http://rt.com/usa/blogs/ms-middle-america/rich-ruling-poor/

"We all know that in the early days of America only white rich men were able to vote. Now that you don't have to be white, a property owner or a male to vote we all like to believe that we've come a long way, that the phrase "government by the people" is now a reality. But a research paper by Martin Gilens from 2005 shows us that is not the case. It's been referenced recently in the Economist, Mother Jones and Think Progress. I think the reason an old research paper has been coming up so much is because the evidence shown in the paper has never been so obvious or relevant.

With the middle class becoming extinct, and the lower class struggling to make it through the recession, and union wars being waged in much of the Midwest, the class issues facing out country have never been more apparent. The rise of the Tea Party this year showed the discontent of many American's with Washington. And Washington's inability to prioritize jobs has showed how little the unemployment plaguing America phases them."

I bet you didn't read this one, either or, are you in favor of Obama being revealed for what he is; just another politician who, in all honestly really doesn't care about the American people in general?

:lol:

Good piece. Wish I'd have posted it.

It would be more accurate to suggest that our present system allows, as an abstract notion, for the poor to rule the rich than to suggest vice versa. The poor, considered generally and in the aggregate, are able to exercise greater control over the rich through the government than they would be able to in its absence.

In saying that, I'm not dismissing or denying another simple, though somewhat abstract, reality: The Universe chooses, in general, to allow the rich to rule the poor to a significant degree (that's almost a truism of definitional nature). That phenomena is an extra-governmental one however, and our particular political structure functions, on net, to mitigate it more than it functions to intensify it. I acknowledge and accept that governments - and more generally, societies - necessarily exist to alter, mitigate, and defy to some extent natural phenomena (the will of the Universe, if you will), such that they are more hospitable to human survival and prosperity, and acceptable to current human sensibilities. However, I think that governments and societies err, and indeed render themselves net negatives, when they go too far in those pursuits - when they choose, in their developed arrogance, to defy the Universe's will too openly and too fundamentally.

The Universe - for whatever reason - made Carbon heavier than Hydrogen, and it gave import to all of the corresponding laws of nature which make that reality consequential. Our immediate sensibilities may not - for whatever reason - like the immediate and individual consequences of that reality and those laws. But, we shouldn't be so arrogant as to not appreciate the long-term, big picture consequences of them. Our very existence is one of those results. We owe our collective existence and our individual lives, as well as our ability to even contemplate notions of fairness, to them - to the will and choices of the Universe. We should restrain ourselves, and our arbitrary (considered in the Universal context) notions of fairness, so that they don't run away with us and lead us further (and ultimately too far) down the perilous road whereon we insist that our desires, our wants, our sensibilities, are more important than those of the Universe which created us. In other words, we (collectively, not individually) need to learn our place - even if not doing so feels like the more noble - the more 'right' - thing to do. It is only necessarily so in an arbitrary, human defined way. It's the Universe's play box, we're just guests here.

Still not terribly impressed with the reasoning in the research paper referenced. Then again, I'm not a political scientist, so when a reference is made to a conclusion that opinion leaders tend to steer public opinion, I'm skeptical. You can prove a mathematical theorem and you can substantiate a scientific hypothesis with mounds of relevant data, but some stuff - I don't buy it. I've never ever believed that Hollywood actors ever influence public opinion, for example.

On the other hand I don't think it's ever been the case in any nation in history that the nation's actions respond to anything other than the influence of the rich and powerful. The rich and powerful have guns, supplies, ammo, food, contacts, allies and so forth. The poor - well, they have a lot of complaints. You can't have the American Revolution purely on the bellyaching of angry colonists. And I can barely think of a world leader who rose to prominence straight from the ranks of the poor and downtrodden without at least a detour through the halls of wealth and influence.

Change costs money. The poor don't have it. If you don't have any power, you're not going to get anything done.

It reminds me of the George Carlin bit where he reads a piece of news where a man has barricaded himself inside his home - however, he is unarmed and no one is paying any attention to him.

It would be more accurate to suggest that our present system allows, as an abstract notion, for the poor to rule the rich than to suggest vice versa. The poor, considered generally and in the aggregate, are able to exercise greater control over the rich through the government than they would be able to in its absence.



Racist. Bigot. Homophobe. GaGa groupie.

Racist. Bigot. Homophobe. GaGa groupie.

I was offended by your sarcasm until I got to the last descriptor. I can live with being the formers if it means I get to be the latter. Dah dah, do do, just dance... :smile:

For the record though, in the last couple of days I've moved on to Handel and Vivaldi. I don't suspect that phase will last much longer.

