Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: Jolly on 11/08/2010 13:04:30
-
Isiah Belin: Positive and negative freedom.
A negative freedom is a freedom under constraints. and a positive freedom is a freedom without constraints.
We live in a negative freedom society, we are free with certain constraints placed upon us, Why because positive freedoms cause revolutions, and so to prevent revolution constraints are placed upon us- and so we live in a negative freedom society.
Ideas is what Belin believes causes ultimately revolution, as such our ideas must be constrained- for if they are not a revolution could happen.
Right, now here is Joe having ideas that should be constrained.
Step one, take his mind off it (circus). Doesn't work he carries on thinking
Step two, keep him busy(active circus) employment as an agent for the pig forexample-Doesnt work
Step three, tell him its a silly idea- doesn't work
Please note the old way was to kill them- for being revolutionaries- even though they dont know that.
So now all different ways of trying to stop them do not work.
Now they start drugging them- in negative freedom terms they are crazy and going against the security of the system, are they crazy? no they are just freely thinking and nothing else.
Here we come to presumptive consent.
They drug you, and the person starts to act funny, then they go to your guardian and say: "You son, husband, wife etc is acting rather funny, would you give us permission to help them? The guardian says yes you are right they are acting funny, OK" after of course a discussion of what that entails(how honest are those that ask for presumptive consent? do not forget that the guardian is also under the constraint of negative freedom and so blind).
They then drug the crap out of you, and you loose it completely and get bundled off to a mentel home- the people that got presumptive consent tell your guardian "Well we tried our best to help them but clearlywe didnt catch them soon enought to stop the inevitable"
Then placed on prescription drugs the person becomes a drulling zombie, a slow thinker, a simpleton, and that will be forever, for should they come off the drug and statrt thinking the same things again they will be put back on the meds, either way as soon as they come on to the list of "people that think too much"(revolutionaries- without knowing it) they will always be watched and monitored- for life till death- with no opportunity for escape from that- forever!
And why does this all happen? Simply to protect the position of those that rule- for the problem with revolution is that those that rule would stop ruling and someone else would- negative freedom keeps those in charge, in charge. It entire purpose, no change those who rule over a negative free society rule forever- for there is never a revolution and so heads never change, except from father to son of course.
See now why those that rule love Berlin, he keeps them on top forever.
You add ideological slavery(captiaism) to this, along with shodocracy- you pretty much have the place you live in, an ideological prison and slave state, that anyone who opposes it- is removed one way or the other.
SICK IS NOT THE WORD FOR THIS.
AS for presumptive consent. What if the person that gives presumptive consent is an agent for those that are carring out, either the study or the drugging etc? And I think you can see there, especially when all guardians in a negative free society are blind- none of them can effectively decided properly and therefore- none of them can really give consent- the whole thing is a total sham and a lie. Just like the system itself!
-
Isiah Belin: Positive and negative freedom.
Okay – firstly ,the man’s name was Isaiah Berlin
A negative freedom is a freedom under constraints. and a positive freedom is a freedom without constraints.No.
The two can be thought of as “freedom to do …” and “freedom from….” positive liberty is the opportunity and actual abibilty to do what one desires. Negative liberty is an absence of external hindrances to completing one’s desired course of action —specifically, when there is no interferences by other people.
We live in a negative freedom society, we are free with certain constraints placed upon us, Why because positive freedoms cause revolutions, and so to prevent revolution constraints are placed upon us- and so we live in a negative freedom society. Yes, but it is hard to imagine a society that is based on universal positive freedoms
Ideas is what Belin believes causes ultimately revolution, as such our ideas must be constrained- for if they are not a revolution could happen.
Don’t know where you got this from – it’s not Berlin. Berlin discussed at length clashes of values and value pluralism but he did not advocate the constraint of ideas
Right, now here is Joe having ideas that should be constrained.
Step one, take his mind off it (circus). Doesn't work he carries on thinking
Step two, keep him busy(active circus) employment as an agent for the pig forexample-Doesnt work
Step three, tell him its a silly idea- doesn't work
Please note the old way was to kill them- for being revolutionaries- even though they dont know that.
Well, of course, no one ever criticised the status quo or formulated different philosophies of government in the past…hang on a second. It is a tragedy that many have been killed for espousing their ideas – but it would be an equal tragedy to ignore history and pretend that we have always lived under such totalitarianism that alternative theories are absent.
So now all different ways of trying to stop them do not work.
Now they start drugging them- in negative freedom terms they are crazy and going against the security of the system, are they crazy? no they are just freely thinking and nothing else.
Here we come to presumptive consent.
They drug you, and the person starts to act funny, then they go to your guardian and say: "You son, husband, wife etc is acting rather funny, would you give us permission to help them? The guardian says yes you are right they are acting funny, OK" after of course a discussion of what that entails(how honest are those that ask for presumptive consent? do not forget that the guardian is also under the constraint of negative freedom and so blind).
They then drug the crap out of you, and you loose it completely and get bundled off to a mentel home- the people that got presumptive consent tell your guardian "Well we tried our best to help them but clearlywe didnt catch them soon enought to stop the inevitable"
Then placed on prescription drugs the person becomes a drulling zombie, a slow thinker, a simpleton, and that will be forever, for should they come off the drug and statrt thinking the same things again they will be put back on the meds, either way as soon as they come on to the list of "people that think too much"(revolutionaries- without knowing it) they will always be watched and monitored- for life till death- with no opportunity for escape from that- forever!
