A new sandpit for long side discussions, conspiracy theories, idees fixes and so on.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
A new sandpit for long side discussions, conspiracy theories, idees fixes and so on.
John Quiggin 
@Ikonoclast
Regarding philosophy, I am at most related to those whom Robert Heilbronner aptly called ‘The Worldly Philosophers’. Heilbronner’s work belongs to the category history of economic thought in Economics. I leave the universe to physicists and science fiction writers and, I suppose, to philosophers.
However, I can make a few technical points, which may or may not be relevant to you.
a) Systems (eg the ‘price system’ in say the Arrow-Debreu model in Economics, computing systems in physics) are generally not conceived of as ‘sub-systems’ of another system but are related to ‘an environment’. Hence boundaries of the system need to be specified. That is, the description of the boundaries determine the class of system (eg open system, closed system, etc).
b) The universe is classified as an isolated system (defined in terms of no material and energy exchange).
c) I did not use the term ‘system’, I enquired whether you use the word ‘system’ where I would use the word ‘environment’.
d) If you wish to deviate from a quite well established conceptual framework (including nomenclature) of ‘systems theory’, then, I would imagine, you need to say why. Moreover, some kind of argument, if not proof, would be required to establish (in the case of proof) that your approach is indeed more general then the existing framework (ie to show that the existing framework is a special case of your framework).
e) Economic models, which use a systems approach (eg all general equilibrium models – various equilibrium concepts, agency models – but excluding the DGE applied models using national accounts data) do NOT ignore resource constraints (confined to the Earth).
Gut feel reactions:
1. The dualism philosophy is, I believe, no longer interesting because of progress in scientific research, even though we still use the word ‘mind’ and the word ‘body’, and the word ‘mind’ is quite meaningful in specific contexts (‘in my mind’ meaning in my conceptual framework or the way I see it or in my opinion).
2. You once asked whether ‘free will’ is assumed in economic theory. I didn’t reply. I now have a hunch as to why you may have asked this question (you wanted to relate economic theory to some philosophical writing and put economics into one of your category boxes). I still don’t know how to answer this question because ‘free will’ is a nebulous concept to me. I can say that in none of the mainstream economic models is it assumed that people are ‘free to will’ having more wealth or income or power. On the contrary, individuals are assumed to be intelligent enough to not believe in magic. (They are worldly fellows, so to speak.) If you know of a society which is totally governed my magic that removes hunger, thirst, ….., then I’d say this is a ‘free will’ economy.
3. Not sure I read enough about ‘monistic’. The way you set up the ‘sub-systems’ of the universe (which, as said before, deviates from ‘mainstream’ systems theory), suggests to me that you will end up with a deterministic model. But why would, what you call, ‘wrong models’ not be simply part of a deterministic process? Watch out you don’t write a lot of words and introduce notation, which you don’t use analytically, to basically say this is what I believe is the truth from the universe. To repeat, this is my gut feeling response.
@GrueBleen
“Incidentally, your ‘institutional’ versus ‘physical’ is very close to N David Mermin’s famous ‘explanation’ versus ‘description’.”
Of course I don’t know about Mermin’s famous ‘explanation’ versus ‘description’. But I do know my ‘institutional’ and ‘physical or natural’ environments refers to mundane stuff economics is concerned with. The latter, the natural environment on planet earth, is the subject material of natural scientists. At times, the natural environment is treated in economics in an extremely simplified manner – ‘resources’ and these are finite. The institutional environment refers to how a society organises the economic problem of ‘resource allocation’ (akin to your question: Who gets what when and under which conditions.) Societies differ at any time and over time. Hence there are many observed, or conceivable institutional environments at any point in time and over time.
@Ikonoclast
Your #48
Your linked article is way too heavy for me, especially at this time of day – all those mathematical equations ‘n’ stuff.
But it seems that ‘entanglement’ is identical with gravitation: after all, every small pool of energy (aka ‘quantum particle’) has a gravitational effect on every other small pool of energy in the universe. But because there are numerous energy pools all over the place, it’s only the very localised attractions that have any measurable effect.
In the meantime, I would imagine that you know of a gentleman named Sean M Carroll, yes ? Because if you don’t you should, and especially of his blog, thoughtfully named ‘Sean Carroll’ (which is slightly confusing because of Sean B Carroll, of course). And indeed you might find Sean M’s latest post, titled ‘Consciousness and Downward Causation’ to be of some interest.
@Ernestine Gross
Thanks for the reply. It is food for thought. You correctly point out the central mistakes I risk: “Watch out you don’t write a lot of words and introduce notation, which you don’t use analytically, to basically say this is what I believe is the truth from the universe.” I would keep that wording as a warning to myself except that I “hypothesise” not “believe”.
With regard to specific issues;
(1) You write, “The universe is classified as an isolated system (defined in terms of no material and energy exchange).” I accept that definition.
(2) Any system within a system is a sub-system. The “environment”, as a standard definition, is simply a catch-all term for everything outside a given sub-system, be that given sub-system a human being or the economy (as examples). The “environment” itself is properly regarded as a system of systems and the biosphere system in turn as a sub-system of larger systems. Of course, the word “sub-system” gets unwieldy. Writing sub-sub-system and so on would get even more unwieldy. I imagine a notation could be derived for this specific issue.
