogies, models, paradigms, gimmicks even, what have you.
These can present, once again, opportunities that I would call 'good'; and some pitfalls, both for practitioners and others affected directly or indirectly, which I would call 'bad'.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
RE SPECIALIZED COMPARTMENTALIZED KNOWLEDGE ITS OWN CRITERION
One of the implications of differentiation and specialization of knowledge, is that, whatever it is, it tends often but not always, to need or want to get narrower still, within a given larger field, in order to get deeper still into a refined subject matter area. There are countervailing tendencies, which seem not to have been as strong.
We have seen a relentless march of specialization in many fields along these lines.
With this specialization, has come a self-authenticating system of validation for particular areas or subfields.
So the argument might go: Who knows more about the special validity or special qualifications or constraints of this particular subfield than its practitioners?
Medicine, many specialties and subspecialties, of anatomy, of systems, carving out niches for themselves against their neighbors, forensic areas in litigation fraught with difficulties, very common; often with not very good or helpful consequences for patients, clients, or the public.
Law, similar issues pervade the field.
Economics, self-authenticating pundits, traditionally narrow absolute presuppositions, dogmatism, and similar issues.
Other social sciences, sociology, psychology, anthropology, similarly.
Accounting, imploded recently, many subfields, consulting, etc., showing their colors.
Many areas of technical exact science research, particularly at universities endowed by private or various nations' money, handmaidens of particular industrial or national masters.
Many 'exact' sciences, especially their forensic areas, engineering of many specific types, handmaidens of other fields: politics, private industry, or law, and all three, quite often, in a given specialty.
Sometimes, where the stakes are high enough, industry, government, or law, commandeer various subspecialties in technical ensembles, often career forensic experts usually seen in disparate fields, harnessed toward a particular desired scientific, industry, or litigation outcome.
Another implication is that technical knowledge seems to need, to some extent at least, to get specific criteria of its own in order to validate its technical advances.
We have seen a relentless march of specialization in many fields along these lines.
With this specialization, has come a self-authenticating system of validation for particular areas or subfields.
So the argument might go: Who knows more about the special validity or special qualifications or constraints of this particular subfield than its practitioners?
Medicine, many specialties and subspecialties, of anatomy, of systems, carving out niches for themselves against their neighbors, forensic areas in litigation fraught with difficulties, very common; often with not very good or helpful consequences for patients, clients, or the public.
Law, similar issues pervade the field.
Economics, self-authenticating pundits, traditionally narrow absolute presuppositions, dogmatism, and similar issues.
Other social sciences, sociology, psychology, anthropology, similarly.
Accounting, imploded recently, many subfields, consulting, etc., showing their colors.
Many areas of technical exact science research, particularly at universities endowed by private or various nations' money, handmaidens of particular industrial or national masters.
Many 'exact' sciences, especially their forensic areas, engineering of many specific types, handmaidens of other fields: politics, private industry, or law, and all three, quite often, in a given specialty.
Sometimes, where the stakes are high enough, industry, government, or law, commandeer various subspecialties in technical ensembles, often career forensic experts usually seen in disparate fields, harnessed toward a particular desired scientific, industry, or litigation outcome.
Another implication is that technical knowledge seems to need, to some extent at least, to get specific criteria of its own in order to validate its technical advances.
ASIA DO SI DO MISE EN SCENE
Why think tango, when there are so many good dancers on the floor?
This is really 'square dance' territory.
The Maverick Executive is easily pulled into convivial situations like this.
I will let you flesh out the details.
This is really 'square dance' territory.
The Maverick Executive is easily pulled into convivial situations like this.
I will let you flesh out the details.
RE HARD TIMES IN BIG SKY COUNTRY UNCOMMON WISDOM
This is the kind of story one gets from savvy advisors. Things are really bad in my home town in Montana re real estate and jobs, but booming real estate market in China, so savvy investors should invest in real estate there, never mind about other issues here, at home, that's irrelevant; or troublesome issues, long term, re investing there, but......
That's a really great bit of advice, long term perspective for all Americans.
In the long run, all comparable things will be the same price everywhere, macro economics efficiency speak.
That's a really great bit of advice, long term perspective for all Americans.
In the long run, all comparable things will be the same price everywhere, macro economics efficiency speak.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
RE MODERN LIFE AND COMPARTMENTALIZATION OF KNOWLEDGE AND EVEN RELIGION
I want to say a few words about this, returning again to some themes that I see as crucial to how things have gone for everyone, not just Westerners, but everyone, yet especially for Westerners.
All societies, it seems, have had social divisions, and distinctions of class, work, and privilege.
In the West, We have had the separation, at least for now, of church, and state.
It was a very long, and a very bitter, still quite bitter, development, and some no doubt still feel, regrettable, development, in human history.
Just how bitter, and how long, hundreds of years, this struggle, this aspect, of other contemporaneous political and military and social struggles, in the West, is hard to even make it go into just a sentence.
We also had an enlightenment, through that period, a broadening and deepening of knowledge, with also an anti religious establishment aspect.