And why does this all happen? Simply to protect the position of those that rule- for the problem with revolution is that those that rule would stop ruling and someone else would- negative freedom keeps those in charge, in charge. It entire purpose, no change those who rule over a negative free society rule forever- for there is never a revolution and so heads never change, except from father to son of course.Your conflation of the above argument with your rather strained notions of forms of liberty deflects from the power of this section. Your very dystopian view is, perhaps exaggerated in scope, but I think correct in direction and means. I think, in addition to your argument of state “medicalisation” of dissenters, the possibility should be considered of state use of criminalisation of those who question and threaten the equilibrium of society.
See now why those that rule love Berlin, he keeps them on top forever.
You add ideological slavery(captiaism) to this, along with shodocracy- you pretty much have the place you live in, an ideological prison and slave state, that anyone who opposes it- is removed one way or the other.
I oppose the state regularly, sometimes it works others it doesn’t. your argument is a counsel of despair – I reject the idea of the ideological hegemony, it is a powerful and enlightening concept but that does not make it a reality.
SICK IS NOT THE WORD FOR THIS.
AS for presumptive consent. What if the person that gives presumptive consent is an agent for those that are carring out, either the study or the drugging etc? And I think you can see there, especially when all guardians in a negative free society are blind- none of them can effectively decided properly and therefore- none of them can really give consent- the whole thing is a total sham and a lie. Just like the system itself!
BTW – did you notice this was a science forum?
Matthew
-
BTW – did you notice this was a science forum?
Matthew
Oh, come on - it *kind* of counts as 'Chat' [:-X]
I reckon you must be secretly working for 'The Man', Matthew [;D]
-
BTW – did you notice this was a science forum?
Matthew
Oh, come on - it *kind* of counts as 'Chat' [:-X]
I reckon you must be secretly working for 'The Man', Matthew [;D]
Everybody is ... we just dont know it yet! [:o]
-
Isiah Belin: Positive and negative freedom.
Okay – firstly ,the man’s name was Isaiah Berlin
A negative freedom is a freedom under constraints. and a positive freedom is a freedom without constraints.No.
The two can be thought of as “freedom to do …” and “freedom from….” positive liberty is the opportunity and actual ability to do what one desires. Negative liberty is an absence of external hindrances to completing one’s desired course of action —specifically, when there is no interferences by other people.
Ok very good, a negative freedom is a freedom that does not need to be constrained as it is not toward revolution, es-specially in terms of ideas. Just as a positive freedom should be restrained as it could cause a revolution.
A positive freedom idea therefore must be restricted. You are therefore not allowed to think "people are more important than money(wealth)" or "no one should be allowed to own land".
We live in a negative freedom society, we are free with certain constraints placed upon us, Why because positive freedoms cause revolutions, and so to prevent revolution constraints are placed upon us- and so we live in a negative freedom society. Yes, but it is hard to imagine a society that is based on universal positive freedoms
Hard not really, its easy to imagine, besides I am not suggesting living in a totally free society- which a positive freedom society would be- anakistically speaking.
Ideas is what Berlin believes causes ultimately revolution, as such our ideas must be constrained- for if they are not a revolution could happen.
Don't know where you got this from – it’s not Berlin. Berlin discussed at length clashes of values and value pluralism but he did not advocate the constraint of ideas
It is inherent within the theory itself, his(Berlin') main objective in creating negative freedom as a system, was to avoid violent revolution, and ideas are as he clearly states- revolutions cause; therefore inherent with-in his theory is the need to suppress thinking and ideas.
Right, now here is Joe having ideas that should be constrained.
Step one, take his mind off it (circus). Doesn't work he carries on thinking
Step two, keep him busy(active circus) employment as an agent for the pig forexample-Doesnt work
Step three, tell him its a silly idea- doesn't work
Please note the old way was to kill them- for being revolutionaries- even though they dont know that.
Well, of course, no one ever criticised the status quo or formulated different philosophies of government in the past…hang on a second. It is a tragedy that many have been killed for espousing their ideas – but it would be an equal tragedy to ignore history and pretend that we have always lived under such totalitarianism that alternative theories are absent.
Missing the point I fear. As the system we live under is an illusion and so all fake. Difference being that in a feudal society everyone knows the situation, even in a classical society the illusions are not as great as today, for today we do not have democracy, we are told we have rights under the law, and freedom of speeah too, yet all of that is a lie, and simply a part of the illusion itself. Very differnt to systems of the past in its excess!
So now all different ways of trying to stop them do not work.
Now they start drugging them- in negative freedom terms they are crazy and going against the security of the system, are they crazy? no they are just freely thinking and nothing else.
Here we come to presumptive consent.
They drug you, and the person starts to act funny, then they go to your guardian and say: "You son, husband, wife etc is acting rather funny, would you give us permission to help them? The guardian says yes you are right they are acting funny, OK" after of course a discussion of what that entails(how honest are those that ask for presumptive consent? do not forget that the guardian is also under the constraint of negative freedom and so blind).
They then drug the crap out of you, and you loose it completely and get bundled off to a mentel home- the people that got presumptive consent tell your guardian "Well we tried our best to help them but clearlywe didnt catch them soon enought to stop the inevitable"
Then placed on prescription drugs the person becomes a drulling zombie, a slow thinker, a simpleton, and that will be forever, for should they come off the drug and start thinking the same things again they will be put back on the meds, either way as soon as they come on to the list of "people that think too much"(revolutionaries- without knowing it) they will always be watched and monitored- for life till death- with no opportunity for escape from that- forever!
