Random Bounces 6/10/17:
Bounce 1 (in reference to discourse: facebook.com/groups/3760629 … 5850999462):
“Not to mention, the invention of “the corporation”, the non-man, the soulless, lifeless entity (although legally recognized as “persons”) with profit as its sole reason and purpose for existing.
Ambrose Bierce’s Devil’s Dictionary defines it as ‘an ingenious device for obtaining profit without individual responsibility’.
Here’s a fun challenge: Notice where, how and with whom Give&Take is used compared with where, how and with whom Be-Do-Have is used, to notice where and how abuses exist.” -John Juster
I would also note, John, a point brought to my attention by either Ken Taylor or John Davies from a PhilosophyTalk podcast: that corporations are inherently sociopathic: they don’t care, they don’t feel, they’re completely lacking in empathy. In other words:
“It doesn’t feel!!! It can’t be human!!!”
:that is despite what the Citizen’s United ruling tells us. That said, what I mainly came back for was to articulate on your give/take dynamic in the context of a conceptual model I have been nurturing for some time: Efficiency or that which is maximized by minimizing the differential between the resources put into an act and the resources gotten out. And I present it as a Metaphysics of Efficiency that is opposed to the Metaphysics of Power (and the Culture of More that results (which has dominated our culture so far.
Now, given the window I have here, I’ll have to elaborate as we go along. But your point gives me an opportunity to apply it in your terms. (And I would also note that the concept has been haunting me throughout my immersion in Dworkin’s book.) It seems to me that your give and take dynamic pretty much represents the Metaphysics of Power in that such relationships always end up asymmetrical in that, as I said before, the “taking” part of it always seems more in the interest of the individual subject. The be/do/have dynamic, on the other hand, seems to support the Metaphysics of Efficiency in that is about an individual act that only takes in the resources it needs and, thereby, leaves resources available to other acts of be/do/have. Once again, I’ll have to explain as we go along. This is just the wide swashes.
*
Bounce 2 (in reference to discourse: facebook.com/groups/6757450 … 0110161057):
“I think this may be a bias on the part of Marx. Much like the mistake he made regarding the market, he thought that the market was a capitalist phenomenon when it was in fact a phenomenon of any industrialized economy—though it wasn’t his fault, there weren’t any other industrialized economic systems to compare to. In this case I would argue that man to man alienation could appear under any political system where people were induced to compete. Feudal lords could induce it just as easily as evil managers.” –David A. Anderson
I would go deeper than that, David, in arguing that when it comes to Capitalism, there is nothing new under the sun. It pretty much comes down to what has always been the case: under whatever ideological system, there have always been a group of people who felt they were entitled to more than others, even if it came at the other’s expense.
This is why we always see common frameworks under the deceptions. As I like to joke:
It use to be pray hard and follow these principles, and you too may enter the kingdom of heaven.
Now it’s:
Work hard and follow these principles, and you too may enter the kingdom of success.
*
Anyway guys, there was so much more I wanted to get to here. I apologize for what I couldn’t.