Shwa

Indeed I do and no one can blame another for pointing them out or having something to say about them. But the point is that we are living within this system. Our views are framed by it, nurtured by its signs and our perception of the 'facts' are entirely based upon our membership in this system. I too see that there are cadres that control the various institutions, but they appear to be in constant competition with one another to achieve similar goals based on similar interests - such as the concept of a military-industrial complex. I don't think there is any specific coherency to action outside of this loose competitive network. So I think it is more apt that we say there is "a" military-industrial complex as opposed to "the" military-industrial complex. I have to add that if it weren't for Big Business and serious foreign invensment interests there wouldn't be a Hugo Cavez; there would be no need for him. He is defined by that which he opposes. He has already, more or less, admitted that. So whether he likes it or not, he is a child of Big Business and serious foreign investment. I don't think there is anything 'natural' about it unless by 'natural' you mean economic coercion by governments. We can point this out, as Chomsky is fond of doing, but so what? It has always been that way - with few exceptions - in the Western Civilization we know and enjoy. Now I am not talking about every last detail, because I don't think every last detail is all that important to remain in the front of people's minds. However, I think some detail is required for the Western definition of 'Power and Wealth.' For instance, is that the same 'Power and Wealth' that is being pursued by Asian and South Asian countries in the world economy? It sure looks the same. I agree and disagree. Sure people have a 'sense' of something, but can they trust this sense to any degree that will move them to action towards what appears to them to be a radical departure from what they have been taught since birth? If Western Civilization does something well, it marginalizes what appears to be radicalism. Off to the periphery with you! Edward T Hall described an interesting scenario in his 'Beyond Culture' regarding a native village - I think it was in Brazil or some other South American location. The village had gotten to the point where the social structures over-reached their maximm efficiency with regard to the number of persons in the village. This caused conflicts, some open fighting; it caused rifts in families, in clans; there was rampant gossip, slander and positioning. In the end one group left the village to go form their own village. As they had done since time immemorial. So yeah, we have our Adbusters, our intellects, our underground organizations, our indie or alt rock bands; we have our banners and slogans, our causes and certainly we own a fair share of the hyperbole. We have our internets and social networks, our newspapers and pamphlets. But in the end, it is just another village. Just like the courier de bois, like the Puritans, etc. We have been doing this since time immemorial. I have to be careful when looking at history like this because, yes, there were a series of oppositions that took place, but I find the 'matter of decades' to be somewhat simplistic and unrealistic. And in the end, was this social 'progress' anything more the modification of the social structures of a culture to accomodate the wishes of its adherents? We have to remember that many of those elites, those 'powerful people,' were also ethical beings who arguably had as much influence on the outcome as any protester in the street. I don't think it would do any justice to deny the positive influence of those 'powerful people' to illustrate how social change happens. What I am getting at is not an opposition to where you are coming from, because I think that - power, wealth, poverty, weak, man, woman, whatever - it is just one side of the same thing. That is why I mentioned the word 'moiety' in a previous post. This allows us a different way of framing the picture that may reveal some other reasons, other than our own, that underlie what we perceive in the world.

Touché!

Are we not? Unless you are making your living strictly through underground means, then you are a direct participant in the system you abhor. That must be difficult, but not impossible. Please enlighten me: I am not sure all of that is true. For instance, not all wealthy people incline towards public political power, some of them are quite happy within the limited domain of their company. And, other than the banking system, what other institutions are run as "private bank accounts?" The problem here is that it is difficult for anyone to stop something that can only be conveyed to them in very abstract terms in which they lack access to the full experience of the concept. I get that you want a prohibition, but a prohibition of what exactly? Now, at this point I would revise the proposition that money is the most effective means of power to say that credit is the most effective means of power and usury is it's henchman. Or something like that. But... hasn't this always been the case in the history of Western Civilization? Sure there have been little pockets of alternative experience here and there for brief periods of time, but what do the history books teach us? What do the universities implore? Are there not degrees? Are there no baccalaureates? Because there is no victimology required since most of what "they" do is by volunteering. And is that not true of yourself? Instead of "majority's losses" how about phrasing that as what the 'majority freely gives?' Lookit, I am not trying to be cynical. But I believe that unless a full realization of the nature of the system is on hand, very little can be done to change it in people's minds. Perhaps it is satisfying to throw up a sign at a Gn protest, smash a storefront window, or write a heated letter to the editor - these things might assuage the guilt of complicity for some for a little while, but for others, there has to be an answer somewhere does there not? What is it?