And why does this all happen? Simply to protect the position of those that rule- for the problem with revolution is that those that rule would stop ruling and someone else would- negative freedom keeps those in charge, in charge. It entire purpose, no change those who rule over a negative free society rule forever- for there is never a revolution and so heads never change, except from father to son of course.
Your conflation of the above argument with your rather strained notions of forms of liberty deflects from the power of this section. Your very dystopian view is, perhaps exaggerated in scope, but I think correct in direction and means. I think, in addition to your argument of state “medicalisation” of dissenters, the possibility should be considered of state use of criminalisation of those who question and threaten the equilibrium of society.
I agree completely actually! Yet, feel all forms of thinking should be respected totally, the liberty and sanctity of mind held in the highest respect, I would also Argue that to attack the mind with drugs is in itself a form of voilence- and in that- a total hypocracy.
See now why those that rule love Berlin, he keeps them on top forever.
You add ideological slavery(capitalism) to this, along with shodocracy- you pretty much have the place you live in, an ideological prison and slave state, that anyone who opposes it- is removed one way or the other.
I oppose the state regularly, sometimes it works others it doesn’t. your argument is a counsel of despair – I reject the idea of the ideological hegemony, it is a powerful and enlightening concept but that does not make it a reality.
Not a counsel of despair by a statement of the living reality, I certainly do not despair, but Rather would make all aware of said reality and then together, work to change the system.
SICK IS NOT THE WORD FOR THIS.
AS for presumptive consent. What if the person that gives presumptive consent is an agent for those that are carring out, either the study or the drugging etc? And I think you can see there, especially when all guardians in a negative free society are blind- none of them can effectively decided properly and therefore- none of them can really give consent- the whole thing is a total sham and a lie. Just like the system itself!
BTW – did you notice this was a science forum? [/quote]
Social science as always should surely be included, beside this is chat.
Matthew
Thankyou Matthew
By the way thinking that is "ok to attack the staus quo" could very well also be an idea to be supressed; be careful now. I add however that all idea that attack the staus quo would not be included as that would stop progression yet alot of them would be included.
-
Ok, I will run with this for now... few questions for you...
1) Why do you feel the need to make all aware? What do you hope this will achieve?
2) Do you see utopianism as a better form of society to that which we have now? Where does meritocracy fit in with your views?
3) Your points rely both deviance and challenge to authoritarian 'state' or 'system'. If we have true freedom of expression and 'all forms of thinking respected' then deviance would become normality, a situation we are programmed to abhor in other 'less civilised' countries.
Social science is fine here IMO, however there are not to many social scientists among us so you may not get the responses you seek. [:)]
-
there are not to many social scientists among us so you may not get the responses you seek. [:)]
I'm an anti-social scientist. Does that count?
-
I'm an anti-social scientist. Does that count?
Nah you are old Scots bloke, we generally just humour you on here... [;D]
-
BTW – did you notice this was a science forum?
Matthew
Oh, come on - it *kind* of counts as 'Chat' [:-X]
I reckon you must be secretly working for 'The Man', Matthew [;D]
You are correct, matthew does work for the man but under terms of his employment cannot say so. please know I feel for you matthew slavery is never a nice thing.
-
Ok, I will run with this for now... few questions for you...
1) Why do you feel the need to make all aware? What do you hope this will achieve?
As already stated this system is a slave prison, which is immoral and as previously stated before likely to colapse anyway, and if that did happen it would be a nightmare-leaving many dead. As such we all should once aware of this reality seek to change it and create a society where nightmare colapses do it and should never happen.
2) Do you see utopianism as a better form of society to that which we have now? Where does meritocracy fit in with your views?
Well please note we do not live in a meritocracy anyway, negative freedon is about maintaining those in power- which means no meritocracy at all. I am not a utopianist first, and secound meritocracy is essencial for an system. I would also point out that a meritocracy is a aristocracy as: the best are those who have most merit.
3) Your points rely both deviance and challenge to authoritarian 'state' or 'system'. If we have true freedom of expression and 'all forms of thinking respected' then deviance would become normality, a situation we are programmed to abhor in other 'less civilised' countries.
As ghandi did- if the state is not acting justly and it the interest of the people, it holds no ligitimacy. The state as it stands does not work toward the common good- but rather to the interests of those who rule- and again as such is illegitamate. As such we are niether called to respect or obey such authority.
It is complete assumption to say that should people become free completely to think that they would all rebel against those in charge. If those who ruled acted justly their would be no racional grounds to do so.- YOU ARE SCARE MONGERING ON THEIR BEHALF!
Social science is fine here IMO, however there are not to many social scientists among us so you may not get the responses you seek. [:)]
Thankyou agent number two.
-
I would now like to add to presumptive consent.
If a father gives consent to drug his son, he also gives presumptive consent to drug his other children as well as himself- For if its ok for his kids then we can presume that its ok for him.
A agent that carries out the drugging also gives presumptive consent for himself and his family to be drugged, as if it's ok for him to do it to others then we can presume that it's also ok for others to do it to him.
A father with 2 or 3 children, makes up 20 to 25% of the family unit, with his consent they can drug the whole family. By extension if you employed 20 to 25% of the population as agents that drug people, you could potentially have presumptive consent to drug everyone.
