Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2014 13:07:56 GMT -5
I think that you have to define why the abolition of nations is good, Sydney!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2014 18:16:50 GMT -5
Indeed kleines c, definition is of the essence is it not. Members could hardly do better than turn to Professor Hosking the chair of Russian History at University College London, the author of Trust: Money, Markets and Society. (Note the comma after Money!) Professor Hosking tells us in the TLS of September 26th that "the (Swiss) UBS bank was shown to have committed one breach of trust after another, while claiming after each revelation that it was doing everything possible to "restore trust". "Trust" is a term which combines pragmatic and emotional content. Like, say, the word "nation", it is a performative term, a "productive fiction" or "advance" on reality which has the potential to change reality. Its emotional power is evident in the new forms of financial credit and investment that have proliferated since the seventeenth century.
Thus Professor Hosking. We see every day what influence the "productive fiction" of "nation" has on our lives. Imagine how much better life would be without it! Borders, for example, do not actually exist anywhere in what most Englishmen would call the real world . . .
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 22, 2014 1:29:49 GMT -5
Indeed kleines c, definition is of the essence is it not. Members could hardly do better than turn to Professor Hosking the chair of Russian History at University College London, the author of Trust: Money, Markets and Society. (Note the comma after Money!) Professor Hosking tells us in the TLS of September 26th that "the (Swiss) UBS bank was shown to have committed one breach of trust after another, while claiming after each revelation that it was doing everything possible to "restore trust". "Trust" is a term which combines pragmatic and emotional content. Like, say, the word "nation", it is a performative term, a "productive fiction" or "advance" on reality which has the potential to change reality. Its emotional power is evident in the new forms of financial credit and investment that have proliferated since the seventeenth century. Thus Professor Hosking. We see every day what influence the "productive fiction" of "nation" has on our lives. Imagine how much better life would be without it! Borders, for example, do not actually exist anywhere in what most Englishmen would call the real world . . . "Englishmen" again! Would there ever have been any such things as "Englishmen" had there been no borders?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 22, 2014 1:30:30 GMT -5
Indeed kleines c, definition is of the essence is it not. Members could hardly do better than turn to Professor Hosking the chair of Russian History at University College London, the author of Trust: Money, Markets and Society. (Note the comma after Money!) Professor Hosking tells us in the TLS of September 26th that "the (Swiss) UBS bank was shown to have committed one breach of trust after another, while claiming after each revelation that it was doing everything possible to "restore trust". "Trust" is a term which combines pragmatic and emotional content. Like, say, the word "nation", it is a performative term, a "productive fiction" or "advance" on reality which has the potential to change reality. Its emotional power is evident in the new forms of financial credit and investment that have proliferated since the seventeenth century. Thus Professor Hosking. We see every day what influence the "productive fiction" of "nation" has on our lives. Imagine how much better life would be without it! Borders, for example, do not actually exist anywhere in what most Englishmen would call the real world . . . "Englishmen" again! (and no "English women", I once again note); would there ever have been any such things as "Englishmen" had there been no borders?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2014 3:07:27 GMT -5
Well at present there are Englishmen; that is part of the problem. I mentioned Englishmen in connection with the "real world" because it is mainly Englishmen who are so enthusiastic about Kant and his theory of reality. Somehow few Englishmen have ever seemed able wholeheartedly to take the post-Kantian plunge.
But I agree with you Mr. H that it is probably preferable to define "English" in terms of geographical location rather than in terms of the very "nations" we are attempting to abolish.
