Profit and loss

[Phil Wise]

----- Original Message -----
From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: Profit and loss


>
> ----------
> >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.
>
I said Zoyd was a weak father.

> > 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.

It's a complicated thing I'm trying to explain.  I've tried my best.
>
> > 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.

Maybe I misunderstood you, as I indicated.  I know what I wrote, and if I
misunderstood you, I misunderstood your misunderstanding.
>
> > 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".

No, it's about the official ideology infusing itself...  Perhaps I should
have said it isn't about any particular ideology, but even that doesn't
capture it: it is a system, not an ideology.  The system uses a particular
type of ideology.  The point being that capitalism might not be immune.
>
> >> 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.
>
I'm unable to argue the economics as well as some around here.  I'm not
pretending otherwise.  The dogmatics, the inflexibility makes me more, not
less uneasy.  It suggests (but doesn't argue for) an unwillingness to
consider alternatives.  I know you didn't mention the implementation.  I
did.  NZ has had free market ideas implemented in a dogmatic manner; it has
done more harm than good as far as I can see.

> 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.

I have, several times.  It is quite clear that one of the concerns many
protesters have is that corporations under these free trade deals can attack
laws made by democratically elected (and otherwise, no doubt) governments of
nation states, if those laws could limit corporations' business activity.
This threatens the effective power of the nation state.
>
> > 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.

I didn't.  I haven't.  I'm in a Monty Python sketch, I swear.
>
> best
>
>
>