For the record though, in the last couple of days I've moved on to Handel and Vivaldi. I don't suspect that phase will last much longer.

Yeah no kidding. Like so many artists, all their stuff sounds the same after a while. And like, after The Four Seasons, Vivaldi just didn't quite come back after that. One hit wonder.

Yeah no kidding. Like so many artists, all their stuff sounds the same after a while. And like, after The Four Seasons, Vivaldi just didn't quite come back after that. One hit wonder.

:lol:

Yeah no kidding. Like so many artists, all their stuff sounds the same after a while. And like, after The Four Seasons, Vivaldi just didn't quite come back after that. One hit wonder.

:lol:

Vivaldi and Handel no doubt have extensive bodies of compositional work. A lack of different material isn't the reason why I'm likely to quickly move out of my pre-Classical phase.

Rather, though Classical and pre-Classical compositions stimulate my mind and soul in certain ways, I'm usually looking for a different kind of stimulation from music. More often than not, I'm hoping to have music move me to sing and/or dance. As tools go, music is generally appreciated as a less sophisticated one by me - a crude one that resonates viscerally and emotionally more so than cerebrally. Lady Gaga serves that purpose better, for me, than Vivaldi does. :lol:

Girls, girls, girls, we like girls in ca-ars. Girls, girls, girls, by 'em drinks in ba-ars...

:lol: Lady Gaga serves that purpose better, for me, than Vivaldi does. :lol:

]


:doh:


And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen, the rotten core of the American soul. Or lack thereof.

:doh:


And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen, the rotten core of the American soul. Or lack thereof.

Hey, if you wanna have a Vivaldi dance party some time - let me know, I'm in like Flynn.

The best use for Classical and pre-Classical music is playing it for your infant children to hardwire their brains to be more receptive to mathematical concepts and relationships. :lol:

Hey, if you wanna have a Vivaldi dance party some time - let me know, I'm in like Flynn.

The best use for Classical and pre-Classical music is playing it for your infant children to hardwire their brains to be more receptive to mathematical concepts and relationships. :lol:

Feh. Only if their name rhymes with Johann Sebastian Bach. I'm sure no one else sees math in their head when music plays.

Hey, if you wanna have a Vivaldi dance party some time - let me know, I'm in like Flynn.

The best use for Classical and pre-Classical music is playing it for your infant children to hardwire their brains to be more receptive to mathematical concepts and relationships. :lol:

:jameo: to the first and agree with the second.

Feh. Only if their name rhymes with Johann Sebastian Bach. I'm sure no one else sees math in their head when music plays.

You don't play an instrument? I would have guess otherwise.

Music is math, pure and simple. Measures, time, cadence, note relationship, octave, it is all math. You 'see' and think numbers all the time until the magic happens and you're not thinking; you're just in the music.

It would be more accurate to suggest that our present system allows, as an abstract notion, for the poor to rule the rich than to suggest vice versa. The poor, considered generally and in the aggregate, are able to exercise greater control over the rich through the government than they would be able to in its absence.

I agree.

In saying that, I'm not dismissing or denying another simple, though somewhat abstract, reality: The Universe chooses, in general, to allow the rich to rule the poor to a significant degree (that's almost a truism of definitional nature). That phenomena is an extra-governmental one however, and our particular political structure functions, on net, to mitigate it more than it functions to intensify it.

I agree.

I acknowledge and accept that governments - and more generally, societies - necessarily exist to alter, mitigate, and defy to some extent natural phenomena (the will of the Universe, if you will), such that they are more hospitable to human survival and prosperity, and acceptable to current human sensibilities. However, I think that governments and societies err, and indeed render themselves net negatives, when they go too far in those pursuits - when they choose, in their developed arrogance, to defy the Universe's will too openly and too fundamentally.

I sort of agree. Though I would word and express it differently and would probably have subtle differences than that if I were expressing it. Simply put, I would say I would focus on achievable goals. I less convinced its the universe/existence placing limitations on whats achievable though--I would say the limitations are more based on how human society is now at this point of time.

The Universe - for whatever reason - made Carbon heavier than Hydrogen

Not in a vaccum or in space/time not affected by large body masses, which goes back to my earlier point that a lot of limitations are relevant.

Our immediate sensibilities may not - for whatever reason - like the immediate and individual consequences of that reality and those laws. But, we shouldn't be so arrogant as to not appreciate the long-term, big picture consequences of them.