The catch-all definition of “environment” (meaning a system of systems around the specific sub-system under consideration) is fine for the specific task. That is, when you are examining a specific sub-system internally and as a system and taking all environmental (outer systems) influences as givens. However, in an attempted philosophical endeavor of my kind, the nesting of many systems and many levels of systems, in one monistic system is one of the key factors under prime consideration.
(3) I do mention boundaries and also mention that they are interfaces when matter, energy and information can cross them.
(4) I don’t at all agree that the way I set up my systems model need lead to a deterministic model. However, that argument will get too long for a blog.
@GrueBleen
Well, of course, the maths was far, far too heavy for me. I know from comments you and Ernestine have made that each of you is a mathematician, in different arenas, though not in physics. Ernestine has correctly characterised me as someone who can do arithmetic but not mathematics. I did grade 12 maths so I can remember algebra and calculus; as subjects, not in great detail.
However, the point is that the complex calculations and models of specialists, for example of cosmologists or climate scientists, are beyond most of us, even beyond many of us who are mathematicians in other arenas. We rely on the peer review process, successful predictions and successful constructions, for support and then proof. If an A-bomb blows up we accept the theory and calculations must have been substantially correct. If an enormous bridge stands up, if a jet airliner flies, if a computer, monitor and peripherals work then we accept that the science and calculations involved must be substantially correct.
In short, we accept the output of the black box. In a highly specialised world, each of us is in the position of having to accept that what is in many of the various black boxes of science and technology is valid. When the science and technology work, correct inputs lead to predicted and desired outputs, within margins of tolerance. As an amateur philosopher, I feel in the same position. When scientists sum up a paper, in a respected journal, with the title “Everything is Entangled” then I, provisionally at least, take their word for it.
However, the first thing I need to be sure of is that I understand, at least in general terms, what they mean by “entangled”. Your questions have led me to question myself on this matter and on further reflection I find my understanding wanting. I even question whether I should have used the word “entangled” at all in my original statement. Almost certainly, I should have used a phrase like “completely and complexly interconnected” which does not mean at all what “entangled” means as a defined physics concept.
“Entangled” as I used it incorrectly could mean something like your “identical with gravitation” at least as one linking effect in the universe. I don’t think “entanglement” as physicists use it means this at all. Wikipedia will have to do as a reference source for a schmuck like me. So really, I meant “completely and complexly interconnected”.
The recent success in detecting gravity waves from a distant source certainly impressed me with the notion that everything in the universe is connected and everything influences everything else either nearly or distantly, either strongly or weakly. This statement must not be understood mystically. I make no mystic inferences from this. The statement, in itself, tells us nothing. What kind of explanation is “everything influences everything else”? What kind of predictions could follow from such a statement? The answers are “no kind of explanation” and “none”. Nevertheless, the statements “the universe is a monistic system” and “everything influences everything else” are corollaries. Taken together they may function as a priori justification for a philosophical system. In turn, making an a priori justification of them seems supportable given the scientific evidence in that direction. Once an a priori justification is set up, a series of logical deductions can be made, if one is good enough at this “game”. The final deductions, if consistent, will be a model generally congruent with reality. However, it will not be a proof that reality is as the congruent model suggests it is. There are no proofs in this game so far as I can tell. However, there are pragmatically useful and pragmatically useless models. I follow the American Pragmatism school in this. Charles Sanders Peirce is my current philosophical influence.
As I footnote, I only have to take out the rubbish to be convinced that “everything influences everything else”. I lift the lid on the bin while looking at the western evening sky. I might see the evening “star”, Venus. If it’s later in the evening, I will see the southern cross high in the sky. I stop to look and marvel. The light from all that distance in space and time has influenced my behaviour. QED. Everything is connected, at least by links of influences.
@Ikonoclast
Your #53
Yes, I quite agree that “entangled” is both too vague and too specific to be used in a general sense. Just as an indicative question, have you ever wondered why the night sky is (mostly) black ?
I would love to claim to be a ‘mathematician’ but the truth is I did some 2nd year maths at Melb Uni before becoming a hippy dropout, and later I did a 2 year Associate Diploma in Mathematics at then RMIT (not yet a Uni at that time. But I also passed my ‘humanities’ subject- Logic – with a final mark of 97 out of 100 BOC, and learned the Algol programming language 🙂 ). However, I have never used mathematics professionally, though having some idea about ‘Normal’ and ‘Log-Normal’ probability distributions and their implications did help from time to time.
And don’t forget to read Sean M Carroll’s post – you really will find it useful.
@Ikonoclast
I mentioned my background is in math econ. Some famous people in math econ are mathematicians. I am not one of them. There is a difference between people who understand a particular branch of math well enough to get a theoretical result, requiring say an original lemma, and people who advance an entire research program because they tackle a problem that requires the application of mathematics that had not been used before. I know only of one contemporary person who was not a post-graduate in pure mathematics before studying economics. There may be a few others of course.
@GrueBleen
Yep, I have read that essay. It’s very interesting. I really should read his book that he refers to. I don’t know quite what I think on some of these matters and this is a position that Sean Carroll says is perfectly reasonable to hold.
