About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 80

Thursday, July 29 - 3:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John A. wrote:
What I gather from your post is it would be more accurate had I said:
"the Byzantine Empire..were the world's sole custodians of [THE OVERWHELMINGLY VAST MAJORITY] of the ancient philosophical, historical and artistic texts?"
Is that better?
Why are you so adamant about keeping the word "sole"?

This is much better: From roughly the 5th century until the 13th century, the Byzantines were the major preservers of Aristotle's philosophical texts.

Are you and Ed T. playing tag-team giving each other Atlas points, merely to get revenge onMerlin?



(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 7/29, 7:32am)




Post 81

Thursday, July 29 - 8:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Merlin:

Why are you so adamant about keeping the word "sole"?


Because it's true, at the very least it is if we're discussing the vast majority volumes of texts the rest of the world didn't have during that time period. And it wasn't just Aristotle, they also had the works of Plato, Xenophon, Homer, Demosthenes, Aeschylus, Aristophanes, et al. The Latin West did not have the complete works of Aristotle (among a slew of others), and when the Caliphates and their scholars started acquiring copies of these texts from the Byzantines, we are well into the late medieval period. Several centuries after the Library of Constantinople was constructed to keep these texts.

Even here, what credit can we give to the Islamic world? It was non-Islamic texts, copies of which they obtained from the Christian World of Byzantium, written by European pagans, that gave them this period of reason? Again, Islam had nothing to do with it. Nor did Christianity had anything to do with the Byzantine's bibliophile nature.






Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 82

Friday, July 30 - 4:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The only way I see that "sole" applies is that the Byzantines were the only people who had the entire corpus of Aristotle's works -- which I pointed out to you (post 77) -- from roughly the 5th until the 13th century. Your original claim (post 37) that the Byzantines were the "world's sole custodians" remains an egregious error.

No amount of your pleading, verbal slight-of-hand, or diversions can erase that fact. Nor will I waste any more of my time on it. Bye.

"There are some people who, if they don't already know, you can't tell 'em."  - attributed to Yogi Berra

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 7/30, 4:57am)




Post 83

Friday, July 30 - 8:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wow Merlin "egregious error"? That is absolutely absurd for you to think that.

"The only way I see that "sole" applies is that the Byzantines were the only people who had the entire corpus of Aristotle's works -- "

Well that is about as CLOSE as you were even willing to admit to after a marathon of posts. You weren't even prepared to give them that much credit, nor did you even understand Adronicus of Rhodes was before the Byzantines, reflecting your myopic understanding of custodianship and how it can change hands throughout time.

And HOW do you reconcile your attitude with Phil's egregious error? Unless you're willing to point out his egregious error, I have no reason to believe you are anything more than a hypocrite.

I know now how you judge people. Arbitrarily. Thanks for giving me the knowledge to know there is every reason to ignore your posts from now on.




(Edited by John Armaos on 7/30, 9:01am)




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 84

Friday, July 30 - 9:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You weren't even prepared to give them that much credit
Hogwash. I gave them major credit in post 80. However, you want to give them all the credit, despite the existence of Latin translations of Aristotle in Europe not part of the Byzantine Empire. Peter Abelard rose to fame around 1100 in Paris and had read Boethius' translations of Aristotle.  Preparing to say more about Abelard, Aristotle's Children says: "The only Aristotelian works in circulation were the few treatises on logical reasoning known as the Organon, originally translated into Latin and commented on by Boethius. For centuries these writings had been gathering dust in Catholic monasteries ... " (p. 106; my bold). Compare that to John's last sentence in post 74.
nor did you even understand Adronicus of Rhodes was before the Byzantines
LOL and complete hogwash! See post 52.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 7/31, 7:09am)




Post 85

Friday, July 30 - 9:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hypocrite ignored.



Post 86

Friday, July 30 - 9:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hypocrite ignored. Having fun, John?
(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 7/30, 9:06am)




Post 87

Friday, July 30 - 11:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
On a related note, perhaps one of Schoenberg's between the Armaos's natural and Jetton's sharp, the question is why were ancient Greek texts housed at Constantinople?   Easy answer: they never saw any discontinuity between their time and the hellenistic, classical or archaic ages.  After all, we do not archive the Declaration of Independence on the theory that it comes from before the New Deal or the Jacksonian Era.