Again their limitations on what humans can do in society. Human nature and instinct probably makes some forms of government better suited to generate a better living standard for its citizens. Human nature probably will always dictate that the rich will control the poor. The rich have more control over resources. All people are born with certain assumptions and biases. One of those biases is to look after one's own interest. In my opinion these facts dictate the rich will have more power than the poor. Trying to neutralize that, will be futile. However, that doesn't stop society from developing complex moral codes. Moral codes produce rules for social interaction. Moral codes have limitations in what they can do. Moral codes are more powerful though than governments in some regards like regulating self-interest. Government can codify certain moral codes, but the statutes and laws will not be effective unless society has already adopted those moral codes.

Our very existence is one of those results. We owe our collective existence and our individual lives, as well as our ability to even contemplate notions of fairness, to them - to the will and choices of the Universe. We should restrain ourselves, and our arbitrary (considered in the Universal context) notions of fairness, so that they don't run away with us and lead us further (and ultimately too far) down the perilous road whereon we insist that our desires, our wants, our sensibilities, are more important than those of the Universe which created us.

Sounds like you have been reading Greek Tradegy where man has to constantly learn his place vs. the Gods and know his limitations.

In other words, we (collectively, not individually) need to learn our place - even if not doing so feels like the more noble - the more 'right' - thing to do. It is only necessarily so in an arbitrary, human defined way. It's the Universe's play box, we're just guests here.

Again, I'd sum up your post in the phrase "Don't try to accomplish the impossible." However what was impossible 1,000 years ago may be quite possible now. I think my biggest criticism of your post is that it doesn't acknowledge change is always happening. Changes in technology, changes in human prosperity, changes in education and so on. So that what was impossible then, may be possible now. Some things like human nature, or parts of it, are probably hard wired into us. For example, I don't think humans can ever be free of bias that favors themselves.

Still not terribly impressed with the reasoning in the research paper referenced. Then again, I'm not a political scientist, so when a reference is made to a conclusion that opinion leaders tend to steer public opinion, I'm skeptical. You can prove a mathematical theorem and you can substantiate a scientific hypothesis with mounds of relevant data, but some stuff - I don't buy it. I've never ever believed that Hollywood actors ever influence public opinion, for example.

On the other hand I don't think it's ever been the case in any nation in history that the nation's actions respond to anything other than the influence of the rich and powerful. The rich and powerful have guns, supplies, ammo, food, contacts, allies and so forth. The poor - well, they have a lot of complaints. You can't have the American Revolution purely on the bellyaching of angry colonists. And I can barely think of a world leader who rose to prominence straight from the ranks of the poor and downtrodden without at least a detour through the halls of wealth and influence.

Change costs money. The poor don't have it. If you don't have any power, you're not going to get anything done.

It reminds me of the George Carlin bit where he reads a piece of news where a man has barricaded himself inside his home - however, he is unarmed and no one is paying any attention to him.

I think Tilted is right. Without society and moral rules, might makes right. Society modifies that which limits the rich's power over the poor.

I think your comment about not being able to name a world leader who rose to prominence straight from the ranks of the poor is also interesting. I think the more centralized and sophisicated society the less capable somebody is of rising straight from the ranks of the poor.

Somebody like Genghis Khan went against the traditional power structure in a 20 year civil war to establish control over the plains in Mongolia. He ended up creating a new power structure, somewhat similar to the old one though and he had lots of ties to the old power structure. However the key there is power on the central plains of Mongolia circa the 12th century (I can't remember what time he was from) was pretty decentralized and population numbers were pretty low so it was much more feasible to destroy a viable power structure that was not deteriorating on its own than it would be today with bigger populations and more centralized power.

You don't play an instrument? I would have guess otherwise.

Not really. But I have a degree in engineering with a minor in applied math. Does that count for knowing the mathematical relationships in music?

By that line of reasoning, painting fluffy clouds is math - chaos theory, physics, and so on. But most people just see fluffy clouds. Only Bach could write a piece of music and then turn the paper upside down so it was harmonic with the previous composition.

Not really. But I have a degree in engineering with a minor in applied math. Does that count for knowing the mathematical relationships in music?

By that line of reasoning, painting fluffy clouds is math - chaos theory, physics, and so on. But most people just see fluffy clouds. Only Bach could write a piece of music and then turn the paper upside down so it was harmonic with the previous composition.

Hey, you're talking to the converted choir. I am a lifelong quantum denier and have only recently been argued into even a basic understanding. In it's own way, painting fluffy clouds is math.

Chaos is different though, as I understand it.

As far as you being an honorary musician by way of math and engineering association, it depends. Yeah, you, clearly, can be counted as knowing the relationship between math and music but, there are two kinds of people in this world; math and engineering types who 'get' music and those who do not. :lol:

I think as an apparent fan of Bach, we're going to have to say you get it.

