"[Yamamura] laid no plans while his Volkswagen slipped through freeway traffic. The teaching of the judo school encourages a man to be passive, to expect nothing: then, if he is trained, he can react to whatever does come with such speed that he makes himself part of the total process." (p. 54)
Yamamura:
"'...I do wear a black belt in the fourth degree.'" (p. 61)
"'I imagine you wish the psuedointellectuals would get off this Zen Buddhism kick so the precepts could be practiced seriously.'" (p. 59)
Somewhere we discussed the use of "intellectual" as a negative term. "...psuedointellectuals..." is obviously derogatory but who are they exactly? Anyone who reads and thinks is exercising his intellect to the extent of his ability although some people get pretentious about it just as others get pretentious about not being intellectuals. "I got my degree in the school of hard knocks!" was said defiantly by a businessman on British TV. "I got my socialism from experience, not from reading books," was said by a candidate in a Student Union election. (He had better start reading some books, though.)
Everyone has to start somewhere. I read and thought a lot about Buddhism before I started to meditate. We have to move from recipes to cooking and from menus to eating. "Books on Zen are legs on a snake." But the existence of "psuedointellectuals" does not prevent us from doing this.
39 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And I hope that Student Union electoral candidate will read as varied as Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, and Alexander Solzhenitsyn, among others--to learn how BLOODILY futile socialism is! The height of folly is to repeat a failed experiment a hundred (or a thousand) times and expect it to succeed the next time.
Sean
Sean,
I think that capitalism is performing pretty badly right now!: prolonged crisis; increasing poverty; ecological damage; xenophobia; threats of wars. A better way has to be found longer term - or even in the shorter term, right now.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I have to disagree. Because, when allowed to work, free enterprise economics (a better term than capitalism) has always succeeded. The bad things you listed did not come to exist because of free enterprise. And in fact socialist regimes has stimulated many of them, such as poverty, political oppression, ecological damage, etc.
As for the long term, the solution is for mankind to get OFF this rock and start settling other worlds and developing the resources to be found off Earth. Something Robert Zubrin goes into great detail about in his book THE CASE FOR SPACE.
Sean
Sean,
A global free enterprise economy would not cause global warming?
Global warming is caused only by state control?
Can ecologically harmful industries be moved off Earth in the next 12 years?
(The IPCC says that that is the deadline for preventing an irreversible catastrophe.)
If not, then surely emergency measures must be taken now?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
My point is that I firmly believe a free enterprise economy can more easily and effectively react to problems of the kinds you listed than any cumbersome, heavy handed, bureaucratic, faction and politics ridden gov't can ever do.
Even assuming the IPCC is correct, I simply don't believe gov'ts can possibly decide on and enact EFFECTIVE emergency. First, there will be years and years of wrangling and debate. Second, it's very likely any measures finally enacted will be ineffective and full of compromises trying to satisfy everybody.
So, it comes down to me putting more hope in both free enterprise economics and a REAL space program of the kind Elon Musk is trying to bring about doing more real good.
Sean
Sean,
In haste but just one urgent point. I think that there is no doubt that the IPCC is correct.
Paul.
Sean,
Two possible defenses of free enterprise:
(i) it does not cause global warming (!);
(ii) it is best equipped to address the problem of global warming.
(i) is untenable. The burning of fossil fuels causes global warming and free enterprise certainly burns fossil fuels.
Paul.
Sean,
On (ii) above, free enterprise seeks immediate profit at the expense of the common good. Surely that is what is hitting the environment at present?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I define "common good" differently from you, it seems. What entrepreneurs see in a free enterprise system is to see a need, a market, for a good that needs to be filled. And that can include, to be dramatic, mining the platinum to be found in asteroids in such large amounts that it drastically reduces the costs of the kind of batteries needed for making electrical powered cars really cost effective. Which along with similar market forces making fusion nuclear energy economical and practical, would seriously reduce the need to use coal or oil, for instance.
