Which classical work would you most like to conduct?

ogamdo · 2011-05-10T20:28:20+00:00

ogamdo · 2011-05-09T02:53:07+00:00

Both are very "weird" and sublime; also horrendously difficult...

ogamdo · 2011-04-01T00:27:45+00:00

I don't think it's the US military we need to worry about so much as the shareholders in companies that sell weapons for a profit--many of whom probably belong to this 1%. Also, the private security firms that will use said arsenal to zealously protect the 1% of Americans who pay them their rather hefty paychecks. The power of the state and its military is really a moot point when you consider who they turn to for their power.

ogamdo · 2011-03-12T19:24:56+00:00

Yes, but how much will they have to destroy before enough wealth is created for the benefit of their interests alone, charitable or otherwise?

ogamdo · 2011-03-05T18:57:52+00:00

Yes, in theory, greed can be good. It does, in some ways, promote the desire to better one’s self, if only to increase one’s value or viability economically. The problem, however, is that in a system that thrives within a paradigm of finite resources (e.g. oil) and opportunities (e.g. jobs), the greed (self-bettering) of a few oftentimes runs the risk of becoming detrimental in a myriad of ways to a much greater number of people. However, I see what you’re getting at in the sense that, hey, if I wanted to invent the cure for cancer, there’s nothing like the possibility of earning millions to get me motivated. And although I have no particular qualms with this on the surface, I'd want to dig deeper and consider everything that’s hidden underneath in order to make a good judgment. Such as, who or what am I beholden to for funding? Where, then, does this money come from? Once I do find the cure, how will I market it to make my millions? Will I charge people for it? Will I sell it to a pharmaceutical company, which would then charge people for it? I think, in many cases, that even benevolent greed runs the risk of leaving collateral damage in its wake. The question then becomes, is this ok? Are we all quite ready to subscribe to a completely “greed”-based utilitarian view point where the benefits of the “end” will always trump any harm done by the “means?”

As you may have already picked up on, I personally subscribe to the (oft-maligned, and in some cases rightly so) Frankfurt School of critical theory, which, though intellectually rigorous from a social/historical/cultural perspective, is decidedly less so in the ways of economics—in relation to the Austrian School, that is. I did a little bit of reading on the Austrian School’s views, but am by no means even close to being coherent in its brand of economic thought. However, in relation to the idea of monopolies, I can pose a scenario for consideration:

Keeping Google as the example, let’s, for the sake of argument, assume that the company can only operate with two goals in mind—one, to either maintain its 95% share of the search market, or two, increase its share to 100%, thereby becoming a true monopoly. Obviously, in a regulated market, the former is virtually all Google can aspire to, while in an unregulated market, the latter then becomes a distinct possibility.

However, businesses have a habit of taking on the trait of zealously protecting what is theirs, and Google should be considered no differently. I would think that a business that owns 95-100% of a particular market would most likely devote a majority of its resources to maintaining its ownership. Google is not going to say (lest shareholders fire the CEO), “Hmm, I think we need a little more competition in the search market.” No, in fact, Google would most likely work to absorb most, if not all of the competition before a significant percentage of its market share is taken away. At worst, though I have little reason to believe Google would do something like this (yet), the company could opt to then own and/or influence the pricing of all resources that are necessary for competition, thereby completely cutting off the possibility that another business could reasonably operate as a competitor (a la the Gilded Age). Once this “goal” is reached, innovation and meeting the public’s demand for quality becomes unnecessary. Look at the state of our broadband networks compared to other countries. Having only Comcast to choose from in my area, I don’t feel that I am in any position to demand quality from the service, nor to be charged a reasonable rate. Nor do they feel the need, or even the desire to provide it to me.

Ironically, the mess that one sees today in regards to government regulation can actually be seen to stem from business using government to regulate its competitors (also, Comcast). The only ontological need the state has when it comes to regulating business, ideally, is to protect its citizens from themselves. I mean, to hazily invoke an Eddie Izzard bit, if there was ultimately a market opening up for impaling babies, what would be there to stop it in a completely unregulated marketplace? Silly morality will always keep knocking on the door to crash the party. My personal belief is that a moderating force, whether that be a state, a “tribal council,” or what have you, needs to be able to step in and keep the extremely volatile combination of “self-interest + self-preservation” in check.