I agree.


I agree.


I sort of agree. Though I would word and express it differently and would probably have subtle differences than that if I were expressing it. Simply put, I would say I would focus on achievable goals. I less convinced its the universe/existence placing limitations on whats achievable though--I would say the limitations are more based on how human society is now at this point of time.


Not in a vaccum or in space/time not affected by large body masses, which goes back to my earlier point that a lot of limitations are relevant.

I'm not sure I follow you here. By 'heavier', I was referring to the relative masses of those elements, which determine the relative effects that they have on space/time - analogically: the respective power they have and the relative influence they exert on the world around them.


Again their limitations on what humans can do in society. Human nature and instinct probably makes some forms of government better suited to generate a better living standard for its citizens. Human nature probably will always dictate that the rich will control the poor. The rich have more control over resources. All people are born with certain assumptions and biases. One of those biases is to look after one's own interest. In my opinion these facts dictate the rich will have more power than the poor. Trying to neutralize that, will be futile. However, that doesn't stop society from developing complex moral codes. Moral codes produce rules for social interaction. Moral codes have limitations in what they can do. Moral codes are more powerful though than governments in some regards like regulating self-interest. Government can codify certain moral codes, but the statutes and laws will not be effective unless society has already adopted those moral codes.



Sounds like you have been reading Greek Tradegy where man has to constantly learn his place vs. the Gods and know his limitations.


No, I've not read as much Greek Tragedy as I probably should have. I'm just, at my core, a humble lad. :lol: When it comes to what I want, and what the Universe seems to want, I'm (hopefully) willing to defer to the latter more often than not when there is conflict. More importantly, I'm fundamentally interested in what it wants - probably more so than anything in my life, save emotional experiences/engagement.


Again, I'd sum up your post in the phrase "Don't try to accomplish the impossible." However what was impossible 1,000 years ago may be quite possible now. I think my biggest criticism of your post is that it doesn't acknowledge change is always happening. Changes in technology, changes in human prosperity, changes in education and so on. So that what was impossible then, may be possible now. Some things like human nature, or parts of it, are probably hard wired into us. For example, I don't think humans can ever be free of bias that favors themselves.

:buddies:

You're framing my comments in a slightly different perspective than they were meant in. But, I get what you're saying and we're mostly on the same page, if not in the same paragraph.

I wasn't so much referring to limitations on what can be achieved (in light of either the will of the Universe or human nature) as I was referring to the nature of human notions of fairness and 'right'. In particular, I was distinguishing between the arbitrary nature of those notions and sensibilities and the inherent nature of the Universe's notions of fairness and 'right', as revealed in its workings on both grand and tiny scales. In so doing, I was trying to make the point that, while societies necessarily seek to defy the Universe's will to some extent when their and its notions of right conflict, they should recognize what it is, fundamentally, that they are doing and restrain themselves from going too far in their defiance.

Whatever we humans may think of the unfairness of Carbon atoms having greater mass than Hydrogen atoms (analogically: some of society's members having greater wealth, more power, greater intelligence, better fortune, or what have you), and thus naturally exerting greater (gravitational) influence over their local space/time neighborhood, that is - for the most part - the Universe's call to make. It may feel right to us to try to even out the difference - to empower Hydrogen (gravitationally) relative to Carbon. But, we should tread lightly in such pursuits. For whatever reason, the Universe makes its choices - it has its rules. The reality that we sometimes disagree, for whatever (arbitrary) reason, with those rules, and aren't completely able to understand those rules - let alone why they are 'right' - doesn't negate the reality that they are, inherently, 'right'. More importantly, they are, ultimately, omnipotent.

This is God's playground. It - essentially definitionally - is not capable of being wrong. Insisting that it is is the height of arrogance. It appears to allow us our mini-rebellions (just as parents, understanding the nature of childhood and growth, often allow their children a taste of rebellion and independence). However, I suspect it will only allow us so much defiance - so much arrogance. The consequences of pushing our collective luck too far - trying too hard to 'level the playing fields', in so far as they appear to our perspectives - may be, ultimately though not immediately, disastrous (not for the Universe, just for humanity). At any rate, I'm not inclined to push our luck much further.

:lol:

Vivaldi and Handel no doubt have extensive bodies of compositional work. A lack of different material isn't the reason why I'm likely to quickly move out of my pre-Classical phase.