All this, and much else, was discussed by Robert Zubrin in his took THE CASE FOR SPACE, giving me hard facts and reasonable estimates for the benefits of a REAL space program driven by private genius and entrepreneurship. And in far more efficient ways than any gov't can do.
Sean
Emergency measures have to be not endured and resented but demanded and supported by a majority of the population. That is what we have to campaign for. It is no longer an academic discussion.
Sean,
But the present global warming is against the common good.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I forgot to add in my comment above how I stressed in my first comment that the TIME needed for public argument, debate, protest and counterprotest, etc., would probably take many years to be worked thru before any "effective" action was taken as regards ecological challenges. To say nothing of how I believe any such action would be festooned with so many unworkable provisions and cumbersome compromises that it simply would not work.
Unless we decide a world wide dictatorship would be necessary to cut thru such political and bureaucratic red tape.
Sean
Sean,
But what is to be done in this 12 year period? Urgent action is needed as if the environment were under attack. (The attack is from within rather than from without.)
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Bluntly, I expect NOTHING truly EFFECTIVE (as I would define the word, meaning measures actually addressing the issues or problems). There would be many, many factions, vested interests, partisan ax grinding, and so on would immediately slow down any proposed course of action by any kind of gov't. Debate, argument, log rolling, back scratching, all kinds of pressure being exerted, compromises, etc., would be the only result. In practical terms nothing would happen if you try getting action done by political means.
Sean
Sean,
But, if that is true, then an irreversible ecological catastrophe will commence in just 12 years. Populations can pull together in a perceived emergency like a major war or an invasion.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I don't expect that to happen with the ecological crisis example. Twelve years is too far ahead for most people to even THINK about. And I still argue opposing would immediately spring up to offer their own solutions if the solutions you might advocate would INJURE them.
Sean
Sean,
So do you accept that an irreversible catastrophe will begin in 12 years from the end of 2018?
Increasing numbers of people are extremely concerned and are taking action to pressurize complacent, business-as-usual governments to declare an emergency and to act accordingly.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I'm not sure about the "inevitability" part. I do advocate replacing fuels with nuclear energy and a space based solar energy system. They are the only PRACTICAL alternatives. I oppose wasting time and energy on dead ends like windmills.
And I FULLY expect the kind of people you mentioned to be OPPOSED by those whose interests would be injured by the kind of action the "activists" propose. Nor do I think these opponents would always be wrong or wrong headed.
You also persist in ignoring how certain countries, such as China and India, are among the worst polluters in the world. And have made it plain they don't CARE. What about them?
Sean
Sean,
I don't ignore them! They need climate change campaign movements as well. But better that the movement starts here than that it happens nowhere.
But, IF urgent action is needed now, then it IS wrong to oppose it.
Paul.
The inevitability is a scientific consensus based on measurements of consistently rising temperatures clearly linked to human activities.
Kaor, Paul!
What I'm trying to say is that the regimes in Delhi and Peking DON'T care. The kind of "movements" you advocate will mean nothing to them, esp. the brutal regime in Peking.
Remember Anderson's story "Territory," in which ecological changes were making t'Kela increasingly uninhabitable to the native race there. The Esperancians figured out a way to reverse it, but then faced the incomprehending opposition of the t'Kelans. Partly because the Esperancians did not do proper xenological studies of that race first. And partly because long term climate changes and disinterested altruism meant little or nothing to the natives. What Nicholas van Rijn did was to find out ways in which all parties on t'Kela would PROFIT from doing what needed to be done to save the planet. Which brings me to my last point: I believe, if given the chance, free enterprise economics will do more to solve our ecological than what any gov't can do.
Sean
Sean,
We also need to find out what the people themselves can do. They have done things like torn down the Berlin Wall and made Apartheid unworkable. And there is a lot more to be done.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
SPASMS of action like these have occurred, yes. But many people will get bored at anything that takes patience, hard work, and taking the long view before anything might be achieved. So, I'm a bit more skeptical than you of the value of "movements."