What happens for those that do not have a guardian? Well thay are asked a question in a questionnaire: "If someone is crazy could/should drugs be used to calm them down?" If this person says yes- they then have presumptive consent to drug them.
As such one way or the other consent to drug everyone is gained.
What if someone has no guardian and says no to the questionnaire. Interesting situation which leads me to drug use.
If you get someone to take illegal drugs, then in some way they have consented to being drugged, yet you would have to get them to drug someone else(spike) if they did that-you again would have presumptive consent from them to drug them. as if it ok for them to drug other this suggests that it's ok for others to drug them- in their terms of thinking.
-
As I know some of you must be wondering here is what I propose.
A Netural Freedom society.
Where both negative and positive freedoms are allowed, with restrictions placed upon freedoms which are either, 1. unjust 2. could cause the society to become unsustainable.
In regards to no. 2 there are of course areas of serious debate, some freedoms if used by a majority of the populous could for example cause the society to become unsustainable, yet if a minimal amount of citizens acted in such a way, the society would not become unsustainable- Fines would probably be the best course of action; Whereby the freedom is allowed yet fine are placed upon those that do it simply to prevent it's spread- should the fine be insufficient it would be increased until it is sufficient to limit the numbers to an amount that does not threaten the stability of the country.
Please notice that as it stands today the majority of those who rule would be in prison under this system, as they act both unjustly and unsustainable- Here it's clear to see why they will oppose it- the natural reaction of someone irrational and uncaring of the society in which they live.
All positive and negative freedoms in terms of thought would of course be allowed. And the rule of law used to prohibit actions and acts which were considered to be either in just or a possible cause of unsustainable of the society, and of course the fines as stated before.
I am a royalist I will point out for a few reasons. 1 A king connot be just anyone, whereas a president can be. 2 a king or queen would provide a stabilizing element for the society. 3 As I also believe in democracy the king or queen as head of state would not rule as such, although I would increase the powers of a king or queen in certain areas of nation and public interest.
I also believe that all people should be under the rule of law including the king or queen. Which in of itself- calls for a "law President" who is responsible for the law in temporal terms- yet nothing else.
as such in Britain you would have under this system I propose:
King or Queen as head of state-
A president in regards to the law-
Then the houses of commons and Lord- responsible as always to create laws and also rule.
I would also like to see a "Judge" this of course is a Jewish term for high priest. That postion would of course be taken by the archbishop of canterbury, the religious authority of the land, still of course under the Queen yet with increased powers.
This would be a neturally free society, an N-topia pulling together all the different systems and working to make society as just and sustainable a place as humanly possible. As have a new idea for an socail entitlement calll communitalism- rough working title.
Free market as always, with a sustainable quality market foundation-these terms you might not understand and it would probably take a while too. Small business encouraged and big business dis-couraged- naturally that would increase employment, and as all will be called to act as sustainable as possible also be highly enviromental.
An n-topic, netural freedom communitalist kingdom of Britain
-
t is complete assumption to say that should people become free completely to think that they would all rebel against those in charge. If those who ruled acted justly their would be no racional grounds to do so.- YOU ARE SCARE MONGERING ON THEIR BEHALF!
Er... yeah..
Where have you dug all this up from? I studied social science for 8 yrs before coming over to the dark side of traditional science, hence my interest in your posts, and my particular questions. To promote the theories in the way you are, it is usually beneficial to have first read up fully on both social theory, the history behind it and current thinking. Passion for a subject is admirable, but don't let it blind you to what has been before and since. If you like, I can point you in a good direction, but I do not want to appear presumptuous.
Littlestone, do you like rhubarb crumble and custard?
-
t is complete assumption to say that should people become free completely to think that they would all rebel against those in charge. If those who ruled acted justly their would be no racional grounds to do so.- YOU ARE SCARE MONGERING ON THEIR BEHALF!
Er... yeah..
Where have you dug all this up from? I studied social science for 8 yrs before coming over to the dark side of traditional science, hence my interest in your posts, and my particular questions. To promote the theories in the way you are, it is usually beneficial to have first read up fully on both social theory, the history behind it and current thinking. Passion for a subject is admirable, but don't let it blind you to what has been before and since. If you like, I can point you in a good direction, but I do not want to appear presumptuous.
Littlestone, do you like rhubarb crumble and custard?
That is an evasion, your assumption would naturally scare people, my critic hardly unjustified.
-
As a theoretical question - how can one discern differences between living in an all-encompassing repressive ideological hegemony as described by Littlestone and living under paranoid delusions with a very real belief of above hegemonic state?
When a completely pervasive state wielding ideological control is posited we end up in a morpheus/red or blue pill scenario. Every statement can be validly challenged by the opposing viewpoint; "you would say that because you are ideologically constrained/suffering from delusions" (delete as applicable).
The fact that you avoid the rhubarb question is worrying...
-
Why would my assumption scare people? I haven;t actually made an assumption, other than pointing out your entire theory seems to rest on deviance. And you haven't as yet explained where you have got all this from.
I don't evade questions, and I certainly don't try and throw people off my own weak spots by promoting others as evasive.
So I repeat, where have you dug all this up from? Internet? a book? A degree in social science?
Oh yeah, and do you like rhubarb crumble and custard? It is an important question...
-
As a theoretical question - how can one discern differences between living in an all-encompassing repressive ideological hegemony as described by Littlestone and living under paranoid delusions with a very real belief of above hegemonic state?
Offer them rhubarb crumble...