I think the primary purpose of threads such as this is, as kleines c has reminded us, to arrive at principles or axioms, both logical and ethical, clearly showing the reasons why in the long run "nations" no longer make sense (if they ever did). And having established such axioms, we can go on to discuss details of the practical implementation of these long overdue and admittedly radical reforms.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 22, 2014 3:57:24 GMT -5
Well at present there are Englishmen; that is part of the problem. I mentioned Englishmen in connection with the "real world" because it is mainly Englishmen who are so enthusiastic about Kant and his theory of reality. Somehow few Englishmen have ever seemed able wholeheartedly to take the post-Kantian plunge. "Mainly"? Can you be so certain of that? - and on the basis of what specific evidence? But I agree with you Mr. H that it is probably preferable to define "English" in terms of geographical location rather than in terms of the very "nations" we are attempting to abolish. I wasn't seeking to suggest that this is how "English" should or even could be defined. Think of the language of that name and the very fact that, for example, Microsoft has seen fit to split it in its Word spelling/proofing tools into English (Australia), English (Belize), English (Canada), English (Caribbean), English Hong Kong S.A.R.), English Indonesia), English (India), English Ireland), English (Jamaica), English Malaysia), English (New Zealand), English (Philippines), English (Singapore), English (South Africa), English (Trinidad & Tobago), English (U.K.), English (U.S.), and English (Zimbabwe) is surely proof in and of itself of a sheer internationality of "English" that defies all possibility of a realistic and meaningful definition of it "it terms of geographical location". But I must ask once again, who is this nebulous and undefined "we"? - you and who else's army? (to quote a rather antediluvian cliché). Nationhood is not especially stable, of course, as history has shown and continues to show but, for the most part, that instability has, as I have had case to observe on several previous occasions, tended to manifest itself into the breaking up rather than the uniting of nations, the most notable examples of this being the break-up of the former Soviet Union and that of the former Yugoslavia as well as the more recent division into two of what was Africa's largest country, Sudan - examples that illustrate that such appetite as there appears to be in favour of nationhood might arguably be seen as waxing rather than waning and, until and unless the kind of national unification that you appear still to advocate comes to be desired by the majority of the populace, it will simply not materialise. I think the primary purpose of threads such as this is, as kleines c has reminded us, to arrive at principles or axioms, both logical and ethical, clearly showing the reasons why in the long run "nations" no longer make sense (if they ever did). And having established such axioms, we can go on to discuss details of the practical implementation of these long overdue and admittedly radical reforms. By "we" here do you mean you and kleines c? Whether or not that might be the case, the problem here is clearly that there is likewise scant evidence of an appetite "to arrive at principles or axioms, both logical and ethical, clearly showing the reasons why in the long run "nations" no longer make sense (if they ever did)" because so few people seem to be devoted to any such cause and, as I've already pointed out, it will never come about until there is such an appetite and a majority devotion to that cause. No one has "established such axioms" and there are therefore no "details of the practical implementation of these long overdue and admittedly radical reforms" to discuss. Apart from any other considerations, even were majority international support for such a cause to grow sufficiently to warrant attempts at such global unification, how could it be achieved, by whom and at what cost paid for from what sources? "The premise" remains a false one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2014 5:10:36 GMT -5
Mr. H's discussion of some amercian computer company and its attitude to the English language is entirely irrelevant to my use of the word "Englishmen" in connection with Kant's concept of reality.
"We" is a very common word in the English language. It is the first person nominative plural personal pronoun. It is used here in its ordinary sense: "the readers of, and contributors to, this forum". I do not believe there is any difficulty or mystery about it.
I personally do not wish to advocate "national unification"; I advocate the abolition of nations entirely. In fact I would make the mere mention of a "nation" unlawful. But there Mr. H puts the cart thousands of miles ahead of the horse by turning to practical difficulties. All that is frightfully premature, and he must be put straight at the earliest opportunity before it is too late. Our first task here is to establish principles and axioms. Do not forget that this is the Eutopia thread. What a yawning gap is shewn by his non-Eutopian question "at what cost"! Well there will certainly be no monetary cost because in Eutopia there will be no money and can never be money: every one will, in accordance with Eutopian principles, be equal!
"No one has established such axioms!" complains Mr. H. Well exactly, have I not made it plain enough that this is the task that lies before us? To-morrow - if not before - we as pioneers can begin to discuss, fix, and record the logical and ethical principles, axioms and foundations of our task.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 22, 2014 5:43:27 GMT -5
Mr. H's discussion of some amercian computer company and its attitude to the English language is entirely irrelevant to my use of the word "Englishmen" in connection with Kant's concept of reality. I cited Microsoft as a mere example; the terms "American English", "British English" and the rest are in far more widespread use than one mere example might of itself appear to suggest. The point, however, was that you were stating - and indeed also suggesting that I'd already stated as much and you were agreeing - "that it is probably preferable to define "English" in terms of geographical location" and what I wrote was in response to that. "We" is a very common word in the English language. It is the first person nominative plural personal pronoun. It is used here in its ordinary sense: "the readers of, and contributors to, this forum". I do not believe there is any difficulty or mystery about it. I am of course aware of the meaning of the pronoun "we"; I simply noted that I was unclear as to who you meant by your use of it. You have now identified that you mean "the readers of, and contributors to, this forum", which is at least clear, but where's the evidence for this? - i.e. the evidence that all 13 members are in agreement about the matter to which you were referring? I am a reader of and contributor to this forum and I have never suggested that I agree with this. I personally do not wish to advocate "national unification"; I advocate the abolition of nations