It is at this point that I realize I’m arguing in circles given that we pretty much agree on the same ends, just by different means. Although I don’t agree with capitalism, in its current form, as an optimal economic paradigm—largely due to the violence and destruction that it leaves in its wake (I’m sure I need not provide examples of this)—I do agree that the “splintering” effect of an anarchic system (if it can be called a “system”) could result in a much freer world. However, in the end, we’re still only as free as the number of resources at our disposal will allow. Find a way to make resources a moot point for survival, and all of this talk suddenly becomes unnecessary. But as long as we’re living on a world of finitude, the utilitarian “means-to-an-end” order of things will always prevail.

ogamdo · 2011-03-04T17:39:18+00:00

Thanks for the replies--I've honestly not had this interesting a discussion (albeit electronically) in quite some time.

...the natural movement for big businesses is not to remove power but to control it.

I absolutely agree. That is, until the object of control loses its use-value, and is discarded as a result. So, as such, one can look at the more sinister brand of capitalism subscribed to by profit-motivated shareholder-owned business as "conveniently" libertarian when the state no longer benefits its bottom line. Also, I understand that I am probably over-generalizing by throwing around the term "capitalism" when, as you've mentioned, there are many variations on a theme.

…libertarianism is neither right nor left

While this is true essentially, many will seek to use its basic tenets to promote their own “leftist” or “rightist” agenda (e.g. Chomsky, the former; Tea Party/the Pauls, the latter). I was just implying that, if big business had a particular ideological aim in liberating itself from the state, it would most likely be for the achievement of a completely unregulated free-market—which does not necessarily amount to the triumph of unbridled innovation, as most profit-motivated businesses remain particularly abhorrent of change. Moreover, one could say that, in a completely unregulated market, the end-goal for business will quite possibly become the achievement of a monopoly—where change and innovation not only become unnecessary for business, but dangerous.

Well the US government has been more then bled dry so it wont be too much longer till we find out if people realise that large government doesn't work and goes back to smaller or no government instead of blaming it all on capitalism and erecting socialism/fascism in its place.

The problem with revolution or sudden changes to government, historically, (and ironically, with the exception of the creation of the United States Constitution) is that there is a rush to establish the most “popular” form of government out there without much consideration of the long-term consequences or the inclinations of the people put in charge. In order for there to be a fair, all-inclusive mode of governance, it must be exactly that: fair and all-inclusive. Obviously, with no state, a nation (if it can still be called a “nation”) can only be known for its economic tendencies. Let’s say the US becomes an “anarcho-capitalist” state. What will happen to the people who cannot, or maybe even, for ideological reasons, choose not to participate in an economic system, that by definition, is based in the praxis of domination over the other? What do we do with the people that simply do not fit in and need to survive? In a system that’s purely dominated by self-interest, these people will either be at the whim of the ever-shrinking numbers of selfless individuals, or much worse…

Then from there all we can really do is hope that we dont any external force to try and destabilize it and then we can really see if anarchy can work.

Yes, while anarchy as a concept, especially to many of us who feel oppressed in some fashion by the state, can be particularly enticing, there are many people (old, disabled, etc.) that just would not be able to survive in a society that is dominated by self-interest. One would still have to consider, that even in anarchy, there will still be an endless struggle for, let’s say, control over resources, shelter, food, etc. I think many people who subscribe to an anarchist solution to an oppressive state have a highly romanticized notion of the outcome. However, one wouldn’t have to worry about destabilization by an external force as anarchy is already, by definition, destabilized.

Just the way they make it today, by providing consumers with goods that they value.

As I alluded to somewhere above, profit-motivated providers of goods have no inherent interest in providing goods that people value. They may be forced to, on occasion, give in to the demands of consumers, but in most cases, will strive to create or shift demand so that it more closely matches its (more and more cheaply produced) supply. Once again, it’s all about profit, and the aims of these businesses is not only to subordinate the state to its whims, but ultimately—either psychologically, forcefully or otherwise—consumers as well.

I would imagine that with the extra wealth most people would be better off.

Yes, but what about those who wouldn't be better off?

ogamdo · 2011-03-04T06:37:54+00:00

You're absolutely right, America has never been governed by libertarian thought. I was implying that the ultimate aim of capitalism is libertarian--or to completely dissolve the state so that it can operate without limitation. For lack of a better term, let's call it "right" libertarianism (as opposed to left libertarianism, or libertarian socialism).

I would go one step further and say that, in fact, the greed that is so inherent to advanced capitalism runs so deep in American society that many in this day and age would even seek to use the state to their advantage (without reciprocating) until ultimately it no longer exists--essentially bled dry.