Just to note, also, that it is incorrect to call them "Byzantine."  At best the error is like calling all New Englanders -- or al Americans -- Bostonians. 

The phrase "Byzantine Empire" was coined and popularized by French scholars such as Montesquieu...  Montesquieu regarded the Empire at Constantinople as corrupt and decadent. ... The English scholar Edward Gibbon in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire treated the Empire after the sixth century as an epic of unrelieved degradation and corruption.
 The people who lived in the "Byzantine Empire" never knew nor used the word "Byzantine." They know themselves to be Romans, nothing more and absolutely nothing less.
WHAT, IF ANYTHING, IS A BYZANTINE? by Clifton R. Fox, Revised 3/29/96.
The original version of this article appeared in the Celator [Volume 10, Number 3: March 1996]. Portions are also quoted in the book Ancient Coin Collecting by Wayne G. Sayles, published [June 1996]

http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what_if_anything_is_a_byzantine.01.htm

Moreover, Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire. 




Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 88

Friday, July 30 - 11:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No they certainly never called themselves Byzantines. But I still think it's a useful term to differentiate it from the prior Roman Period for a few reasons. Eastern Roman Empire doesn't quite convey that eventually the Western Empire fell, and that the Eastern Empire essentially became something autonomous. And you also have the odd situation where we call something "Roman" yet for the most part the city of Rome was under the control of other civilizations. But that is correct Michael, they still regarded themselves and called themselves Romans.

Byzantium (latin translation of the Greek name Byzantion) also was the original Greek name for the city, as opposed to the later Roman name of Constantinople, so the Greek name captures the essence of Hellenism that dominated the empire.



Post 89

Friday, July 30 - 12:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Philip Coates: The liberation of the European world from the Dark Ages took centuries.
This is ground we covered before. 
http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/Dissent/0195.shtml

Based on that lead, when I wrote an article about the great fairs of medieval Champagne (whence the troy ounce for precious metal, for instance), I began with an open mind.  I found many citations from academic historians about the details of mercantile life in the late Roman and early medieval periods, what we call "the Dark Ages."  They were not the best of times. But the Roman Empire was little better.  Arbitrarily, the Hellenistic Era is said to to have run from Alexander to Cleopatra, but Roman armies reduced Greece 171-143 BC.  Dramatic as Aleander was, his world was already Hellenized. Philip arranged a marriage for his other son to the neice of Mauloseos, (The "Mausoleum" was his tomb.)  That family of Carians was, in fact, Lycian or maybe even Persian, the descendants of previous rulers. 

"So far has Athens left the rest of mankind behind in thought and expression that her pupils have become the teachers of the world, and she has made the name of Hellas distinctive no longer of race but of intellect, and the title of Hellene a badge of education rather than of common descent."  -- Isocrates.

The basic premise is false.  No one said, "Hey, it's 458 AD, put out the light, will you, it's time for the Dark Ages."  ...  'Whoa!  1215 AD already, almost slept through the Aquitaine Renaissance!" 




Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 90

Friday, July 30 - 6:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John, have you ever see tnis medal by Pisanello?



When John Paleologos came to Venice to plead for an alliance,  Pisnaello created this medal, the first such in history.  It calls him "King and Emperor of the Romans" -- but does so in Greek. 

Pisanello (c. 1395 probably 1455), known professionally as Antonio di Puccio Pisano or Antonio di Puccio da Cereto, also erroneously called Vittore Pisano by Giorgio Vasari, was one of the most distinguished painters of the early Italian Renaissance and Quattrocento.
In 1439, the Council of Florence negotiated with the Byzantine Emperor John VIII Palaiologos. On this occasion Pisanello struck a commemorative medal of the emperor. He also made some drawings with portraits of the emperor and his retinue (on display at the Louvre, Paris), suggesting he had a commission for a painting or fresco for the Este residence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pisanello

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 7/30, 7:30pm)




Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 91

Friday, July 30 - 10:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No I haven't seen that coin before, definitely interesting. I listened to a lecture recently that compared and contrasted Greek and Roman culture, and it was interesting to learn during the struggle for Greek Independence from Turkey in the late 1800's Greeks wanting to distinguish themselves from the Turks to the rest of the world would say "Είμαι Ρωμαίος" 'I am Roman'. Even four centuries after Constantinople fell they were still calling themselves Romans. I guess after Independence they decided to reclaim their identity of being Hellenes. The region of Greece my father was from is called "Roumeli" meaning land of the Romans, but it stands as an unofficial name. Officially the region is just called Central Greece.