My basic thoughts on consciousness at this stage are these;
1. Consciousness is not special. By this, I mean consciousness is not a special philosophical problem. It may be a philosophical problem but it is not a special philosophical problem. All problems of ontology are equally difficult and indeed in this sense (reason for existence as existence) equally unsolvable. Why substance or “processes” (from process metaphysics) exist is just as ineffable a question as why consciousness exists. I hold that we can say nothing about why anything exists in the primary sense. It simply does exist. This is the brute fact thesis common enough in philosophy. I consider that we cannot solve this issue.
2. I hold that there are no causes in the strict sense. Although, we can use “cause” as a useful concept in everyday and practical scientific use (for macro objects anyway) in both the hard and soft sciences. I hold strictly; “There are no causes only Laws”. I mean “laws of relation” in both the strictly deterministic sense and in the probability sense. It follows from this approach that a search for “causes” and “explanations”, again in the strict philosophical sense, is fruitless. We must search for laws of relation (which turns out to be more a scientific endeavour than a philosophical endeavour).
3. The idea of downward causality (sic) really interests me. However, to be consistent with my approach I would be searching for laws of relation, not causality. In turn, my rejection of causality in the strict sense must run up against problems too, for which I hope there is a logical solution. We tend to see causality in an “arrow of time” sense. Do this at t1 and that will happen at t2. However, at any instant in time (if such may exist) two events must happen simultaneously (by definition) and must be related by us (if they do indeed appear reliably related) by a “Law” and not by a “Cause”. However, time delay, the time delay for propagation of an effect, would seem to present a problem to my system. How could this be resolved? It must be to do with the propagation of information, I think. At its most fundamental, information here can be defined as any propagation of influence ( crudely called cause and effect) through a system over a duration/expanse of space-time. Laws operate or pertain in the infinitesimal present. I would think we would need to apply a kind of calculus by combining all the infinitesimal data of the Laws operating over a given expanse of spacetime to find a “Cause”. Thus I am tempted to say: “Causes are derivatives of Laws”. This may be taking thinking by analogy a bit too far. What are “Laws”? They are the brute fact relations which exist in a universe which has dependable relations. What is cause and effect? They are the derivative outworkings of the Laws. All this is provisional. All this is mere words in a made up order. I have no idea if this makes sense or if it could possibly make sense. I am at the edge of what I can do with my very considerable limitations. If I sound out of my depth it is because I am. 🙂
I continue with my naive project to work out something from loose snippets and my own general experience before I read heavily of too many authorities. After I have made my attempt, then I will read the authorities. I am a “contrary”.
“You see, Younger Bear had become a contrary, the most dangerous of all Cheyenne warriors, because the way they live drives them half-crazy. Except for battle, a contrary does everything backwards. He says “goodbye” for “hello”, “yes” for “no”, walks through bushes instead of on trails, and washes with dirt and dries with water.” – from Little Big Man.
Not that I am warrior, but I am half-crazy. 🙂
@GrueBleen
Main reply above. Reply to a question here.:”why the night sky is (mostly) black”?
I have wondered that and my semi-educated guesstimate, though it may be that I recall something, is that it is because the universe is not infinite, or at least that part within which light could have reached us since the big bang is not infinite. This assumes, I think, an early inflation of space-time at greater than the speed of light, which does not break any rule re speed of light. Nothing was travelling in space-time at over the speed of light. The space-time field itself expanded, for a period, at greater than the speed of light.
If the universe was an infinite size and of infinite age and we could see all of it right now, the night sky would be all light I assume.
Now, must go check my answer.
@Ikonoclast
Your #59
According to my best recall, your answer is basically correct. In essence, in an infinite universe containing an infinite number of stars then any direction in which you wish to look there would be an infinite number of stars – one behind the other, of course – providing light. But in a finite universe, with a finite number of stars – and most of those concentrated into galaxies that are, effectively, point sources at that distance, then most of the sky has no illumination – as you can see by examing those famous Hubble shots taken in directions with virtually no local (Ie Milky Way) stars and count the almost ‘point source’ galaxies – some of which are 13+ billion light years away.
But of course, spacial travel FTL happens all the time* – it’s ‘information’ that can’t exceed light speed.
* You don’t believe me ? Well, since “everything is relative” it is perfectly reasonable to take the surface of the Earth as a stationary frame of reference – which, in fact, we do for almost all of our lives. But if that is so – ie it is ‘stationary’ – then there are quite a few stars out there – millions of light tears away – that travel 2pi*millions of light years every 24 hours. Ipso facto, much faster than light speed.
@Ernestine Gross
(really a reply to your #52 in Edison in reverse)
If/when you make it over here, below is the bit I was most interested in (but anything you are interested in expanding on):
_________________________________________________________________
Perhaps you could be prevailed on to expand on this a bit:
I’m not sure I grok you on that.
@GrueBleen
Not sure what “grok” means in this context. But you didn’t ask me to explain that and I assume I’ll find out what you mean.
I suppose we should start with something about ‘the corporate finance model’.
1. Objective: Shareholder wealth maximisation (also sometimes called ‘value maximisation’)
Corporations say ‘the market is ‘competitive’.
If one looks up a theoretical model of a ‘competitive private ownership economy’ (developed after the mid-1950s) then one finds that:
Unless ‘the market is complete’ (the state space is spanned by the payoffs of financial securities, such that any corporation can deduce from the price information what it should do to achieve its stated objective) the corporation either cannot achieve its objective or it is not competitive (not a price taker).