When a completely pervasive state wielding ideological control is posited we end up in a morpheus/red or blue pill scenario. Every statement can be validly challenged by the opposing viewpoint; "you would say that because you are ideologically constrained/suffering from delusions" (delete as applicable).
Yup. It is a shame because much of what Littlestone states is actually a really interesting foundation of modern sociological thinking, but to pursue it you need to indulge in more than just one set immovable viewpoint. There are so many colours to this, why only enjoy one?
-
All societies have rules, whether a modern capitalist state or a hunter-gatherer tribe. The rules are either tacitly or formally agreed and generally imposed on all the society's members with some penalty for those who do not follow these rules. Acceptance of the rules is necessary to remain a member of that society.
It is true that there are usually differentials of wealth and power within most societies and that there is a natural tendancy for cliques to develop and attempt to become self-propagating in order to maintain or improve their positions. An extreme case would be a master-slave system or a feudal arrangement of powerful wealthy overlords and a mass of poor serfs.
Whilst it could be said that western democracies are far from being wholly fair, there are measures to try to restrict any self propagating cliques that may develop. Taxation being one such method with higher than proportionate rates for the higher paid. This being a balance to try to be acceptable to all members within the society, although complicated by being part of a world economy. There is encouragement to promote a meritocracy to allow free movement of those more able to become more wealthy. Whether this has worked well enough is open to debate but successive governments have tried to encourage this in most western democratic states.
The concept of paying people for their effort rather that their success may be less discriminatory to the less able, but has not proved wholly successful in the long term. Unfortunately, measuring how hard someone is trying (as opposed to succeeding) in a pursuit is not practical, and the tendancy was to effectively discourage those who would make the best contribution to the society as a whole (why should they bother?).
So, if I get the overall drift, the problem that society does have a way of "reacting" to individuals who do not comply is really to be expected and part of living with other humans, whatever the society.
I particularly like rhubarb crumble and custard BTW.
-
Oh yeah, and do you like rhubarb crumble and custard? It is an important question...
Maybe we need a (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenakedscientists.com%3A8080%2Fforum%2FThemes%2Fnaksci%2Fimages%2Fenglish%2Fnew_poll.gif&hash=8503622d0960458a57a5652170312de4) on this question especially as (with Variola's expertise) through it we can solve all societies ills! [;D]
-
All societies have rules, whether a modern capitalist state or a hunter-gatherer tribe. The rules are either tacitly or formally agreed and generally imposed on all the society's members with some penalty for those who do not follow these rules. Acceptance of the rules is necessary to remain a member of that society.
That is spot on, my reference to Littlestone about deviance was in reference to that. Most of our founding laws are based on social norms, to go against that is deviance. To allow positive-freedom as in LS first post would go against the laws, the laws that LS has put forward as controlling us. Based on that supposition, I could use the emotive crime of paedophillia, and argue that it should not be a crime as it is a way of thinking, that is controlled. If we are to have a 'free' society then paedophiles should be allowed to express themselves. Of course, it would be nonsense, not many people would support such a notion because it goes against norms, it is considered wholly deviant by society, a society that welcomes that particular law-it is a negative freedom.
It is true that there are usually differentials of wealth and power within most societies and that there is a natural tendancy for cliques to develop and attempt to become self-propagating in order to maintain or improve their positions. An extreme case would be a master-slave system or a feudal arrangement of powerful wealthy overlords and a mass of poor serfs.
Whilst it could be said that western democracies are far from being wholly fair, there are measures to try to restrict any self propagating cliques that may develop. Taxation being one such method with higher than proportionate rates for the higher paid. This being a balance to try to be acceptable to all members within the society, although complicated by being part of a world economy. There is encouragement to promote a meritocracy to allow free movement of those more able to become more wealthy. Whether this has worked well enough is open to debate but successive governments have tried to encourage this in most western democratic states.
Yes exactly, idealistically we live in a meritocracy, with the ability to move within social classes, and encouragement on self development. It is debatable on a squillion different levels, have governments encouraged a meritocratic view, is movement within class structure achievable, is the way class is defined correct, the glass ceiling, why does society idolise the mediocre but ignore true achievement, self-fulfilling prophecy blah blah blah I could go on for hours-but I am mindful this is a chat section [:)]
The concept of paying people for their effort rather that their success may be less discriminatory to the less able, but has not proved wholly successful in the long term. Unfortunately, measuring how hard someone is trying (as opposed to succeeding) in a pursuit is not practical, and the tendancy was to effectively discourage those who would make the best contribution to the society as a whole (why should they bother?).
So, if I get the overall drift, the problem that society does have a way of "reacting" to individuals who do not comply is really to be expected and part of living with other humans, whatever the society.
I rather feel I have missed out on all the drugging that has been going on according to LS.. [???] Unless of course it is refeering tot he control of thought perpetuated by media but I don't think it is that subtle.
I particularly like rhubarb crumble and custard BTW.
Then you are humbly invited to join the cult [;D]
-
Oh yeah, and do you like rhubarb crumble and custard? It is an important question...
Maybe we need a (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenakedscientists.com%3A8080%2Fforum%2FThemes%2Fnaksci%2Fimages%2Fenglish%2Fnew_poll.gif&hash=8503622d0960458a57a5652170312de4) on this question especially as (with Variola's expertise) through it we can solve all societies ills! [;D]
[;D] [;D] [;D] [;D] [;D] [;D] [;D]
Yes we do, all should worship the rhubarb crumble, it is the way to freedom from negative desserts and topping control. Is it not true that Marx himself said that "Rhubarb crumble is the opiate of the people" ?