Then perhaps it is that the message is in the medium. I see you providing a critique, but not offering any other alternative to the problem so I ask: if not money, then what else? It seems that you are equating amounts of money with wealth, power, resources, means, the poor and so on. Radical critique or mainstream matter of fact, it comes down to money and I would say - on the face of it - unless there is another form of exchange, we might as well criticize trees for being green in the summer. On the other hand, I was wondering what you were getting at or were you just providing a balance to the 'whiny poor people' thread?

Bloodyminded, you started with this: This is presuming that the good folks of the world have already tried prestige, accolades, ego, the politics of power itself and found it wanting in the 'effective' category. Thus I ask, if not money as the most effective type of Power, than what else. That is, what other forms of Power can be elevated as an alternative to money?

LOL! A "Lebanonization." LOFL! Funny that the only outcome of tribalization is conflict, all against all, nasty, brutish and short lives. And, of course, our only recourse is Leviathan. We're doomed! Doomed I tells ya! Dooooooooooommmmmed! Wait a minute. No we're not. I wonder if the schmucks ever pondering the modern organization of the world using the word "tribalization" have ever looked at anthropology long enough to see the word moiety. I bet not. Oh well, more hyperbolic metaphor like Lebanonization.

Just for fun - hot soup!

No. I think you are referring to the phrase "Hell's Angels.' I was referring to the unmarked words 'hell' and 'angel.' They sound like Christian words to me, at least in the most common modern usage on this side of the world, wouldn't you agree?

But surely Oleg this is not news to you?

If not money, then what?

I am not sure. When CR says 'electron soup' I don't see the amorphous state even if that is what he means. Since we have agreed on context, then I don't think it is a matter of selecting one concept at the expense of another. That is, it's not a contest. The notion that each level has some sort of coding/sending & reception/decoding mechanism that interacts with the level above and the level below until the 'message' is sent/received along its most basic carrier path. I see CR's "is" as a simpler expression of simultaneity nothing more. Kind of like those independent processors organized into a network of sorts. But that is a conundrum isn't it? Because humans are knowingly exchanging ideas through photons and electrons already. Yours is a problem of media. I don't think that magnetic influences on animals is pseudoscience, so we'll have to agree to disagree here. Why "sum?"

More tautology. Yawn.

Both!

Nice try Bozo! Now you are just being unreasonable and looking for a pissing match. OK, it's Friday, I am game. So let's review shall we? From Feb 02: TB says: Then CR says: (emphasis is mine)Merriam-Webster say: So TB is what sense were you using the word "tunneling" to describe the possibility of an electron passing through a 3-foot brick wall? Were you strictly referring to the quantum tunneling affect or were you referring to something passing through a potential barrier? Because I believe CR was referring to the latter by the use of his language, especially the part "...or tunnelling as you say." Nevermind the current research into the quantum tunneling affect with regard to other particles, let's stick to your usage pertaining to electrons. So please, enlighten... Let's go back a few pages: TB says: Yikes! How many pages ago was that? It is nice to know that a wiley supergenius like you has the awesome power to dismiss grand unified theory or the theory of everything just like that. I suppose that the leading physics theorists are not to touch QM unless they have your permission? Or is it that you cannot abstract topical inferences from complex discussions? Face it sonny, you've shown yourself to be a high functioning tautologist with a little bit of knowledge and even less substance. LOFL! "whoosh!"

No? Then where did those words come from? Random thoughts?

Imagine someone in a frozen slice of time and not be concerned with what comes before or after. This is a analytical device only. So if you can imagine someone in a frozen slice of time, then decompose that person into the constituent physical levels from the 'real' world to the 'quantum' world. This U of O prof has a drawing as an example.

Light! Now we can see the same thing. We can "imagine" it. I am not sure. Theories and hypothesis develop, they move along. With c.r ideas, I see the medium, but I see problems with its use in the manner described. But not impossible problems, just hurdles. Pretty close yes. But the notion of a stacked communication path is key I think. I can tentatively agree, yes, in the sense that the meaning of communication could change. Lets put it this way - not sure what book, Broca's Brain or something, that described the unpredictable nature of how neurons fire throughout the brain. So the tentative aspect is that is it necessary to describe communication as a predictable phenomenon or a phenomenon that rests upon predictability? For instance, we will likely agree that a predictable communication path at the quantum level is determined by context. This is a combination of what we know and what we agree upon. However, notwithstanding that I think our knowledge of the quantum 'reality' is in it's infancy, there is the problem of quantum noise and what effect that phenomenon has on a total communication path. Now in the real world we use shielding on wires to prevent crosstalk and other interference. However - as an open ended question - is it possible that noise at the quantum level can be a signal carrier?