Sean
Sean,
And this can only be proved in practice which is why I continue to participate in public meetings and demonstrations.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
As long as you concede not all "movements" deserve to succeed or should. Hitler, for example, had to struggle to overcome repeated setbacks for a decade before his National Socialist movement finally came to power in Germany.
Sean
Sean,
And we continually confront Hitler's would-be successors. Unfortunately, they address current dissatisfactions by offering hate and exclusion as answers.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I don't entirely agree, if you mean current controversies about immigration. I don't think all who oppose unrestricted immigration do so from bad motives. And I don't believe in a "right" to just move from one country to another with no regard to that country's laws, customs, or wishes (which I don't think necessarily have to be bad).
Sean
Sean,
We can and do disagree on immigration policies, of course, but I am not talking about that right now. There is, in addition, some real hatred going around and there are continual attempts to organize it. By "exclusion," I mean exclusion from society and life, not just from a particular country.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And that brings up another point I have tried to make: my view is that some of this "hatred" was caused by too many politicians in both the UK and US stubbornly ignoring the concerns and worries their constituents have about what looks like out of control immigration. Concerns and worries I believe are by no means always bad, wrong headed, misplaced, etc. Frustration over being ignored like that WILL cause anger and unfortunately turn into indiscriminate hatred of all immigrants by some. To say nothing of how this "ignoring" will drive some into supporting extremist parties.
Sean
Sean,
My mother growing up in the West of Ireland were there were no black immigrants grew up despising blacks.
Paul.
Sean,
I think that her kind of prejudice has to be vigorously opposed, not excused. Her response to being challenged was to take personal offense. Of course, I am not just talking about isolated individuals. There is a social atmosphere, stoked up by xenophobic political speeches and resulting, quite often in the US, in mass shootings. If the loony tunes gun freaks lived in an atmosphere where they knew that their views went against, not with, the grain, then they would be far less likely to start shooting. Indeed, they would be less likely to have such views in the first place.
Paul.
When I was a student in Dublin 1n 1967, I shared digs with a medical student who said, passionately, "Keep Ireland white, that's all I say!" and "I don't like their faces!"
That man:
went to Mass every Sunday;
was extremely intolerant of a fellow lodger who was a lapsed Catholic;
was training to be a doctor.
I sincerely hope that he failed his degree. Society does not need racist doctors.
There was social prejudice against tinkers/travelers. When a tinker family was moved into a house, it was reported that all the windows were smashed. A local indignantly retorted, "Not all the windows were smashed! Only six or seven!" (Intolerance and unintelligence go hand in hand.)
Politically, I hold no brief for Maoists. However, the window of a Maoist bookshop was smashed. My mother responded, "If they were Maoists, why didn't they go to live in China?" On a par with "If they were Catholics, why didn't they go to live in Rome?" To say nothing of the wrongness of smashing windows.
These prejudices are deeply rooted, unchallenged and sometimes encouraged by the powers that be, and cannot be explained as understandable overreactions to liberal government policies.
Kaor, Paul!
I am puzzled how your mother could grow up despising blacks if she never even saw any in the west of Ireland a hundred years ago! And I think your argument that if possible mass shooters lived in an atmosphere which disapproved of their nonsense they would be less likely to "go ape" is too simplistic. I got the OPPOSITE impression, the mass shooters, some of them, opened fire BECAUSE the culture around them disapproved of them.
And some shooters are just sickos or purely evil persons who WANT to kill. And don't care whom they kill.
And your comments about the racist medical student reminded me of Buck Ruxton, mentioned by you. Would it have been better if he had not gained his medical degree? Who knows?
Your mother's comment about the Maoist was naive! Maoism is a form of Marxism, as interpreted by Mao Tse-tung. I THOROUGHLY disapprove of Maoism but I would not have smashed that bookshop's windows.