-
ladies and gentelmen I would like to point out actually that for all the horror of the system you know of there is an ever greater under-current going on in secrate. truly Negative freedom is the tip of the ice burge.
It is clear that those who rule in reality are criminally insane, psycopathic lunatics. They seem to know no end in terms of the depraved horrors that they are prepared to sink in order to keep their power and position.
The rulers are not fit for purpose in the extreme, currently reading this as some will be, their sigluar concern will be, what do I have to do to stay where I am? And that it! They are irrational and then some.
The question for the rest of us who are rational is do we really want to have psycopathic lunitics running anything? let alone being on top?
Racionality should carry the day here, the rulers sadly are anything but!
-
As a theoretical question - how can one discern differences between living in an all-encompassing repressive ideological hegemony as described by Littlestone and living under paranoid delusions with a very real belief of above hegemonic state?
Very cleaver agent three. and a good question as if we are to live in a truly free society, then the people present should be able to know- that they are living in a truly free society.
When a completely pervasive state wielding ideological control is posited we end up in a morpheus/red or blue pill scenario. Every statement can be validly challenged by the opposing viewpoint; "you would say that because you are ideologically constrained/suffering from delusions" (delete as applicable).
The fact that you avoid the rhubarb question is worrying...
ofcourse I am, yet Berlin' theory which is under disscussion, clearly calls for it and in a negatively free society you do live. Ergo no delusion at all agent three!
-
So, if I get the overall drift, the problem that society does have a way of "reacting" to individuals who do not comply is really to be expected and part of living with other humans, whatever the society.
No sadly you do not get the overall drift, the overall drift is you live in a slave prison state- a cave and as you live in a cave, an illusion; those that rule feel they can do what ever they want to, to you and everyone else and get away scot-free. Apparenlty if know one knows, it never happened- I'm just here to say bo---locks to that!
-
I'm just here to say bo---locks to that!
Well, thanks for that.
-
The class which has the means of rhubarb crumble production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it.
To those who have studied social theory - I thoroughly recommend reading Marx and mentally replacing capital with crumble at every instance. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Das_Kapital/Chapter_4 (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Das_Kapital/Chapter_4)
-
And replace money with custard.... [:)]
-
There really is no Blofelt character (stroking a cat) controlling the world. There are people who wield power, but generally they have got there because they wanted to and the rest of us let them. And their power is limited. There is no fixed hegemony but rather a changing and mobile one and, though there is much inertia, it can and does change. There is no conspiracy with men in smoke filled rooms (probably smoke free nowadays) plotting how the world shall develop. Sure, there are those who try and some have political and financial influence, but their goals are usually much more simple. Politicians have a bad name but, generally (if not always), they are well intentioned and their power is hugely constrained by the system in which they work.
Societies do take on some anthropomorphic characteristics, and this concept is often reinforced by the media's use of shorthand comments on political matters by referring to a country having a point of view rather than just some of its people. There are people who wield influence of course, and it cannot be denied that lobby groups play a role in changing policies, but they can have influence one week and lose it the next. Sometimes these ideas can take hold of governments. The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein is worth a read if you can stick at it as an example of how political ideas can influence how governments behave. The influence of the lobby groups, like "The American Enterprise Institute" had a profound impact of the Bush administration in the USA is another example. But generally these are temporary, allbeit if over many years, and are not a built-in feature of the way society has to develop.
For better or worse much of what happens is rather out-of-control; the recent financial crisis being an example. Most things that go wrong (and some that go right) are cock-ups rather than conspiracies. This does not mean that the system dose not seem to behave in a controlled way, but that is how systems develop.
While I've been typing this lot 4 people have posted so sorry if it appears irrelevent.
-
So I am agent three now - do I get a uniform?
Are you really positing the idea of complete ideological control? You do realise that these ideas have been discussed to death, and most social theorists have moved on or refined their ideas? I found Empire (hardt and negri) to be a good read (you can get it on the web but its a huge download) and gramsci's prison notebooks are an essential grounding - for a more detailed modern critical look you could try
Jonathan Joseph, 'Hegemony: A Realist Analysis', Studies in Critical Realism, 2002 Routledge/London
Mark Rupert, ‘Producing Hegemony: The Politics of Mass Production and American Global Power.’ (1995)Cambridge University Press/Cambridge
-
So I am agent three now - do I get a uniform?
You can still avoid becoming an agent of the evil empire...
Now where did I see that quote on wearing a special tin-foil hat!
I am now sat here in the dark.... wearing a rubber outfit and tin foil on my head to ward off lightening.
Oh, there it is! ... Works for lightening protection as well as mind-control, eh Variola! [;D]
imatfaal - Looks like you uniform should be rubber, er apparently [:o]
-
Oh that's good I already have a rubber uniform Damn Damn didnt mean to say that
-
Oh, there it is! ... Works for lightening protection as well as mind-control, eh Variola!
imatfaal - Looks like you uniform should be rubber, er apparently
[;D] [;D] [;D]
Well a word of warning about rubber outfits, they are not the most flattering to wear...especially if you have been devout to the cult of crumble and custard...!!
I don't need a beach body plan.... I need the Rubber Suit plan!!
It goes with my rubber walls.....and the jacket they give me to hug myself with....
-
I think it's all a load of old rowlocks.