But, if one looks at the Fisher Separation theorem (ca before 1930) (taught in Corporate Finance texts), then corporate finance’s job is to maximise the ‘net present value’ of the firm. (NPV methods are the standard tool of corporate finance to make decisions).
Viewed in the light of post 1950s theoretical results, relying on the Fisher Separation theorem is a form of ‘incompetence’. No?
This is part 1. I’ll wait for your reply and then get onto the next level. (With some delay.)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/27/hillary-clinton-necono-republican-endorsements-donald-trump-policy-issues
@Ikonoclast
My point remains the same, Ikon – object to her policies all you like, but none of it justifies your conspiracist turn when it comes to questions of her health. 🙂
@Tim Macknay
I think some, like you, are too quick to call “conspiracy theory” on certain matters. There is an enormous difference between a “9/11” conspiracy theory and a claim that could be called “an HRC health conspiracy”. The 9/11 conspiracy theory involved a claim of an enormous governmental conspiracy, a claim of difficult technical operations carried off secretly and claims about building collapses which are refutable by experts using empirical evidence. The HRC health conspiracy claim, if you wish to call it that, is much more modest. The “conspiracy” is much smaller being just Hillary’s team. It involves issues that are not black and white. People can convince themselves that Hillary’s entire health status has private components. The central claim is not empirically impossible. Sixty-nine year old persons can have Parkinson’s disease or other neurological conditions.
But some people just trot out “conspiracy theory” as a handy catchall for anything they don’t believe. A reply of I don’t find it credible would have sufficed. But I get called “sexist” wrongly, others jump on this bandwagon and GB suggests I might need LevoDopa (which is not a demntia drug in any case. These are personal attacks. The LevoDopa one I don’t care about. If I was on that I would self-disclose right now, on and for this blog. There is no shame in having and beign treated for a condition one cannot help. The “sexist” slur I do care about. Every time I happen to criticise a female politician in matters which have a political bearing, and when I have criticised certain male politicians more trenchently, a certain party who appears to regard female politicians as above all criticism, calls me “sexist”. It’s a slur and you jumped on board.
My harsh criticisms of certain male politicians are allowed through to the keeper without a peep. It’s a hypocrtical slur pure and simple and I refuse to accept being impugned or gaslighted expecially when people start to try to gang up on me. Over the years, some have tried, none have succeeded.
Someone who is part of the drone strike business, i.e. Hillary Clinton and many others of course, has no moral standing whatsoever. Quibbles about their personal rights, apart from international law and a fair trial at The Hague fade into nothingness. She’s a war criminal. It’s a case of swallowing a camel and straining out a gnat. A massive loss of ethical perspective and realism on your part on on the part of others’. I completely reject such distorted, inverse ethics and lack of logic.
http://usuncut.com/politics/hillary-clinton-foreign-policy-record/
@Ikonoclast
The reference to conspiracy was a comment on the sources you are relying on, not the inherent plausibility or otherwise of the claim. I agree a supposed HRC health coverup cannot be compared with a September 11 conspiracy theory, but I don’t think it can be compared with a manufactured pretext for invading Iraq either, which is a comparison you have explicitly made. What’s in contention is not whether HRC and her minders have an incentive to be evasive about her health, or whether she is capable of being deceptive. It’s that the specific health claims you are making are based on speculative Republican talking points echoed in conspiracy web sites, sources you would normally criticise others for relying on. That’s what I find weird about this, which is why I keep going on about it.
And defensively getting on a high horse and accusing me of lacking ethical perspective doesn’t really help you case – it looks like deflection. I haven’t even tried to defend HRC’s foreign policy record – I’ve merely pointed out that the health claims are based purely on speculation from right wing and conspiracy sources, and you’ve responded by bringing up her foreign policy record and accusing me of lacking perspective. Not very convincing, Ikon! 😉
Frankly, I don’t know why you’re still digging in about this. You’ve set out the substantive reasons why you think HRC is unfit to be president (foreign policy). So why not just admit that the Parkinson’s stuff is just speculative rumour-mongering?
@Tim Macknay
Your #67
Spot on, Tim. I too am just a tad bemused by Ikono’s modus operandi here.
And if you could work into the conversation with him that ‘hinting’ someone might need Levodopa (not necessarily Ikono, but maybe some of the ‘sources’ he seems to be relying on – and yes, definitely not as an anti-dementia, but as an anti-shaker) is actually just a throwaway small jest, not a personal attack. Sensitive little bvgger, isn’t he.
Incidentally, I have experienced vasovagal syncope (VVS) quite a few times in my life, I wonder if Hillary does too. Among the causes for VVS are: “Various circumstances are triggers for VVS including prolonged standing, especially when combined with warm temperatures, confined spaces, and/or crowding;”
@Ernestine Gross
Your #62
Interim reply: by “grok” I basically mean what Robert Heinlein meant when he coined the word in ‘Stranger in a Strange Land’, basically: “to understand intuitively or by empathy, to establish rapport with” (especially the “rapport” bit).
Now I shall go and try to grok the Fisher Separation Theorem and to remember what little I used to know about NPV and the corporation..
How do you identify conspiracy?
Ikonoclast #51 in previous thread
HRC is completely corrupt and objectionable on moral grounds as is Trump. But many of the faux lefties are tribalist (as per J.Q.’s terminology) and blindly support her and/or say it is forbidden to criticise her or raise concerning issues because she is a woman.