Rather, though Classical and pre-Classical compositions stimulate my mind and soul in certain ways, I'm usually looking for a different kind of stimulation from music. More often than not, I'm hoping to have music move me to sing and/or dance. As tools go, music is generally appreciated as a less sophisticated one by me - a crude one that resonates viscerally and emotionally more so than cerebrally. Lady Gaga serves that purpose better, for me, than Vivaldi does. :lol:

Girls, girls, girls, we like girls in ca-ars. Girls, girls, girls, by 'em drinks in ba-ars...

mOpp7I85zNc

You don't play an instrument? I would have guess otherwise.

Music is math, pure and simple. Measures, time, cadence, note relationship, octave, it is all math. You 'see' and think numbers all the time until the magic happens and you're not thinking; you're just in the music.

:yay: I believe that is the reason that people who excel in music tend to also excel in math and science.

You can learn to play without understanding the math, but you cannot understand things like harmonies, chords, scales, arpeggios, without understanding the science and math involved.

It's funny, some people think that the more complex music gets, the more abstract and esoteric it is, but in reality the complexity is all firmly rooted in math and science - if not, it is just noise.

:yay: I believe that is the reason that people who excel in music tend to also excel in math and science.

You can learn to play without understanding the math, but you cannot understand things like harmonies, chords, scales, arpeggios, without understanding the science and math involved.

It's funny, some people think that the more complex music gets, the more abstract and esoteric it is, but in reality the complexity is all firmly rooted in math and science - if not, it is just noise.

It's fascinating, that's for sure. I've known players who had the math part down, they knew what they were doing but, they had little or no 'feel'. And I wasn't kidding about the 'two types of people' thing; there are plenty of engineering types that don't know squat about music.

And I know folks who can barely add but, have incredible feel for music. :lol:

I've been playing for 30 years and I've always avoided much in the way of formal training because I always feared it would take away from the magic if I thoroughly 'knew' the fretboard, feared it would become an abacus or calculator. So, I clunk along and still love unlocking more secrets. And on the other hand, I know some absolutely tremendous players, technically sound, who still find the magic.

And I know folks who can barely add but, have incredible feel for music. :lol:


That's kind of where I think a lot of really good musicians are, actually. I remember once reading an advertisement for music teaching where the ad asked what they would think of a child who couldn't speak at all unless they had their words in front of them on a piece of paper - and how that translates to how kids learn and perform music, being unable to play something they already know, because they don't have the notes written for them.

I remember years ago I used to be able to play anything on a harmonica if I heard it, because sheet music was irrelevant - I still can't sight read music, even though I sing in groups often (although I can guess fairly well). Most of the people I've known who really do well in their craft have a "feel" for it - I worked for a guy who was a carpenter who could saw off shims off a 2x4 in sixteenths of an inch increments by sight; could, by inspection, tell you how many fractions of an inch a stair is out of level; could grab just about any number of nails exactly, by weight and feel.

I've known musicians with similar skill, and they are often self-taught. They can make music with common household items, because they have perfect pitch; others who can compose on the fly on the direction of someone describing how it should sound (up a half step - darker - no, a minor key). They compose well via experience - they don't know the psychology of minor keys or arpeggios - they just know how it makes people feel. I suspect that a lot of pop musicians create songs that sound similar to stuff they've heard, and they heavily borrow from one another, which is why whole genres of music sound similar, or why so much music from a given era sounds the same at some level.

It's like sports, like baseball. A ball hit into the outfield is a simple physics problem, but no outfielder in history has caught a ball by doing the math first. You might think they're unwittingly doing the math, but - well, our dog used to catch fly balls, and I'm sure he had no idea what math was.

I don't dispute the mathematical nature of the universe. I once took a course in number theory as a prerequisite to coding theory, and it was clear that historically mathematicians regarded their work the same way people celebrate art. My number theory prof claimed that the Greeks celebrated for three days when one of Pythagoras' students proved that the square root of two was irrational (although I tend to disbelieve it, because Greeks were convinced that every number in existence could be represented by a ration of two numbers).

But I suspect that most people and creatures react to their environment in a mathematical manner without ever doing a single computation.

I suspect that a lot of pop musicians create songs that sound similar to stuff they've heard, and they heavily borrow from one another, which is why whole genres of music sound similar, or why so much music from a given era sounds the same at some level.



Ah, yes, pop music. There is math to that, too. It is the law of CAG.


The notes C, A and G are pleasant and are easy for the vast majority of us to sing along with without sounding like dying cats. It is a physiological thing that so many people can naturally sing along to songs that are rooted in C, A and G.

Vraiblonde's dad taught me that.

So, they do 'borrow' from one another but, it is more like your carpenter; they use 16 penny nails because they are suitable to the task, not so much actual copying. C, A and G are suitable to the task of making LCD music (aka 'pop')

:buddies:

Ah, yes, pop music. There is math to that, too. It is the law of CAG.