What's funny too is that "Greek" isn't even what Greeks have ever called themselves. It was originally the name given by the Romans, who had their first contact with Greeks from a region in Epirus called "Graca"(?) I believe. So the word just stuck around to designate all Greek-speaking people as Greek.

So here we have Romans calling Greeks something they didn't call themselves, and then Greeks identifying themselves as Romans!







(Edited by John Armaos on 7/30, 11:18pm)




Post 92

Saturday, July 31 - 6:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
We will get back to the Ay-rabs in just a minute.   (Are you Eye-talian?, she asked.  I replied, "Why, are you eye-gnorant?")  Anyway...

The Greeks  came to call themselves "Hellenes" only in the classical age.  You can read the Greats, Plato, Aristotle, and so on, but in The Iliad, Homer calls them "Achaians."  Hellenes were one tribe with Achilles.  What people call themselves is often different from what others call them.  I learned that Grak-grak was the sound of a frog, just as them foreigners said "baa-baa."  Romans were never Roman and "Latins" were just one tribe.  Nemeth or Nimitz are Slavic names for Germans.  Friedrich Nietzsche found roots for "good" and "god" in "Goth" but they call themselves Deutsch (Dutch, Teuton, Tysk).   Everyone else calls them "Hungarians" and no one knows why, but we called ourselves "Magyar" with "gyar" (gar, etc) meaning "land" therefore "men of the land." 

I had a teacher in junior high who insisted (correctly) that he was not "Italian" because Italy is a peninsula and his family came from an island called "Sicily." 

We never bought into a lot of ethnicity.  (You get "professional Irish" in every parish.)  But, later, when I took up ancient numismatics, I got it: Sicily was divided Greek on the East and Catheginian on the West.  My father's family came from the west.  Palermo had an older Greek name Panormos (pan-hormones, honestly: "getting all ready" i.e., a place to fix your ship).  Funny thing about that his mother's family came from Corsica, also old Catheginian grounds.  Barcelona in Spain was the home of the Barca family: Hamilicar and Hannibal Barca. When the Jews were kicked out of Israel by the Romans, many found new homes among their cousins to the west. 

So, to bring this back, we confuse and conflate Arabs and Muslims, even though the people of Morocco, Tunisia, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Pakistan, and Indonesia are not "Arabic" at all, any more than Scots are English.  You speak pretty good English.  Are you English? 

I have said often that who you are inside is pretty much fixed.  A lot of Nature, a bit of Nurture, and a dab of Free Will bring you to a philosophy or a religion or a sport or a career.  Islam was adopted by peoples who had traditions going back 8,000 years if not 80,000.  Among those peoples are ranges of individuals.  People read themselves into their books.

Take this thing with not depicting Mohammed.  Some Muslims want to kill you for a cartoon of Mo.  But that is not what the prohibition is about.  NO GRAVEN IMAGES.  Do not worship idols.  Worship God.  Formless, nameless, eternal.  The purpose of the injunction  againt images of Mohammedn was to prevent worshipping him.   But these fanatics have made a idol out of Mohammed.  Just as in Constantinople there were wars between Iconoclasts (smashers of icons) and Iconodoules (slaves to icons).  No graven images.  It's in the Bible.  It's a Commandment. 

But I don't care if it rains or freezes
Long as I got my plastic Jesus
Sitting on the dashboard of my car.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 7/31, 9:27am)




Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 93

Saturday, July 31 - 5:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
  
When Barbara Branden lived in Santa Fe my book group had selected The Fountainhead as the book of the month and I asked if she would join us as I was the designated leader of the discussion. This group was decidedly liberal but we had a turnout of about 40 people where we normally had 6 or 7. I drove Ms. Branden from town to our little enclave of Eldorado where the meeting at our clubhouse was to take place. On the way, I related to her that I was the son of a minister and I was taken aback by her opinion (I can't remember her exact words) that I was certainly and irrevocably tainted by that fact. It's very hard to protest such an outright and unsubstantiated opinion (trying to prove a negative.) Nevertheless, I have a high regard of her and she was the highlight of the meeting.