There is no such thing as "neagative freedom". Freedom can only have a positive value. Seems to me these socialist scientist types need to crack the old math books a bit more.
-
I don't need a beach body plan.... I need the Rubber Suit plan!!
Yeah, definitely avoid the beach body plan - Sand inside you rubber suit is a nightmare!! ... er, I imagine [:o]
-
I'm just here to say bo---locks to that!
Well, thanks for that.
Say that alot I assume.
-
So I am agent three now - do I get a uniform?
Are you really positing the idea of complete ideological control?
That's impossible no one could achieve completely ideological control over everyone, don't be rediculas.
However ideological slavery does exist for those who have without thinking bought into it(capitalism) it is inherently from its inception a slave ideology, constructed to be so.
Besides the critic of the systems, here in this post- has nothing to do with ideological control, but rather ideological supression of those who think differently.
You do realise that these ideas have been discussed to death, and most social theorists have moved on or refined their ideas?
Really all the scientist took the money and said "dont matter does it, I'm rich now, screw the people- who cares about freedom anyway" Please what a joke. And considering you previous statement about ideological control maybe your mixing the issues up- for scientist might have given up on ideologcal control.
I found Empire (hardt and negri) to be a good read (you can get it on the web but its a huge download) and gramsci's prison notebooks are an essential grounding - for a more detailed modern critical look you could try
Jonathan Joseph, 'Hegemony: A Realist Analysis', Studies in Critical Realism, 2002 Routledge/London
Mark Rupert, ‘Producing Hegemony: The Politics of Mass Production and American Global Power.’ (1995)Cambridge University Press/Cambridge
Thankyou I'll check them when I can.
-
There really is no Blofelt character (stroking a cat) controlling the world. There are people who wield power, but generally they have got there because they wanted to and the rest of us let them. And their power is limited.
Power is always limited by something, I never suggested blofelt but anyway. I have to disagee there as when the elite took power from the kings of old and invented Democracy naturally amoung the families involved, one would stand up and take the majority of power, therefore althought the elite are surely families working together within that is one individual who holds the majority of it.
There is no fixed hegemony but rather a changing and mobile one and, though there is much inertia, it can and does change.
ofcourse there is no hegemony- those that rule do not want one. What can change? the hegemony that does not exist?
There is no conspiracy with men in smoke filled rooms (probably smoke free nowadays) plotting how the world shall develop.
Sorry the system itself did not just appear it has been designed and by people, these same people or rather thier desendents still today have the ability to change the system and modifiy it.
Sure, there are those who try and some have political and financial influence, but their goals are usually much more simple. Politicians have a bad name but, generally (if not always), they are well intentioned and their power is hugely constrained by the system in which they work.
Politicians have very little if any power today negative freedom has taken power from them, and given it to the market- hence business decides what politicians used to decide, politicians today can do little more than add laws. And even there business has a huge say, in this sense the politicians no longer represent the poeple but actually represent business' and those that own them-The elite.
Societies do take on some anthropomorphic characteristics, and this concept is often reinforced by the media's use of shorthand comments on political matters by referring to a country having a point of view rather than just some of its people. There are people who wield influence of course, and it cannot be denied that lobby groups play a role in changing policies, but they can have influence one week and lose it the next. Sometimes these ideas can take hold of governments.
What ideas? the ideas of lobby groups?
The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein is worth a read if you can stick at it as an example of how political ideas can influence how governments behave. The influence of the lobby groups, like "The American Enterprise Institute" had a profound impact of the Bush administration in the USA is another example. But generally these are temporary, allbeit if over many years, and are not a built-in feature of the way society has to develop.
Everything has some role to play- to a degree.
For better or worse much of what happens is rather out-of-control; the recent financial crisis being an example.
That is rediculas, they new the crisis was comming long before, how is it may I ask you that the fashion industry which takes years to prepare its clothes had all the lines ready to exploit the conservative trend that the crisis would cause- They knew before hand and prepared for it- its the elite and co that buy that stuff anyway.
Most things that go wrong (and some that go right) are cock-ups rather than conspiracies. This does not mean that the system dose not seem to behave in a controlled way, but that is how systems develop.
I will agree that not everything can be foreseen. However as with the crisis they knew it was comming and used it- to expel those they do not want upstairs, to increase holding so on so forth- banking also tried to exploit the tax payer.
While I've been typing this lot 4 people have posted so sorry if it appears irrelevent.
Its ok
-
I think it's all a load of old rowlocks.
There is no such thing as "neagative freedom". Freedom can only have a positive value. Seems to me these socialist scientist types need to crack the old math books a bit more.
A freedom to kill, surely would have a negative value.
I was wondering actually
Agent four: denial; There is no negative freedom.
Agent five: Anger; It all rubbish- shut up!
Agent six; barganing; Please stop posting about this havent we been through it all!
Agent seven: Exceptance; Look just except it, its the way it is!
-
A good question as if we are to live in a truly free society, then the people present should be able to know- that they are living in a truly free society.
So as a question to all of you, what would prove that you do live in a free society, where all the rights and freedoms you are told you have-you actually have?
I think there most will say, I need A B and C ohhh so clearly as it stands,I live in a hell hole!
I would suggest first: Knowing who is in control.
Secound: very few lies present within the system itself.
Third: seeing your rights and freedoms actively respected by those that rule.
Fourth: actually being able to use all freedoms stated in conjunction with three.
as a starter,under that-what world do we live in?
-
I think it's all a load of old rowlocks.