The notes C, A and G are pleasant and are easy for the vast majority of us to sing along with without sounding like dying cats. It is a physiological thing that so many people can naturally sing along to songs that are rooted in C, A and G.

Vraiblonde's dad taught me that.

So, they do 'borrow' from one another but, it is more like your carpenter; they use 16 penny nails because they are suitable to the task, not so much actual copying. C, A and G are suitable to the task of making LCD music (aka 'pop')

:buddies:

A lot of people here have probably already seen this, but your post made me think about it again. And, I still get a chuckle hearing it every now and then:

5pidokakU4I

A lot of people here have probably already seen this, but your post made me think about it again. And, I still get a chuckle hearing it every now and then:



A chuckle isn't exactly what comes to mind.

:buddies:

I wasn't so much referring to limitations on what can be achieved (in light of either the will of the Universe or human nature) as I was referring to the nature of human notions of fairness and 'right'. In particular, I was distinguishing between the arbitrary nature of those notions and sensibilities and the inherent nature of the Universe's notions of fairness and 'right', as revealed in its workings on both grand and tiny scales. In so doing, I was trying to make the point that, while societies necessarily seek to defy the Universe's will to some extent when their and its notions of right conflict, they should recognize what it is, fundamentally, that they are doing and restrain themselves from going too far in their defiance.

I too agree that human notions of fairness and right are entirely man made. I am not sure if I would call them arbitrary. I think moral theory at its very core is rooted in structuring social interaction in such a way as to avoid conflict in society, so I don't see as arbitrary as you. Thats like saying its arbitrary that sheep stay together as flock (where it increases their protection from predators), that small predators work together, and that large predators act solo. There inter-species interactions are governed by these facts, but they are driven by practical considerations in such a way I don't think they are arbitrary.

The Universe does not have notions of fairness and right. The Universe provides space/time and matter (and probably other stuff). Without the universe we couldn't exist. But the universe does not completely dictate human behavior. Obviously men can't fly cause of gravity, so it does dictate we walk for example, so it dictates quite a lot of human behavior. But there is a lot it does not dictate and that is what we call free will. Men could just as easy set up a communistic society. The universe does not dictate that society will fail...human nature is going to dictate that society fails.

I am not a mystical person at all. I was raised a Catholic. Catholic teachings don't focus on mysticism, though there are certainly great Catholic thinkers who have elements of mysticism in their thinking. That stuff never appealed to me in the slightest. I almost never even bother to think about challenging the laws of universe. I am much more interested in what limitations human nature places on us. I think that fact that the rich tend to control the poor is not about the universe, but goes back solely to human nature.

Whatever we humans may think of the unfairness of Carbon atoms having greater mass than Hydrogen atoms (analogically: some of society's members having greater wealth, more power, greater intelligence, better fortune, or what have you), and thus naturally exerting greater (gravitational) influence over their local space/time neighborhood, that is - for the most part - the Universe's call to make. It may feel right to us to try to even out the difference - to empower Hydrogen (gravitationally) relative to Carbon. But, we should tread lightly in such pursuits. For whatever reason, the Universe makes its choices - it has its rules. The reality that we sometimes disagree, for whatever (arbitrary) reason, with those rules, and aren't completely able to understand those rules - let alone why they are 'right' - doesn't negate the reality that they are, inherently, 'right'. More importantly, they are, ultimately, omnipotent.

Again the universe didn't dictate the rich control the poor. Pretty rocks don't control ugly rocks. Carbon doesn't control Hydrogen (or if it does it is because of their electrical charges--I haven't taken a Chemistry class since HS). Even if life came from the elements are nature's proclivity towards reproducing complex patterns and not from God, we as humans are smart enough not act instinctively.

This is God's playground. It - essentially definitionally - is not capable of being wrong. Insisting that it is is the height of arrogance. It appears to allow us our mini-rebellions (just as parents, understanding the nature of childhood and growth, often allow their children a taste of rebellion and independence). However, I suspect it will only allow us so much defiance - so much arrogance. The consequences of pushing our collective luck too far - trying too hard to 'level the playing fields', in so far as they appear to our perspectives - may be, ultimately though not immediately, disastrous (not for the Universe, just for humanity). At any rate, I'm not inclined to push our luck much further.

Again I see the limitations of what societies humans can craft going back to human nature.

I too agree that human notions of fairness and right are entirely man made. I am not sure if I would call them arbitrary. I think moral theory at its very core is rooted in structuring social interaction in such a way as to avoid conflict in society, so I don't see as arbitrary as you.