We have had an industrial revolution, and very quickly in historical time, others even more momentous.
We have had relentless technological changes in the past few hundred years.
What have these things meant, for intellectual frameworks?
The intellectual framework changes, similarly to difficulties of 'current history', have been such that they cannot even be properly comprehended, much less described, at the time, going forward.
Some implications have been that people have been more willing to see 'doctrinal', and disciplinary, call it sectarian to set up an 'analogy' (hopefully not too much of a Whig analogy) with protestant segmentations, although other religious segmentations could be used as examples; intellectual sectarian segmentation, as a normal part of growth and differentiation of knowledge, and depth of knowledge, in a multitude of specific fields.
People tend not to see this development, itself, compartmentalization, sectarianism of knowledge, per se, as an issue needing scrutiny.
I want to return to implications of this theme later.
All societies, it seems, have had social divisions, and distinctions of class, work, and privilege.
In the West, We have had the separation, at least for now, of church, and state.
It was a very long, and a very bitter, still quite bitter, development, and some no doubt still feel, regrettable, development, in human history.
Just how bitter, and how long, hundreds of years, this struggle, this aspect, of other contemporaneous political and military and social struggles, in the West, is hard to even make it go into just a sentence.
We also had an enlightenment, through that period, a broadening and deepening of knowledge, with also an anti religious establishment aspect.
We have had an industrial revolution, and very quickly in historical time, others even more momentous.
We have had relentless technological changes in the past few hundred years.
What have these things meant, for intellectual frameworks?
The intellectual framework changes, similarly to difficulties of 'current history', have been such that they cannot even be properly comprehended, much less described, at the time, going forward.
Some implications have been that people have been more willing to see 'doctrinal', and disciplinary, call it sectarian to set up an 'analogy' (hopefully not too much of a Whig analogy) with protestant segmentations, although other religious segmentations could be used as examples; intellectual sectarian segmentation, as a normal part of growth and differentiation of knowledge, and depth of knowledge, in a multitude of specific fields.
People tend not to see this development, itself, compartmentalization, sectarianism of knowledge, per se, as an issue needing scrutiny.
I want to return to implications of this theme later.
PHENOMENOLOGY AND POPULAR CULTURE
Re Plato's Pop Culture Problem, and Ours Editorial, re Arnold Schwarzenegger and Plato,
I had not read this editorial when this post was first written, but just now saw it. I had even written the commissioner/councillor bit before reading it! Rather a coincidence really, my reference to a video store and nude dancing themes.
The NYT professor comes out, I think, favoring 'freedom' of property and press, regardless of where the chips fall re Plato, or Aeschylus. Doesn't he, more or less, have to? Perhaps I overstate his affiliations with the publication.
Could one ask for any better, more overt, connection between the freedom of the market place, constitutional expression and property rights of pornographers, and the American intellectual establishment?
He claims that Plato had ignored the distinction between the medium and the reality depicted in it. I would have thought, rather, that had been part of Plato's point.
His is really a sophistical defense of freedom of speech, wrapped in a lot of philosophical twaddle.
Could it have been any other way?
Cf. another (phenomenologist existentialist) philosopher, with 'flexible' views: Martin Heidegger, (I don't know whether he was good looking or not, but that is important to Americans),'Anything Goes', with popular culture.
Perhaps a mise en scene for a cartoon, with Andrew Martin, Sartre, Heidegger, this editorial author, and even perhaps Governor Scharzenegger (as an enforcer), would be in order?
Theme music: (IT REALLY SELDOM GETS BETTER THAN THIS, RE PHENOMENOLOGY THEME):
LOST IN A MASQUERADE
Think also, Carnival of Venice
and , oh why not say it,
DON GIOVANNI
I had not read this editorial when this post was first written, but just now saw it. I had even written the commissioner/councillor bit before reading it! Rather a coincidence really, my reference to a video store and nude dancing themes.
The NYT professor comes out, I think, favoring 'freedom' of property and press, regardless of where the chips fall re Plato, or Aeschylus. Doesn't he, more or less, have to? Perhaps I overstate his affiliations with the publication.
Could one ask for any better, more overt, connection between the freedom of the market place, constitutional expression and property rights of pornographers, and the American intellectual establishment?
He claims that Plato had ignored the distinction between the medium and the reality depicted in it. I would have thought, rather, that had been part of Plato's point.
His is really a sophistical defense of freedom of speech, wrapped in a lot of philosophical twaddle.
Could it have been any other way?
Cf. another (phenomenologist existentialist) philosopher, with 'flexible' views: Martin Heidegger, (I don't know whether he was good looking or not, but that is important to Americans),'Anything Goes', with popular culture.
Perhaps a mise en scene for a cartoon, with Andrew Martin, Sartre, Heidegger, this editorial author, and even perhaps Governor Scharzenegger (as an enforcer), would be in order?
Theme music: (IT REALLY SELDOM GETS BETTER THAN THIS, RE PHENOMENOLOGY THEME):
LOST IN A MASQUERADE
Think also, Carnival of Venice
and , oh why not say it,
DON GIOVANNI
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)