entirely. I know that well; indeed, by "national unification" I meant the same kind of "unity of nations" as you advocate so, whilst I do not agree with you, I do at least understand what you mean. In fact I would make the mere mention of a "nation" unlawful. "You" would - but you could only do that if "you" could secure the agreement of a majority in order to try to make that stick. Only lawmakers make laws. But there Mr. H puts the cart thousands of miles ahead of the horse by turning to practical difficulties. It would be rather daft not to consider the practicalities before embarking on a project such as you advocate. The largest of them is the securing of international agreement that all nations unite and, given that such issues seem largely to be going in the opposite direction, the most impotant issue of practicality is that people don't want it! All that is frightfully premature, and he must be put straight at the earliest opportunity before it is too late. Our first task here is to establish principles and axioms. Do not forget that this is the Eutopia thread. What a yawning gap is shewn by his non-Eutopian question "at what cost"! Well there will certainly be no monetary cost because in Eutopia there will be no money and can never be money: every one will, in accordance with Eutopian principles, be equal! No money? When? Would you advocate the abolition of all currencies before attempting the unification of all the world's nations or afterwards? If before, how would you see this unification being funded - i.e. from what sources? It won't happen without the global will of the majority and, even if that could be secured, it still won't happen without immense expense! "No one has established such axioms!" complains Mr. H. Nonsense! Where have I "complained" about this or anything else here?! Well exactly, have I not made it plain enough that this is the task that lies before us? To-morrow - if not before - we as pioneers can begin to discuss, fix, and record the logical and ethical principles, axioms and foundations of our task. Well, you and anyone else who might want to can do just that by all means but would you not accept that a handful of this forum's membership alone could do anything more than just that - among themselves - in terms of the achievement of what you advocate? I do agree that this kind of preparatory work must be done before any action be taken, but a few members of this forum will never be able alone to commence any such action!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 22, 2014 5:45:19 GMT -5
I think that you have to define why the abolition of nations is good, Sydney! You have offered the opportunity to do this but it seems that it has yet to be seized upon...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2014 11:22:21 GMT -5
I must admit that I get confused! I suppose that the inevitable abolition of all nations is arguably an axiom, Sydney. WSJ - Sovereignty and the Pitiless Passage of TimeOne premise we could start with is that a nation is a human invention, and that there might be better institutions we could use. For example, we use the United Nations to help resolve intractable problems. So we could replace nations with united nations?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 22, 2014 11:45:06 GMT -5
I must admit that I get confused! I suppose that the inevitable abolition of all nations is arguably an axiom, Sydney. WSJ - Sovereignty and the Pitiless Passage of TimeOne premise we could start with is that a nation is a human invention, and that there might be better institutions we could use. For example, we use the United Nations to help resolve intractable problems. So we could replace nations with united nations? But the very principle of the United Nations (as with its predecessor the League of Nations) is that of grouping of different nations with shared aims rather than a means to knock down all borders between them; much the same could be said of EU.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2014 14:31:06 GMT -5
Neither the United Nations nor the European Union is interested in the abolition of nations (member states). Nevertheless, if the very concept of a nation is to be abolished, Sydney, what will exist in its place?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 22, 2014 16:45:06 GMT -5
Neither the United Nations nor the European Union is interested in the abolition of nations (member states). Nevertheless, if the very concept of a nation is to be abolished, Sydney, what will exist in its place? Well, Sydney, presumably...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2014 18:53:24 GMT -5
The world in which we exist will continue to exist kleines c. Just let go of the "very concept of a nation". It will NOT be replaced - that is the point. We will begin to see why when I post four axioms later to-day. "What will exist" (but NOT "in its place"), will emerge and be agreed upon in the course of our subsequent systematic discussions.
And to Mr. H - "wise cracks" are unworthy of you! The proper place for them is Madame Frank's establishment.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 22, 2014 23:14:05 GMT -5
The world in which we exist will continue to exist kleines c. Just let go of the "very concept of a nation". It will NOT be replaced - that is the point. We will begin to see why when I post four axioms later to-day. "What will exist" (but NOT "in its place"), will emerge and be agreed upon in the course of our subsequent systematic discussions. The creation and sharing of axioms will and indeed can do nothing in and of themselves to bring about what it is that you desire. The world's major politicians, supported by the will of the majority of its population, would have first to agree that this is both a good idea and an affordable one and it is clear that there is no evidence that either is the case; it is hardly going to come about when not even the entire membership of this forum can seem to reach agreement on it! And to Mr. H - "wise cracks" are unworthy of you! The proper place for them is Madame Frank's establishment. I make no claims to wisdom and hope that advancing age has yet to crack me. I am not part of what anyone might regard as the "establishment" either. The abolition of nationhood and currency might well be an interesting one for intellectual discussion and speculation, but that is as far as such a concept is likely to get for the foreseeeable future, for the reasons that I give above. Kleines c asked you to define why the abolition of nations would be a good idea; you have yet to respond to that. The prospect that there will be no further wars between nations would be the only reason that might have suggested to me that it could be worthy of consideration were it not for the fact that warring between members of / factions within that one nation would not be discouraged by its establishment. The other principal stumbling block would, of course, be the fact that no one could be elected to govern such a nation; can you imagine how the peoples of, say, Canada, Nigeria, Thailand, Norway, Kazakhstan, Brazil and and New Zealand could ever reach agreement to vote for, support and be subject to the same governmental administration?!
|
|