Sam

WIJG?

(Edited by Sam Erica on 8/01, 5:49am)




Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 94

Sunday, August 1 - 5:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Sam confessed: " I related to her that I was the son of a minister and I was taken aback by her opinion (I can't remember her exact words) that I was certainly and irrevocably tainted by that fact."


That touches on several problems, the tangled roots of this discussion.   
  • Are we "irrevocably tainted" by negative experiences?
  • Can anyone ever change completely?  
  • Is there a "good enough" solution to the problem of taint? 
  • Can you get on with your life without getting over all of your inherited problems?
  • How do we measure taintedness?
  • Is it possible to be "irrevocably blessed" by good experiences? 
  • If so, and if blessedness can be measured, then, can we know whether you can be more blessed than tainted?  Or is this, like being Black in America, a "one drop rule."

Then, consider what this means for Islam versus Objectivism -- and Objectivism versus Mysticism.  Can we ever overcome the damage?  Are they irrevocably tainted by their culture and religion? 

Think about the Objectivists you know.  Many of them are "in church."  They only substituted one belief system for another, holy books and all.  They learn the liturgy, cite chapter and verse, and condemn those who stray from the path.  They do not welcome new ideas not found in the books.  They have an eschatology and look for signs of the final days.  For them, their life before Ayn Rand was one of error, but now they know the truth.

It may well be that this kind of Objectivism can, indeed, be successful in replacing other religions in the lives of some people.  It might not make them better people.  They will still want to nuke their enemies and retaliate against transgressors of their rights.  But at least we will be speaking the same language.  And that is a factor, one of those tangled roots.

In Merchants Make History, Ernst Samhaber said that a good merchant does not argue religion with his client.  The ancient Greeks, the Jews and others all opposed compound interest.  Sheep and wheat can reprroduce in abundance because they are living things.  For money to act like that is a violation of natural law.  (By analogy, consider slavery, also prevalent, and also a violation of natural law.)  So, instead of charging interest, the lender takes an interest, becomes a partner, shares your outcome, and profits thereby (hopefully).  That is an example of shariah applied to business.  It is valid.  In fact, venture capitalism works on this basis, not on lending at interest.  But if you close your mind because of the language of your client, you miss an opportunity to better your circumstances. 

Islam is no more incorrect than logical positivism.  But whether a logical positivist is a good business partner has more to with the person than the philosophy.

Are we at war with logical positivism?  Some Objectivists are.  They are what Jane Jacobs called Guardians.  Traders look for opportunities to benefit from communicating with strangers.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 8/01, 5:23am)




Post 95

Sunday, August 1 - 9:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael:

For money to act like that[re interest] is a violation of natural law.

I enjoyed your post, but that particular old world myth needs to die. There is nothing unnatural or coercive or perverting of economies about interest. It is the logical ying to the yang of depreciation. We can no more abolish the justification for the charging of interest(a recognition of the time discount of value now exchanged for a promise of value in the future) than we can abolish the fact of depreciation(ie, a recognition that value deteriorates over time), in the universe as it really works.

The two concepts are tied together, bound by a universe with hard laws, including, hard thermodynamic laws.

In a child's understanding of 'value' in a game of poker or monopoly, there is a zero sum game, with fixed and unchaging value proxies that are swapped. That isn't anything like actual economies of exchanged value for value(by way of value proxies.) It is from that child's understanding of 'interest' that the confusion over irrational mysterious 'growth' in the money supply comes.

In economies, we deal with two fundamentally different concepts of 'money'; static and dynamic. Static money is standing still, we can hold it, we can touch it. It is savings, it is money in an account. Money in motion -- income, spending is a 'flow' through our hands.

The two concepts are complementary and consistant, via accurate accounting principles, but they are separate concepts. If we focus only on 'static' money, as if the sum of all economies was a zero sum game, then we get confused over what 'interest' really is (as well as what depreciation really is.)

In healthy economies, value circulates(via the convenience of value-proxies.) We all exert human effort -- pull at our individual pump handles to create actual value -- which is an 'uphill' effort in this universe, as it is. The equivalent downhill effort -- consumption -- is the exchange of the value we create(or obtain or steal or tax)for the value produced by others.