Are some prejudices deep rooted, irrational, and sometimes tolerated by the powers that be of a particular time or place? Certainly! That said, I STILL argue there are legitimate concerns, reservations, doubts, criticisms, etc., to be made of unrestricted immigration, an idea I continue to oppose.
Sean
Sean,
Ignorance and prejudice go together. We drove through an Asian district of Leicester. Suddenly the streets were full of women in saris, Indian food and clothes shops and Hindu temples. I thought, "It's like being home," which was inaccurate because our local Asian community is Muslim. But Sheila could see that my mother was uncomfortable just looking out the car window.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
The first, rather trivial thought I had was to think saris would not be practical in the colder, wetter parts of the year in England! And I regret your mother's discomfort at seeing these Hindus.
As you know I take a much colder view of Islam. While I agree most Muslims are not jihadists or murderous fanatics, too many are. And the main doctrinal and legal sources of Islam DOES teach and approve of things like the ideal of the world being ruled by a theocratic Caliphate under Sharia law, jihadism, the oppression of all non-Muslims under the laws of Dhimmitude, etc. So I remain chilly about Islam.
Sean
Kaor, Paul and Sean!
I do think that global warming is a problem, and also, whatever doubts there may be about how much hotter the Earth will become, and with what effects, there is no doubt that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means increased acidity of the oceans, shifting the chemical balance to make it harder to form shells, with shells weakened and more inclined to dissolve. There is air pollution from countries practicing something approximating free enterprise, and from socialist or greatly crony-capitalist countries. I would like to see effluent charges; people who burned coal or otherwise released carbon dioxide into the air would be charged for the privilege, with the revenue being used to cut other taxes, and to try to remediate pollution: perhaps planting trees, or taking other measures to absorb carbon from the air. Trying to accomplish this, especially on an international scale, is likely to be difficult.
Unlike Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, I do not favor a huge government project to try to manage everything. Even when there are real problems to be dealt with, such attempts at top-down control tend not to do well. It would be better, even if imperfect, to adjust the tax code, and let people figure out to react in order reduce their carbon dioxide discharges and find ways to qualify for credits for absorbing carbon.
Best Regards,
Nicholas
Kaor, Nicholas!
I have no objection at all with replacing oil and coal with other sources of energy that are PRACTICAL and realistic. To me, that means only nuclear energy and a space based solar power system. Both of which has been discussed by Robert Zubrin in his new book THE CASE FOR SPACE, with him considering nuclear energy being more practical for the time being than solar.
I'm not at all sure that any rejiggering of the tax code will do much good, both because of the sheer cumbersomeness and slowness of such things and because people have always found ways to game the system to their benefit. FAR better to make it much easier and quicker to build nuclear power plants and to get SERIOUS about space!
Regards! Sean
Kaor, Sean!
But people generally respond to incentives, even if these are somewhat cumbersome. There may be good reasons why the world should invest in nuclear power, or space-based solar, or other things which you, I, and even Mr. Zubrin have not considered yet; but effluent charges would provide incentives for people to invent and invest in these areas. If a utility’s managers see that a coal-burning power plant will cost them x dollars per megawatt-hour in carbon taxes, while a nuclear power plant will cost them nearly nothing in such taxes, they will be more likely to build the nuclear plant, or even to pursue satellite-based solar, or a promising development in cold fusion, or something.
Best Regards,
Nicholas
Kaor, Nicholas!
IF effluent charges can lead to nuclear power plants being built more quickly with a minimum of the pointless bureaucratic red tape and endless bone headed anti nuclear foot dragging which has so hobbled nuclear energy in the US, then I have no objection to such things. I simply have my doubts it will either happen quickly at all and that energy companies will even be allowed the option of building nuclear power plants to avoid paying effluent charges. Given the ignorant and irrational opposition to nuclear energy seen here, effluent charges may well be imposed with no alternatives offered. So, it would be back to endless slow moving bickering, wrangling, politicking, and gaming of the tax code.
I know that sounds pessimistic, but I think I have good grounds, alas, for that!
Regards! Sean
Post a Comment