Let me just decode this for anyone who doesn’t get it: according to ikon, women, and those who support women as political candidates, are not capable of reasoned thought or critical judgement. We support candidates on the basis of emotion only, because that’s the way we are.
You – and others here – have made this kind of criticism of me before, because I said that Julia Gillard was not as bad you thought. I was basing my judgement on two years of working with her, while you were basing it on gossip and prejudice, but I was the one who was unreasonable in your eyes – because I’m a woman who defended a woman against your prejudiced crap (I didn’t even politically support her FFS, I’m a greens voter).
I would say that as our society judges these things (academically) I’m actually more capable than you of critical judgement. I don’t say that to be rude or patronising, but just to introduce some reality into this conversation. In fact I think at some level you may even know that, but when it comes to female candidates your sexism gets the better of you. You simply cannot admit that people can support a female candidate because they think she is the better candidate (even against Trump you still can’t accept this FFS!) – because they have made a reasoned, critical judgement. Nope in your eyes it can only be because they emotional and naive and they can’t admit that the person they emotionally identify with has any faults.
Where are these fucking “faux lefties” who refuse to admit that Hillary Clinton has any faults? Just show me one of them, Ikon – just one. Or otherwise grow up and stop peddling this contemptible shit.
Ernestine Gross, I grok as to that neat little comment of yours gruebleen mentions.
Yet further emphasis on the evergreen observation that folk rise or fall to their own level of incompetence, which is we are posting to blogs and the likes of Dutton and Michaelia Cash are in cabinet. Wondrous, how history is confirmed and traced through repetition
@Ivor
Well, on Mondays and Wednesdays it’s a twisted horn and the word ‘Tristero’;
On Tuesdays and Thursdays it’s the blanched face of an anthropologist on hearing the name ‘Yog Sothoth’;
On Fridays and Sundays it’s the Eye of Providence and the words ‘Novus Ordo Seclorum’;
and on Saturdays it’s the Great and Ever-Growing Brain that Rules from the Centre of the Ultraworld.
You grok?
@GrueBleen
It can be a bugger when you’re trying to donate blood..
@Tim Macknay
So you conspire to find conspiracy under every bush right through the week.
What a strange world you inhabit.
@Ivor
There is a slim possibility I may not have been serious.
@Val
“according to ikon, women, and those who support women as political candidates, are not capable of reasoned thought or critical judgement. We support candidates on the basis of emotion only, because that’s the way we are.” – Val.
I did not say that. You are putting words into my mouth once again. Because I have criticisms of specific women candidates you immediately call me a sexist and jump to these conclusions. You might have noticed over the term of this blog I have made many trenchant criticisms of many male politicians. I have called Howard, Blair, Bush 2 and even Obama war criminals. They are that in my judgement. I don’t need to repeat myself on Trump. I criticised him severely very recently on this blog. On none of these occasions have you criticised me for criticising male politicians. However, as soon as I criticise a female politician (in the two cases I remember) I am, ipso facto, a sexist. In Gillard’s case I never used abusive terms but criticised her deal with the mining bosses and her disloyalty to Rudd. In HRC’s case I did not use personal abuse either though I did impugn her mental capacities. That is also regularly done to male politicians in the argy-bargy of public criticism. I have critiqued Kevin Rudd’s personality and operating style BTW and that did not draw rebuke from you either. You demonstrate a double standard over and over.
I have made many pro-women remarks on this blog, especially supporting and praising them for their unsung, unrewarded roles in child-rearing and unpaid labour. I also fully support their rights to paid work, equal pay and other rights. I have indicated how I fully shared baby care and child rearing with my wife (including when she was at work for many months and I at home).
I don’t think you realise that you do it but as soon as a male criticises a female politician (in whom you might be emotionally invested in a supportive way, I don’t know) you immediately jump to the sexist slur. You did it to J.Q. in the past too. You are heavily alienating real supporters, not from a genuine feminist cause, but certainly from your misinterpreted and disturbingly fundamentalist version of it.
@Tim Macknay
Even without the Parkinson’s stuff, HRC’s health is bad and her behaviours are very odd. I still think it credible from circumstantial evidence that she may have an as yet undisclosed neurological condition. The right wingers exaggerate it and the small-l liberals underplay it. I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle, so no, I am not just looking at conspiracy sites but assessing all views across the spectrum.
Also, Trump is a bizarre person and his behaviours are very odd too. All these people have far too much wealth and/or power. I mean people in the US political and wealth elites. Basically, this excess wealth and/or power sends them a bit crazy. To put it a bit more broadly, we all have failings and disturbances in our psyches (using the term in the psychoanalytic sense) which very often can become exaggerated and pathological when in the possession of excessive wealth and power relative to our fellow citizens. These people have gone crazy on power basically. They are all dangerous. The fault is that of we the citizenry for not making full democracy and equality a reality and not controlling these sociopath, over-privileged, over-rewarded out of control egomaniacs in our midst.
@Ikonoclast
Except that all the neurological claims are coming from rightwing speculation echoed in conspiracy sites. So you’re assessing views ‘across the spectrum’ about speculative claims made by rightwingers and conspiracy theorists. Unsurprisingly, small-l liberal and other pro-HRC sources tend to be dismissive of those claims. Of course, on first principles, it’s not inherently implausible that someone of HRC’s age may have a neurological condition. But to suspect that she does have such a condition, on the basis of deliberate rumours started by her opponents, based on ‘diagnosis’ from interpreting video footage, is to give far too much credence to rightwing rumour-mongering. I cannot help suspecting that if you actually approved of HRC as a candidate, you would give those kinds of claims short shrift.