Without the uphill effort -- the pulling on pump handles -- all that remains is consumption of deferred value, carcass carving. We can't eat the value-proxies, the value-proxies are IOUs, lubricant -- the water in the pipes. When we carry IOUs -- proxies for previous pulls on the pump handle -- into the future, the actual value that those value proxies will be exchanged for may not have actually been created yet, at the time we deferred present spending and accepted static value-proxies for our puls on the pump handle.

We can immediately spend current pulls on the pump handle -- income. No problem value for value in the present economies.

We can defer spending as savings, and spend them in the future. Spending in future economies.

We can sell interest in future pulls on the pump handle, in exchange for credit in the present economies-- future value for present value. We get credit -- the ability to consume present value in the present economies, in exchange for a promise to provide value in future economies. We pay for that credit with a future time series of pump handle pulls over time.

But, value deteriorates over time. If we buy a new Chevy on credit, and keep it for 5 years, and then decide we don't want it anymore, if we return the Chevy to the economies, we are returning less value than we originally took. It has depreciated over time. We've consumed part of the Chevy over time, simply by posessing it. If our incentive to payback our promise of future pump pulls is minimal, we might choose to payback that loan over ten years, or twenty years. The longer we take to payback the loan, the less energetically are we pulling on pump handles in the future to payback that loan. And yet, the Chevy deteriorates at a rate not governed by our incentive to payback our loan. So, there is a point at which the premium we pay on present value for future value incentifies us to payback our loan with sufficient additional pulls of future punp handles that makes up for the time factor of depreciation of value in the economies.

If we did not pay interest,(while the natural process of depreciation was 'allowed' to proceed), then over time, our economies would become perverted if we offered credit at all.

There is plenty of room for abuse in the concept of credit, but the process of charging interest, per se, is not abuse, no more than the process of 'allowing' depreciation to proceed is abuse.

Savings is deferred past pulls on the punp handle -- for which folks recive 'interest' from the institutions they lend to. Where does the deferred present value go? Economies have 'over-produced' if there is only savings without credit, resulting in a deflationary pressure. Fewer dollars chasing more actual value.

Credit is present consumption of future pulls on the pump handle? Where does the present value come from? Economies have 'under-produced' if there is only credit without savings, resulting in an inflationary pressure. More dollars chasing less actual value.

Our personal credit history has both a past and a future; the future is where the growth on our personal account history comes from.

Governments, by way of a properly functioning central bank, can adjust the total amount of water(value proxies) in the pipes to adjust for population growth, but only if they add the 'new water' in the private credit tanks, and not the government credit tanks, and end up holding a non-spendable 'note' in exchange for their manufactured new water. Central banks end up with two things : an obligation manufactured out of thin air(the value-proxies they printed and handed over to another bank), and an asset they can do nothing with(like spend in the economies) but exchange for returned value-proxies! As long as central banks do not directly participate in the economies with their manufactured value-proxies, they serve only as the boiler feedwater valves of the economies, admitting water into the pipes to maintain healthy circulation of value proxies.

They can even receive fees for their services, and not pervert the economies. However, it's clear, when governments take over a central bank and 'spend' the manufactured out of thin air new currency(which represents credit), they pervert the economies. Personal 'credit' is not infinite -- our future histories are not boundless, we are limited by population and personal factors. A nation in aggregate also does not have infinite credit, and can't directly inject manufactured value-proxies(credit not balanced with a personal liability or collateral to pay back)without perverting the economies.

'Interest' is abusable, but it is not the concept of interest itself that is the abuse. It is in fact required not to pervert the economies.

regards,
Fred




Post 96

Tuesday, August 3 - 8:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit




Post 97

Thursday, August 5 - 6:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My thread abuse continues, unabated, and unrepentant.

I did not put on the diagrams, but it is easy to see where Equity/investment fits into the pump/turbine diagram. It moves laterally from savings/credit, as an exchange of a relatively 'incompressible' value-proxy not at risk(cash) for a 'compressible' value proxy that is at risk. The balanced values of the compressible value proxies change, but the incompressible cash side of those transactions does not change. Spendable 'money' on the compressible side is purely imagined, unreal, until the moment -- the instant, the moment of transformation -- that it is exchanged back to cash.

Dividends from profits are periodic partial premiums paid to make the pieces of paper value-proxies more desirable/valuable.