I'm referring to them as arbitrary as compared to the whims - sensibilities - rules - will - whatever - of the Universe. Considering them in the limited context of human existence, I agree, they aren't particularly arbitrary. They actually seem rather innate, and they are, at any rate, based on articulable principles.

Thats like saying its arbitrary that sheep stay together as flock (where it increases their protection from predators), that small predators work together, and that large predators act solo. There inter-species interactions are governed by these facts, but they are driven by practical considerations in such a way I don't think they are arbitrary.

I wouldn't consider those instincts as arbitrary in the context of animals existence - quite to the contrary. They are (somewhat) specific embodiments of the Universe's will - rules - workings - again, whatever - as applicable in the context of animals' existence.

The Universe does not have notions of fairness and right.

I'm using those notions terms of human understanding to refer to the consequences of the Universe's condition - i's rules, its properties. I see no intentionality in the Universe - in God. But, I do see existence. I see basic realities - basic rules and conditions (though we are probably light years from understanding them, and being able to describe them, on the most fundamental level). My point is that, however the Universe is arranged - whatever the result of its existence, its properties, its conditions, its rules - is, in so far as consideration of such things goes, the least arbitrary notion of how things 'should' be, that which is most inherently 'right'. As humans, we have notions and ideas which, to some extent, seem to run contrary to those Universal notions of existence (though, necessarily only with regard to considering them in limited, specific contexts - in the big picture, they themselves must just be manifestations of the Universes' will). I'm saying that whatever the Universe causes to be (whether merely as a result of its existence in a state certain or because of some larger intentionality), is, in the least arbitrary sense, what is fair and right. I don't see how that truism (in so far as I'm concerned) can be refuted - though perhaps its importance can be dismissed, and is to varying degrees by various people.

The Universe provides space/time and matter (and probably other stuff). Without the universe we couldn't exist. But the universe does not completely dictate human behavior. Obviously men can't fly cause of gravity, so it does dictate we walk for example, so it dictates quite a lot of human behavior. But there is a lot it does not dictate and that is what we call free will. Men could just as easy set up a communistic society. The universe does not dictate that society will fail...human nature is going to dictate that society fails.

I'm not sure how, looking at things on the most fundamental level, human behavior could not be, at its core, dictated by the Universe - unless we're just considering the Universe as different definitionally (with me considering it very abstractly and very broadly, and you somehow considering it more specifically - which may be the case, and pointed to my use of a capitalized word and your use of a non-capitalized word).

All that we humans are exists as part of the Universe. All of our workings are within that Universe - we exist within its context and by its rules. Whatever human free will may be, it is part of the Universe - it exists within it and as a result of it. That will may be free in the context of human existence, but it can't - essentially definitionally - be in the context of the Universe. It doesn't exist outside of that Universe, or else the Universe isn't all that there is (and, I'm using it to refer to all that there is). That free will abides by the Universe's rules - it is determined by the Universe's condition at a given point, whatever that may be, and its underlying rule, whatever that may be. (This is clearly a philosophical conversation at this point, be I'm talking about the meaning of statements I've made, so...)

I am not a mystical person at all. I was raised a Catholic. Catholic teachings don't focus on mysticism, though there are certainly great Catholic thinkers who have elements of mysticism in their thinking. That stuff never appealed to me in the slightest. I almost never even bother to think about challenging the laws of universe. I am much more interested in what limitations human nature places on us. I think that fact that the rich tend to control the poor is not about the universe, but goes back solely to human nature.

Nor am I. I'm more of a determinist. My innate need to appreciate and sense mystical phenomena is sufficiently satiated by my recognition that, even if the Universe is deterministic, an imperfect and incomplete awareness of its conditions, and understanding of its dynamics, presents as mysticism.

Again the universe didn't dictate the rich control the poor. Pretty rocks don't control ugly rocks. Carbon doesn't control Hydrogen (or if it does it is because of their electrical charges--I haven't taken a Chemistry class since HS). Even if life came from the elements are nature's proclivity towards reproducing complex patterns and not from God, we as humans are smart enough not act instinctively.

I was obviously being analogical. Carbon atoms don't 'control' Hydrogen atoms - they don't 'rule' them in a human societal structure sense. However, e.g., their greater mass distorts space/time in their neighborhood to a greater degree than Hydrogen atoms' does. In turn, that distorted space time affects local Hydrogen atoms (as well as Carbon atoms and everything else). In that sense, Carbon atoms have more influence over the Universe (that both they and Hydrogen atoms exist in) than Hydrogen atoms do. There are other ways in which they have respectively different influences and effects on the Universe (and each other). They are different and their effects are different - their influence is different. Depending on how we are considering that influence, one or the other can be perceived as having much more influence than the other. But, the point is that constituent parts of the Universe (however they are considered, unless they are just considered in the whole) are sometimes different and thus their effects on the rest of the Universe are different. For better or worse (as we may consider such things), that is the will of the Universe.