The same goes for Trump and the ‘narcissistic personality disorder’ stuff. Obviously Trump is an egomaniac, but then so are a great many very wealthy and powerful people (as you point out), so that doesn’t prove anything in particular. I’m not even sure that having narcissistic personality disorder (or being an egomaniac) should necessarily disqualify someone from high office, for that matter. At least, it should be less significant than other things about the candidate, like their values, their judgment, their intellectual capacity, their policy preferences and their experience. Obviously a candidate should be sane enough and healthy enough to do the job, but it would be foolish to be too prescriptive about these requirements.
It’s largely the difference in policy preferences, and to some extent, values, that cause me to think that it would be better for HRC to be president than Trump (although I have concerns about her foreign policy hawkishness). Not that I have any say in it, contrary to your nonsense about ‘we the citizenry’ being at fault. 😉
Still, you’ve walked your argument back a fair way, without admitting you were wrong. I suppose that’s the most I can expect just before a long weekend*…
* I am in WA. We have a long weekend here this weekend.
Ikon, I’m actually surprised that JQ let my comment be published – it pushes the boundaries that he tries to maintain here I think, and now that I’m calmer I apologise for the swearing (on this blog, not per se, I don’t think it’s always wrong). However I really wanted to express my actual feelings on this.
Like I’ve said, I’m sure you’re not a bad guy, but I almost despair of trying to make you see how awful your comments are sometimes – I don’t use the word contemptible lightly. Search your soul and try to understand what it is that makes you accuse a whole class of people of not being capable of critical judgement. Be honest with yourself.
Or, alternatively, as I said, produce one example. And be aware that I am not an example. I have always acknowledged that both Julia Gillard and Hillary Clinton have faults and have made mistakes. For example, I was a passionate critic of the Iraq war. Do you really think that I would somehow blindly ignore the fact that Hillary Clinton originally supported it, even though she has since admitted she was wrong and apologised? Of course I don’t. But I still think she is a better candidate than Trump – far better.
It’s not because I “blindly” support her, or won’t allow any criticism of her because she’s a woman, it’s because I have exercised my critical judgement, and for you to keep saying otherwise, to keep saying I am purely driven by emotion because she is a woman, is profoundly insulting. The fact that you don’t get that just proves that you are coming from a sexist position. You are treating me as an inferior person but you haven’t the honesty to admit that’s what you are doing.
@Val
Swearing is okay by me. I understand your position is strong. However, I don’t understand how you say I have accused a whole class of people of not being capable of critical judgement. I assume you mean I have accused women. Where in heck have I done that? Literal quotes please. I have not accused any whole class of people with one possible exception namely the plutocratic class. I sort of wonder if you are reading what I write or interpolating extra assumptions of your own. I have indeed accused certain individual male and female politicians of faults. I have even attacked the ruling and plutocratic classes verbally and in writing. That’s the only class or category I have attacked.
BTW, a medical condition, if it is real, is not a fault, it’s simply a known fact if diagnosed. I add “if diagnosed”. HRC has not been diagnosed with a neurological condition so far as we, the world public, know. I admit that. However, she has had a serious concussion. I believe it took her 6 months to recover properly. Even one serious concussion can do permanent damage. This is well know. However, it also might not do serious damage. If it has done damage this is a known fact (if diagnosed). It’s not a moral judgement on a person then. It would be a medical assessment of a person.
Scurrilous rumours are part of politics. Not a good part but they are there. Any politician can get out ahead of some scurrilous rumours if they are of the type which can be objectively refuted. This rumour can be objectively refuted by HRC if she is fine and if she wishes. Claims against Trump can be refuted if he comes out with the evidence too. For example, claims about his payment or not of taxes and claims about his business incompetence. There are even serious assault claims against him. These possibly could not be fully refuted because it is not always possible to prove innocence and prove alibi even if innocent.
HRC and her campaign committee will make a judgement. If she has no further undisclosed medical issues of nature which would have any bearing on her presidential aspirations, she could in theory consent to independent medical examination. They (HRC’s camp) will decide which course plays better in their opinion. All options are open to them. “She shouldn’t have to”, doesn’t wash. She doesn’t have to. She does however have to decide how much she wants the Presidency. For the record, I hope she drops out, Bernie Sanders is put in, if HE is healthy, and the Bernie wins. I mean among the even remotely possible scearios. Hillary and Trump are both extreme, right wing hawks. The USA will be little different under either.
@Ikonoclast
I don’t mean to speak for Val – no doubt she will answer in her own time. However, in response to the suggestion of myself, Val and several others that your beliefs about HRC’s health conditions may not be entirely, well, rational, you responded with the following pieces of commentary about what you imagined we were thinking:
“I am amazed at the binary thinking (or is it limited Boolean thinking?) that says;
If B is corrupt then A must be clean. This does not follow…
But people so often seem to fall for the Manichean good person/bad person narrative…
many of the faux lefties are tribalist (as per J.Q.’s terminology) and blindly support her and/or say it is forbidden to criticise her or raise concerning issues because she is a woman…
It’s tribalist groupthink plain and simple…
Clearly, a lot of the faux left and the fashionably liberal and liberated don’t understand the first thing about what is really going on in American or world power politics…
The naivety is staggering. It represents a complete lack of critical thinking…
These are personal attacks…
A massive loss of ethical perspective and realism on your part on on the part of others’. I completely reject such distorted, inverse ethics and lack of logic….
your misinterpreted and disturbingly fundamentalist version of [feminism]”
This is what could be politely termed a “massive overreaction”.