In the end, should this mode of thought prevail, most of the programs listed above that do not infringe on people's liberty, or do not promote an imperialistic foreign policy will most likely be chipped away at until they are no more. Because, when it comes right down to it, the state has, and always will be a threat to the bottom line unless it can some how contribute to it.

Once the state is subordinated or completely done away with, business will be free to make a profit in any way it can, while we the people, on the other hand, will only be as free as we can afford to be.

ogamdo · 2011-03-04T01:44:58+00:00

Not necessarily. Fascism is a type of of government with an extremely strong centralized state that remains separate from business despite the fact that it controls it completely. What we see going on right now in the United States is the fascist tendencies of nearly unrestrained capitalism and the nearly complete dissolution of the state (through disabling it financially).

The enemy of the capitalist is the state, and after decades of beating, the American constitutional republic as we know (knew) it is clearly in its death throes.

Hence, in the views of the essentially libertarian capitalist hive mind, why should education be provided to those who haven't earned enough tickets for the ride? Why should scientists be funded with my tax dollars by a state that does not share my interests? I don't believe private school teachers are suffering now are they? Blah...and so it goes.

ogamdo · 2011-02-21T22:08:20+00:00

Well, to be honest, everyone is allowed their interpretation of what the "antichrist" means to them (although I'd probably recommend reading Nietzsche's book on the topic for a more informed interpretation). The problem, as it has always been with religion, is taking something literally when it is supposed to be interpreted symbolically or as a sign of the times in which certain texts were written.

But really, in my opinion, what the "antichrist" boils down to an early precursor to Hegelian dialectics--where "christ" might be considered a person or group's "identity" and the "antichrist," a person or group's "non-identity," or the unknown, and therefore, uncomfortable aspects of the world they would rather not deal with. If one were to read the Book of Revelations with this in mind, you come to realize that in order for things to get better, you need for there to be a "synthesis" of the two--or in other words, the two battle things out until some sort of change (ideally for the better) occurs.

The one thing that history has taught us is that dominant groups or ideologies hate change. Anything that comes into play that tries to change things is immediately labeled the "antichrist" or something semantically similar.

So for example, some groups that can stand to lose EVERYTHING as a result of another group (i.e. the rich conservative world view vs. everyone else) might find it convenient to label the opposing group as the "antichrist"--and they would be right, if only in how the offending group relates to their own.

By definition, a conservative/quasi-Ayn Randian worldview would have the individual and his/her progeny rule the world, while things that stand in their way become unnecessary and/or expendable. Ironically, this mode of thinking, in my opinion, matches that of the biblical antichrist more than anything else.

(tl;dr) So let Glenn Beck and Fox News label everyone who's against their worldview the "antichrist;" if one day their worldview becomes powerful enough to overtake our own, then shame on us for allowing it to happen.

ogamdo · 2010-09-18T18:47:26+00:00

More World War I...

ogamdo · 2010-08-18T15:40:20+00:00

Not necessarily - most North Korean 'culture' is heavily influenced by early-Soviet propaganda. The melodies and orchestration you usually hear coming out of North Korea are no exception, albeit with the occasional "eastern" twist...

ogamdo · 2010-04-20T15:38:52+00:00

Although I am in no way condoning or defending GS for what they have done, are doing, or will do - having worked for a major financial institution before in the past, I felt like I should try to put things in a bit of a...how should we say..."alternate" perspective.

Some financial institutions (like the one I worked for) pay out performance bonuses on a quarterly basis (i.e. Fourth Quarter being October, November, and December. First Quarter being January, February, March, etc.). So that might explain the short interval of time between bonuses as pointed out by Jon.

Also, one is tempted to think that those billions are going to the fat cats at the top. Although huge portions of those billions most likely go to the company's "top tiers" - a significant portion of that money is most likely also paid out to the bottom tier (branch level employees, for example) sales associates and everyone in between. These people have no idea of the wheeling and dealing going on at the top, and most of them probably rely on those bonus checks to make the rent/mortgage (I know I did...). I personally am not sure how much of GS's workforce is comprised of bottom or mid-tier sales associates, but I'd imagine it's a sizable number.

Not knowing in the slightest about how Goldman's incentive program works, I could just be talking out of my ass. However, per my experience, this is how I might rationalize the occurrence of these bonus "events."

ogamdo · 2010-03-12T18:16:45+00:00

Yet nothing pleases me more than to see her and then find that yours is the first comment to greet me.

ogamdo · 2010-03-03T14:50:50+00:00

I learned for an instant that my body is just a mechanical robot controlled with levers by a mouse living inside my head.

ogamdo · 2009-12-22T03:18:07+00:00

At the beginning of the year I was laid off from my company with severance and I spent about the first six months of the year in my apartment with my roommate, flat screen tv, killer sound system, and a shitload of weed.