Again I see the limitations of what societies humans can craft going back to human nature.

Which I see as necessarily a part of, and more to the point - a function of, the Universe.


I should probably proofread this post, but I don't much feel like it. :lol:


:buddies:

Still not terribly impressed with the reasoning in the research paper referenced. Then again, I'm not a political scientist, so when a reference is made to a conclusion that opinion leaders tend to steer public opinion, I'm skeptical. You can prove a mathematical theorem and you can substantiate a scientific hypothesis with mounds of relevant data, but some stuff - I don't buy it. I've never ever believed that Hollywood actors ever influence public opinion, for example.

On the other hand I don't think it's ever been the case in any nation in history that the nation's actions respond to anything other than the influence of the rich and powerful. The rich and powerful have guns, supplies, ammo, food, contacts, allies and so forth. The poor - well, they have a lot of complaints. You can't have the American Revolution purely on the bellyaching of angry colonists. And I can barely think of a world leader who rose to prominence straight from the ranks of the poor and downtrodden without at least a detour through the halls of wealth and influence.

Change costs money. The poor don't have it. If you don't have any power, you're not going to get anything done.

It reminds me of the George Carlin bit where he reads a piece of news where a man has barricaded himself inside his home - however, he is unarmed and no one is paying any attention to him.

Change doesn't necessarily take money, it does take power though. That power can come from a number of sources, money, politics or religion are the big three. Anyone with enough cash can influence almost anything. Someone high enough up in almost any major religion has almost as much influence, but generally, at least in the last century, tends to stay out of day to day politics. As for political power, the people in this subset tend to wield their power more like a club than the other two, and like to involve themselves in almost any situation wether they know anything about it or not. I see no reason to exclude unions from this last category.

I bet you didn't read this one, either or, are you in favor of Obama being revealed for what he is; just another politician who, in all honestly really doesn't care about the American people in general?

:lol:

Good piece. Wish I'd have posted it.

i think that he (Obama) thinks that he cares about the American people

but the evidence shows that he is like Bush, Clinton, etc. and is beholden to Big Corporations and the Political Establishment

I'm not sure how, looking at things on the most fundamental level, human behavior could not be, at its core, dictated by the Universe - unless we're just considering the Universe as different definitionally (with me considering it very abstractly and very broadly, and you somehow considering it more specifically - which may be the case, and pointed to my use of a capitalized word and your use of a non-capitalized word).

Well lets say physics can perfectly describe the universe. I have no idea if our concept of math and numbers in sophisticated enough to explain the universe entirely but for argument's sake assume it can. Could physics then describe human behavior.

The answer I think is clearly yes, if just because definitionally I say physics can describe everything in the universe.

But if that is the case, the universe compels the rich not only to rule the poor, but humans to rebel against that basic rule as societies become more complexed.

All that we humans are exists as part of the Universe. All of our workings are within that Universe - we exist within its context and by its rules. Whatever human free will may be, it is part of the Universe - it exists within it and as a result of it. That will may be free in the context of human existence, but it can't - essentially definitionally - be in the context of the Universe. It doesn't exist outside of that Universe, or else the Universe isn't all that there is (and, I'm using it to refer to all that there is). That free will abides by the Universe's rules - it is determined by the Universe's condition at a given point, whatever that may be, and its underlying rule, whatever that may be. (This is clearly a philosophical conversation at this point, be I'm talking about the meaning of statements I've made, so...)




Seems like you are agreeing with what I just said in this paragraph. We are going to obey the universe's rules whether we try to obey or disobey the universe's rule. Kind of like what happened to poor Oedipus. He tried to avoid the Gods' will and he ended obeying it exactly.

Anyway, its improbable that our current systems at mathematics are anywhere even close to giving us an understanding of the universe that could solve these philosophical questions. Just like physics says if you split a hydrogen atom it will release energy perhaps its inevitable that given a complex society, humans will try to modify the rule that might makes right, which is a basic law of nature. A mathematical equation could prove that point, but that equation is way out of our league. We can barely understand simple particles and waves, much less how particles and highly organized atoms numbered in the trillion, nillions, or whatever a high number is are going to interact.

Since we don't have that we might as well go on what we do have. An innate sense of human nature.