There is no such thing as "neagative freedom". Freedom can only have a positive value. Seems to me these socialist scientist types need to crack the old math books a bit more.
A freedom to kill, surely would have a negative value.
Freedom ranges from total freedom (totally unconstrained) to almost no freedom.
How can it be negative?
-
I'm just here to say bo---locks to that!
Well, thanks for that.
Say that alot I assume.
Only when utterly bored of a conversation.
-
I think it's all a load of old rowlocks.
There is no such thing as "neagative freedom". Freedom can only have a positive value. Seems to me these socialist scientist types need to crack the old math books a bit more.
A freedom to kill, surely would have a negative value.
I was wondering actually
Agent four: denial; There is no negative freedom.
Agent five: Anger; It all rubbish- shut up!
Agent six; barganing; Please stop posting about this havent we been through it all!
Agent seven: Exceptance; Look just except it, its the way it is!
Anarchist:1 Hey I have read this stuff and made a strawman argument against 'The System'. I am going to post it up all over the internet and when people challenge my view I will resort to more tripe to try and cover up my inadequate statements.
-
Ok here I go!!!!
If you put reality TV on and don't vote and remain ignorant of your rights and that you have a voice, then you have negative freedom. The present Government in Britain loves us to do all this but it is up to us to educate our children and make sure they have a voice.
-
Ok here I go!!!!
If you put reality TV on and don't vote and remain ignorant of your rights and that you have a voice, then you have negative freedom. The present Government in Britain loves us to do all this but it is up to us to educate our children and make sure they have a voice.
Well, no. If you had no freedom, you would not be allowed to watch Reality TV, and you'd be forced to vote for the Supreme Leader.
I still don't how you can have less than no freedom. Was "negative freedom" something dreamed up by a politician or some brown-necker twit in marketing?
-
I think it's all a load of old rowlocks.
There is no such thing as "neagative freedom". Freedom can only have a positive value. Seems to me these socialist scientist types need to crack the old math books a bit more.
A freedom to kill, surely would have a negative value.
Freedom ranges from total freedom (totally unconstrained) to almost no freedom.
How can it be negative?
I was relating it to your statement, under berlin a freedom to kill is a positive freedom. I said neagtive value interms of it being bad and so negative. under that positive freedom are good freedoms used for the benefit of others and society and negative freedoms the reverse.
-
I'm just here to say bo---locks to that!
Well, thanks for that.
Say that alot I assume.
Only when utterly bored of a conversation.
Cute- tired of trying to convince someone its ok to do such and such...
-
I think it's all a load of old rowlocks.
There is no such thing as "neagative freedom". Freedom can only have a positive value. Seems to me these socialist scientist types need to crack the old math books a bit more.
A freedom to kill, surely would have a negative value.
I was wondering actually
Agent four: denial; There is no negative freedom.
Agent five: Anger; It all rubbish- shut up!
Agent six; barganing; Please stop posting about this havent we been through it all!
Agent seven: Exceptance; Look just except it, its the way it is!
Anarchist:1 Hey I have read this stuff and made a strawman argument against 'The System'. I am going to post it up all over the internet and when people challenge my view I will resort to more tripe to try and cover up my inadequate statements.
Are you going to cry?
-
Ok here I go!!!!
If you put reality TV on and don't vote and remain ignorant of your rights and that you have a voice, then you have negative freedom. The present Government in Britain loves us to do all this but it is up to us to educate our children and make sure they have a voice.
A voice to vote for someone that has no power and can do nothing! there's democracy! Woww I feel just fine with that situation.
-
Will say here actually that its the agents that hold a lot of blame!
WHY? because if this world had men in it, then when the pig said "go screw this person" the man would reply NO! Probably No pig!
As always the lack of men, and the sad existence of spineless little cowards ruins it for everyone....
-
I'm just here to say bo---locks to that!
Well, thanks for that.
Say that alot I assume.
Only when utterly bored of a conversation.
Cute- tired of trying to convince someone its ok to do such and such...
You see yourself as some revolutionary soul fighting against the apathy and control from which you seem to think we all suffer. These theories you keep spouting have been around for years and years, and you have no concept of how deep they run. All you are concerned about is your own personal projection, and how you want others to see you, anything that goes against that is treated with derision and negativity from you. Not bad from someone who is trying to 'free people' is it?
Lets not kid ourselves this is about you and your seemingly desperate need to create a set projection of yourself. And when it fails you readjust your stance to fit this. Ever heard of Festinger? I doubt it. (quick quick, Wiki it now and read up so you can argue you know all about it!!)
You simply have no idea what you are talking about, my guess is you found an article somewhere have taken it as your security blanket and now keep spouting from it, it kinds falls apart when you are met with people who have read more than a pamphlet equivalent of social theory. You are embarrassing to yourself, especially with those last few posts.
I am not know for my tolerance of idiots, especially those who cannot form cohesive arguments. I for one will not respond directly to you again, I have better things to do with my time... like watch paint dry...
-
Will say here actually that its the agents that hold a lot of blame!
WHY? because if this world had men in it, then when the pig said "go screw this person" the man would reply NO! Probably No pig!
As always the lack of men, and the sad existence of spineless little cowards ruins it for everyone....
[???]
Would you like a jacket to hug yourself with LS??
-
This has stopped being a discussion and gone too far into personal attacks, so I'm locking it.
Littlestone, please review the acceptable usage policy on insulting and aggressive language: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0