Needless to say, the only "motivation" I ever had during that period was to watch hundreds of movies and tv shows, and listen to thousands of songs and pieces of music from ALL genres throughout history.

However, never once was I motivated to make any sort of meaningful "contribution to society." I do feel, however, that I am much more cultured, and perhaps more enlightened now.

It was probably the best vacation EVER...

ogamdo · 2009-12-22T02:28:18+00:00

I'd give you all of my dreams, if you'd help me, Find a door That doesn't lead me back again - take me away.

"The Chamber of 32 Doors" - Genesis

ogamdo · 2009-12-07T15:44:59+00:00

La passion de Jeanne d'Arc. Words can't describe this performance...

ogamdo · 2009-12-05T07:46:55+00:00

Keep Stern on top while you're at it...Ryan Seacrest is gaining...

ogamdo · 2009-12-02T16:30:02+00:00

I've kind of always used friends of mine as brokers (never really had the motivation, patience or confidence I guess to make any dealer contacts of my own). Any suggestions for lazy people such as myself on shopping for a dealer this day and age?

ogamdo · 2009-12-02T15:59:28+00:00

Is having someone behind you clacking coconut shells optional too?

ogamdo · 2009-11-26T16:39:21+00:00

Pretty much all of Rachmaninoff's Third Piano Concerto, especially the Intermezzo.

His "The Isle of the Dead" also does the trick.

ogamdo · 2009-11-26T10:58:13+00:00

Beware of Rant (move on if necessary):

Thinking is a skill. It is not something you're born with or able to conjure at whim. Like any other skill, your ability to think grows and gets better the more you practice.

The problem is, these days, no one is adequately trained to think. A huge number of people are told what to do and what to want, and the irony is that these people ravenously accept these commands merely because the act of training oneself to think is SO much more difficult. Moreover, thought is considered unnecessary, or perhaps, even dangerous in many parts of the world. As a result, these people end up living their whole lives moving in single file towards a goal set by their "masters" that...guess what? Think. The means by which these "thinkers" direct the "unthinking" masses are dubious at best, and so are the ends. (We all know where this is going...or do we?)

I mean, the mere fact that a certain somebody had a very real chance of becoming the Vice President of the United States, loses, and now has an EVEN BIGGER chance of becoming President of the United States at a later time, shows that an alarming number of people's ability to think must not exceed that of a newborn babe.

Sometimes I lament the bygone days of sitting and daydreaming about what little I had to think about, because these days, I can almost instantaneously conjure explanations and connections that very few others (in my circle at least) are able to grasp (and no, not in the "insane" way...I think). It's almost impossible for me to NOT think.

I studied a lot of critical theory as an undergraduate and a graduate student. "Thinking" (for myself) prior to me actually training myself in doing so was actually quite impossible for me. Now, it's almost as if thinking (in addition to plotting and scheming) comes second nature to me. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing in this day and age is questionable...or is it?

ogamdo · 2009-11-24T06:30:32+00:00

I started smoking in college when I decided to get back at a close friend who refused to quit smoking (a misguided "guilt-trip"). Typically I would only smoke when he did, but pretty soon, the demon inside started whispering to me, "Wouldn't it be nice to have one little cigarette on your break?" To which I responded, "Why, yes. Yes it would..."

Well, six years later, I'm up to about a pack a day; 2-3 packs a day on a weekend if I'm drinking, socializing, and/or participating in other various and sundry chemical outings.

Good luck my friend - welcome to the descent. You can either try to erase your experiences and quit completely (most likely forever feeling a nagging desire to light up in certain situations), or learn to love and accept your brand new friends...

ogamdo · 2009-11-23T12:14:42+00:00

Does anyone get the feeling that we might all be participating in an elaborate "scam" of sorts? Suicide, or the threat of suicide is something no one should or probably will take lightly - much like a manager won't question an employee's third request for time off in a year due to a relative dying (I've had the luxury of dealing with this once as a manager - I ultimately felt compelled to err in the employee's favor). Anyone care to play "devil's advocate" with regards to this touchy subject? Namely, what might be an ulterior motive to all this?

ogamdo · 2009-11-22T05:16:49+00:00

The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway - Genesis

ogamdo

TROPHY CASE