Profit and loss

[jbor]

----------
>From: "Phil Wise" <philwise at paradise.net.nz>
>

> Dear me.  Okay: words of one (maybe two occasionally) syllables.  One is a
> disease passed from father to son.  The other is passed from mother to
> daughter.  They are both passed, according to the metaphors used by
> Weissmann and Frenesi.  One has to do with hypermasculine behaviour.  The
> other with feminine sexual attraction to behaviours of this sort.  Use your
> imagination a little, can't ya?

I thought you said Prairie's "weakness" was due to Brock being a "weak
father", and this was the father/son link you were making. I get what you
were getting at now. Yeah, maybe.

> Okay.  One part of the comparison involves people.  The other involves the
> historical development of systems.  Pynchon is interested in systems.
> Pynchon's implied author appears to say that systems can reside in and
> influence human consciousness.  Therefore, if a sequence of events can lead
> to the systems in Pynchon's people turning out one way or the other, why can
> two "non-identical" bigger systems that derive from the same historical
> place not turn out one way or the other.  Is it not possible that the
> mechanism exploited by Vond to turn people onto his system also applies to
> systems?  If people can tweak people, why not systems?  Is it not possible
> that one can be a metaphor for the other?

You've lost me I'm afraid.

> Why would I attempt to retract something and then say it again?  Yes, I made
> a comparison between the two.  Your reply suggested I was comparing Russia
> to Germany - perhaps I read it wrongly.

No, I haven't mentioned Russia at all. You complained that you hadn't
"labelled anything anything" when I said that labelling "globalisation" as a
"totalitarian movement" in order to scare people off is just semantics. (I
hadn't actually written that *you* had done this btw.) Now you say that you
did make the comparison but seem to want to complain about something else
which I didn't write.

> I also said, "Totalitarianism is neither about economics or ideology.  It is
> about the total domination of its subjects, and about the official ideology,
> which
> could be virtually anything, infusing its way into every aspect of
> social life. "  It is utterly obvious that I was saying that IMO
> totalitarianism does not require Marxist or Nazi ideology.  I was suggesting
> the possibility that market ideology would do.

This doesn't mean anything. The quote says totalitarianism "isn't" about
ideology and then it says that it "is about ... the official ideology" in
the very next breath. Utopian Marxism and Nazism were ideologies; there's no
such thing as "market ideology".

>> The objective is to rectify market distortion caused by national and
>> regional (eg the EU) protectionism to effect economic growth globally.

> I'm no economist, but there are economists that dispute that this will be
> the result.

And there are those, a significantly greater number btw, who agree that it
would be the result, if implemented fairly.

> I can't argue that one way or the other.  If it is implemented
> as dogmatically as you state it, my own suspicions will be reinforced rather
> than alleviated.

Well, for someone who supposedly can't argue one way or another you've
certainly done a good job of arguing the "other" way in the very next
sentence! My statement was neither dogmatic nor did it refer to
implementation; it merely summarised the overall objective of the
initiative.

snip

>> What question?
>
> The question of what the consequences are of the end of the effective power
> of the nation state.

But you haven't once explained why or how "the effective power of the nation
state" is even under threat. It isn't, for goodness' sake.

> you ignore an argument put up in good faith which uses wording that invites
> people to argue against it, even if it pretty obviously reflects my
> provisional position.

Look, I'm sorry that you've taken offence but my comments have been put up
in good faith as well. If we can't discuss it, so be it, but please don't
accuse me of saying things and calling you names which I haven't.

best