I’m not sure if Val, myself, Gruebleen and a couple of others constitute “an entire class”, but I am quite confident that epithets like “binary thinking”, “Manichean good person/bad person narrative”, “tribalist groupthink”, “don’t understand the first thing”, “staggering naivety”, “complete lack of critical thinking”, “massive loss of ethical perspective and realism” and “disturbingly fundamentalist” quite clearly convey a conviction that the targets are “not capable of critical judgment”.
The question is: why such a huge overreaction instead of answering your critics by simply presenting the “good evidence” or, as you later put it, “circumstantial evidence” that showed your belief was well founded? It remains unanswered (and the “evidence” remains unrevealed).
And one more thing – earlier on you stated that HRC or anyone else who is “part of the drone strike business” has no moral standing whatsoever. This formed part of your basis for asserting that I had a “massive loss of ethical perspective”. You now say that your own hope is that HRC drops out of the race and that Bernie Sanders is elected president.
Given that Bernie Sanders is on record as supporting the policy of drone strikes against identified individuals and would doubtless continue this policy were he to gain office, is it that you have succumbed to “binary thinking”, have you fallen for the “Manichean good person/bad person narrative”, or is it simply that you have suffered a “massive loss of ethical perspective and reality”?
@Tim Macknay
Your #74
Strangely, I’m not so affected by my own blood as by that of others – if I see more than just a few drops of somebody else’s blood. I’m head down on the floor in no time at all.
Mind you, I do normally take a lot of care – eg when being sampled for a path test – to look the other way when the needle goes in.
@Ikonoclast
Lest my last comment be seen as unnecessarily provocative (which I now fear it is), let it be said that the last paragraph was rhetorical smart-arsery, and I don’t actually think you’ve “succumbed” to any of those things or that your preference for a Sanders presidency is an unreasonable one. Also, I think we’ve sufficiently plumbed the riveting question of the factual basis for HRC’s alleged neuorological complaints and I don’t really care that the “evidence” is “unrevealed”. That was a piece of smart-arsery also.
All my comments were intended in goodwill, and hopefully, good humour.
@Tim Macknay
No, it was fair enough. I didn’t know that about Bernie Sanders. My bad.
@Ikonoclast
There’s a lot I could say, but I will just say a few things for now.
I’m glad that we can still have a civil conversation.
Psychologists suggest, I think, that underneath anger is often hurt. I am hurt that you (and people like you) can treat me (and people like me) with such contempt. Women have had to put up with being treated as inferiors by men for a very, very long time, and it is utterly infuriating that when we are finally achieving positions of political influence, there are men who will go out of their way to find fault with female candidates (and those who support them) even when they are clearly better than the alternative
If you had a two horse race between a man on the (broad) left who was clearly imperfect, and a man on the right who was awful, I don’t think you would waste your time dredging round right wing hate websites to find reasons to attack the (admittedly imperfect) left candidate. So why do you do that to a female candidate?
Even if she did have a neurological complaint, which I don’t believe it doesn’t f-ing matter
She has a deputy, he could take over. So why do you waste your own and everybody else’s time dredging this stuff up?
@Val
Where do I treat you specifically or women generally with contempt? Quotes please.
Hillary is not a left candidate. She is another hard right candidate. I equally fear and loathe all hard right wing candidates. I think I have made my fear and loathing of Donald Trump equally clear. I have also referred to scurrilous rumours and serious possible issues against him.
If people are hard right (i.e. fascists and/or war criminals), they lose all rights other than the right to a trial at The Hague. It’s kind of ridiculous to say “Don’t be horrible to the fascists.”
@Ikonoclast
Your #87
Ah, so in your political “world”, HRC is “hard right”. That explains much.
So, is HRC to the “right” of Trump ? Or to the “right” of Dick Cheney ? Or Newt Gingrich ? Or Rush Limbaugh ? Or what exactly ?
Anyway, I thought I’d just throw in this contribution from Kevin Drum of Mother Jones -who I find frequently, but not always, makes a lot of sense (and he does Friday Cat Blogging too):
“… in 1980, when I was 22, I voted for John Anderson. That sure was stupid. Eight years of Ronald Reagan because Jimmy Carter didn’t quite meet my idealistic standards of excellence for presidents. I’ve never made that mistake again.”
Kevin will be voting for HRC this year.
With Ikonoclast all the way.
What is this sookish drivel from the rest of you?
@Ikonoclast
The tone you adopt about Hillary Clinton is exactly like the tone you used to adopt about Julia Gillard – ‘she is not of the left, she is of the right – the hard right, even. Beware her attempts to deceive you. I am a man, I can see through her wiles and pretences. The only reason you benighted fools can see any good in her is because you are women, blinded by loyalty to your sex, or weak willed men, ruled by the feminist dominatrixes, who won’t allow you to say a word against their beloved queen Hillary’
I may explain later – more seriously – why your comments show contempt for women, but just for now I have to go and bang my head against some walls, because it’s more productive.