So it is possible to exchange incompressible water for an alternative value proxy, one at risk, and so 'compressible.' It's theoretical value might shrink or expand, unrestrained by cash value except at the moment of exchange. When you do so, you receive a piece of paper and a symmetric accounting entry is made, a non-spendable asset on your books, a paper asset, and an obligation appears on someone else s books, the recipient of your spendable water. This exchange is made, spendable water is moved from your static tanks (savings or credit) to another entities spendable savings tank. No longer spendable by you, now spendable by them. In exchange for this, the value of your paper asset, which is now outside of the water loop, might grow or shrink over time (which also means, the value of someone else s liability -- the issuer of the equity -- might shrink or grow over time.) That paper asset is equity, ownership in the future value of the exchange of that paper asset back to a spendable value proxy in the economies. A market in the direct trading of those alternate paper assets exists, based on folks guesses about the future value of those alternative value proxies, and score is kept using a moving target -- the current value of the value proxy water in the pipes of the current economies.

This mechanism is how deferred value in present economies(as well as borrowed value from future economies, paid for with a promise to provide new future value)is converted into value in the future; to pay for new and better pumps, new and better turbines, new and better future economies. Because the static value exchanged for purely paper value proxies does not leave the economies, it is available to be spent/circulated by those who exchanged a piece of paper representing a future obligation for them.

This mechanism is far from the pulling of pump handles, and yet both rely on each other to exist.

The connection between them is tenuous these days. The rewards in that alternative value proxy market(as well as the risk)are boundless, and as we've seen, that massless value-proxy universe is filled with opportunities for abuse, for chicanery and deceit and con-men pulling stunts.
When our economies are dominated by 'derivative' transactions -- carcass carving -- as opposed to beast building -- the building of new pump stations and the active pulling on pump handles to actively create new value in the economies -- then we can almost see the economies coming to a grinding halt in the pump/turbine model of the economies.

The massless world of financial engineering, living outside of/orthogonal to the pump/turbine model of the economies, where 5000% leverage rules reign, as opposed to the 15% leverage rules that dominate the pump and turbine builders, can't sustain the economies. They have long stopped servicing the pump/turbine builders, and are only servicing themselves. They've attempted to build economies based on ... nothing, certainly not circulation of what is real, which is human value created and consumed by human beings.

A quadrillion times 0 is still 0, and that is where we are heading; towards economies where we have lost focus on what is real -- value -- and focus instead on the manipulation and abuse of value-proxies in ever more creative forms.

Value-proxies used to serve the creation of value, but that isn't our present view of the economies.





Post 98

Friday, August 6 - 7:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Lets ask Ishmeal.



Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 99

Wednesday, August 18 - 6:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Are we at war with Islam?

Not if we are intelligent. To say we are at war with Islam is foolish in that we should no more be "at war" with Islam than any other religion. Who is the "we" anyways? Is the "west" one people, one idea? No. It's far more important when involving yourself in these discussion to be utterly clear. Let's set that aside for a moment though and let me ask a question; How many of you have read Sun Tzu? Read it and weep for our path.

The rampant Islamphobia gripping the world today only plays into the hands of the extremists on all sides. Arguments like the one surrounding the Mosque and community center nearby the WTC site play right into the hands of Osama Bin Laden. Make no mistake, he is getting exactly what he wants. All those people railing against Islam and Muslims in general plays right into the disinforamtion campaign run by extremeists that makes more and more Muslims think that everyone hates them and is against them.

"We" feel comfortable with our "righteous" anger and hatred because "we" are sure "we" can just beat "them," bomb "them," and dominate "them" thus acheieving victory. All "our" moves have played into the extremists hands and "our" own extremists are profitting from it too.

You can't win a war of ideas with bombs and guns. You can't win a war of ideas by allying yourself with your intellectual opponents just becasue they hate someone you also hate. Even the objectivist movement (if there is one,) supposed bastion of reason has become bogged down in hate, sound bites, arrogance, and ignorance.

So go ahead......hate those Muslims, rail against them. Osama thanks you! Tell yourself that comments like mine are only appeasement caused by my fear of those Muslims. Keep on strutting about in arrogant bliss. What will happen to the world? Exactly what it deserves.

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 8/18, 6:24am)




Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.