Val, I do believe you are misinterpreting Ikonoclast regarding sexism. I am also a female and I had many exchanges with Ikonoclast.
@Ernestine Gross
Your #62
I have been working on this. I think I understand the words but I’m having real difficulty with groking the totality.
I can get the ‘maximise NPV’ objective, though I always thought the real-life objective of the corporation was to maximise the remuneration of the senior executives – both pay and bonuses – though supposedly Jack Welch achieved both things at the same time. And I’m not sure where the likes of “Chainsaw Al” Dunlap come into the picture.
But ok, management’s ‘production opportunities’ are separate from owner/entrepreneur’s ‘market opportunities’ and opportunities are separate from enterprise finance, but it still isn’t coming together for me (hence a ‘no grok’ state).
But other than failure to correctly analyse and/or optimally choose, ‘opprtunities’ (which would appear to be a common failing), I don’t quite get the ‘incompetencies’ aspect.
As the famous lady once said, “please explain”.
@Ernestine Gross
Your #91
Yes, but you’re neither Hillary Clinton nor Julia Gillard.
@Ikonoclast
Your #87 and previous
Now trying to cut through all the “sookish drivel” that we have all been supposedly producing, I’d like to query you on a couple of things that kinda slipped by me at first:
1. In your #77, in reference to Julia Gillard you talk about “her disloyalty to Rudd.”. What exactly do you mean by that ? Did Rudd have some kind of ‘divine right’ to be PM ? If so, why ? IMHO if a leader is under-performing, then he or she should be dispensed with, so Gillard could only be “loyal” to Rudd by being disloyal to we, the people of Australia. It would be different if we directly elected the PM, but we don’t.
2. In your #81 you say: “Hillary and Trump are both extreme, right wing hawks. The USA will be little different under either.” When I read this, I think I really can see what Val is getting at. Do you sincerely believe that Clinton and Trump are so much alike that they could be substituted for each other seamlessly ? That there’s really no difference between them ?
@Ernestine Gross
Ernestine, I too have had many interesting and productive exchanges with Ikon on many issues. It is on the issue of female politicians that he becomes unreasonable, sadly.
Tim has quoted some of Ikon’s statements above. Anyone who doubts that Ikon loses perspective on this issue should read them. He was the same with Julia Gillard, he could not allow her any redeeming feature, anyone who tried to reason with him was similarly described as naive or blinded (particularly women, who he thought were only demonstrating blind loyalty to Gillard because they were women).
The statement that really got to me this time (a continuation of the theme) was
“many of the faux lefties are tribalist (as per J.Q.’s terminology) and blindly support her and/or say it is forbidden to criticise her or raise concerning issues because she is a woman…”
in combination with the claim that the so-called “faux lefties” are incapable of critical judgement.
Now ok, this is ostensibly non gendered criticism, it could apply to both male or female “faux lefties”. However I’ve been reading Ikon’s comments for some time and have only ever seen him make these kinds of comments about supporters of female candidates. I have never seen Ikon suggest, for example, that supporters of Kevin Rudd or Donald Trump blindly support them because they are men, refuse to allow any criticism of them because they are men, and are incapable of critical judgement.
It is only with female candidates that he makes these claims. Now sorry to get a bit technical in language here, but I need to – ikon is acting here as the imagined agentic normative subject, who is male, whereas women are the ‘other’ – that which is not normal, that which is different from the norm.
Don’t some of you see?
It’s not about attacking Clinton or Gillard, it is about the political structures that determine the effectuality of politicians. Very little to do with sexism except when sexism can be used to drag down a politician who comes too close to undermining oligarchic interests.
Removing rose coloured glasses, Hillary Clinton has been accused of being beholden to entities like Goldman Sachs as to campaigning finances, but, newsflash, an entity like GS may not support Hillary Clinton out of a sense of public spiritedness. Recall the example of John Stumpf of Wells Fargo, exposed by Sen Elizabeth Warren as an example of Wall street altruism. Curiously, Warren short of funding short for her Presidential race, perhaps..altruism is a funny thing sometimes. This is not to suggest that GS and certain Lobby groups were not behaving with a contrasting generosity, perish that thought!
And of course the home grown example of Rupert Murdoch and Tony Abbott in the destruction of Rudd and Gillard, nothing to do with tax evasion and IPA agendas?
Hence, the examination a Clinton candidacy is not to do with sexism (except for morons), but an effort to understand whether she is a candidate likely to run America on rationality alone, without fear or favour, on both domestic and massively expensive, by the example of recent history, or be as useless as Trump.
Not again, last sentence, massively expensive foreign policy (who benefits, Bush Cheney etc)
@Val
Do I really have to say I think supporters of Trump are naive, especially working class supporters of Trump? Given my avowed Marxian stance that would be taken as a given. Anyway, as I have said, I have made many trenchant criticisms of male politicians. When I get hot under the collar I call supporters of male right-wing politicians naive too. It’s not a rhetorical tactic that will win me any friends or influence. Obviously, I should stop doing it. It’s insulting to all, female and male. For that I apologise. However, I have not acted in this manner only re female politicians. That is simply cherry picking. I reject that and will have no more to say on the matter.
Give me one example of someone who has said that Hillary Clinton or Julia Gillard have no faults, or have forbidden you to criticise them. Just one actual example.