I have read enough books on elementary particles in the various eras of human history to gain an understanding sufficient for the level of the discussion. If you want to do the math, please feel free. My reference is to a confusion of terms where c.r was using the term 'tunnelling' to describe neutrinos passing through rock. That is a fair description. Of course not. Completely ignorant of the subject hand. And how could we be anything else when confronted with a person who has made science in their own image? I get the sense TB that yours is a static mind, all locked up with fixed ideas and very, very little actual learning going on. Or is it actually the capacity to learn that has degraded? And it seemed rather difficult for some scientists to imagine man breathing underwater, walking in space, calculating the speed of light or capturing neutrinos. I believe those were the scientists that were left behind.

"gentle Mother Earth?" Most of them are Catholics or some other Christian Sect. Hence the words "Hell" and "Angels"

OK, this is simply a confusion of terms, no need to get medieval! + So would it have been better for c.r to say electron neutrino tunnelling to refer to neutrinos passing through rock or heavy water, etc.?

I have. My impression is that c.r is saying that all thought, brain waves, brain matter can be decomposed into their constituent quantum particle parts and that at that level, there is nothing to distinguish one from another except through context. My reference to neutrinos was in relation to a medium for 'subspace radio.' My trekker geek was showing. I suppose another way to imagine it is synchronically at the quantum level and transpose meanings. If we can imagine that synchronic-self at the quantum level of understanding, we might simply exist as energy beings. If someone were to define 'spirit' as that physical energy that we exist as/exist in then I think that would be fair game. It certainly would give some concerte meaning to some esoteric terminology.

How about white-on-white racism? The City of Oshawa, the Durham Regional Police and the Ontario Provincial Police raided and "seized" a legal home base for the Hells Angels on a residential street. This was in September 2006. The raid was conducted as part of an "investigation" in which conspiracy to murder charges were laid against a couple of members of the club. It is true that the law enforcement branch of Oshawa does not like the Hell Angels race and decided to get rid of them for once and for all. They were warned it was going to happen. They have neen effectively kicked out of the city now. Those that stayed were given written warnings and threats about curtailing their offensive activities. What about discrimination towards the Hells Angels?

I was thinking in terms of Canadian liberal philosophy. Aim for the middle ground! 'Better' is a collective discourse that doesn't lean towards the lowest common demoninator, but the highest of shared values which are expressed through many means, but for the purposes of this discussion, politically through elections. But you still are. I see no definite proof - from the imperfect communication of your needs thus far - that in anything you do, you have the full range of options at your disposal. Thus we approximate for "every" one using agency and institution to deliver as efficiently as possible given prevailing conditions. I dunno about that. Governments on all levels control and share assets out in their constituencies for the benefit of the many, and sometimes the few. There is no victimology required for this. Just taxes. But again, if there is no demonstration that "his need" can be accurately communicated (and one would think by now it would have been) then any active creation is mere approximation that lends itself to be vague enough to be relevant for a whole group of people. This occurs to me when I drive through the city and pass by some housing projects - approximations of need. No one would want to really live in them if they had a choice; these homes are not mansions. But they can be made into homes I suppose.

I presume this to be a philosophical point? Then you would have to convince me first that it is possible that you can perfectly communicate your needs and that, once communicated, it is possible for someone else to tailor those services prefectly. If not, if there is a disconnection between how you perceive your needs, how that perception is communicated, and how someone else is capable of delivering those services then we move from ideology to practicality where 'better' is the only thing we can really aim for.

Ah, the National Post - the broke pretender voice of the petit-bourgeois. Even the Sun has cleaned up a little. Let's look at the headline of the editorial: "Canada turns a blind eye to First Nations segregation" Generalizing about a specific. Or, rather, drawing a general conclusion from a specific incident or single community to paint a picture about "First Nations." That alone should give you a clue. The last time Kahnawake was involved in this sort of controversy, it was because they kicked "whites" off the reserve. But not just any old whites, the criminal kind. And, if I remember correctly, there was the National Post morlaizing about a situation they were ill-informed of. Did anyone read this part in the story: "Even Kahnawake -- which is relatively prosperous by the standards of native reserves, being located near Montreal -- has become a strife-riddled center for drugs, contraband smuggling, and gang activity." Hoofing undersirables from the community is nothing new, they have been doing it for years. Possibly hundreds or thousands of years. It is a "double standard" that I am sure a few of you wish we had in our own communities. The trouble is, Band Council has their hands tied as to what is lawful. Members can legitimately reside on the reserve, even criminals, and it is difficult to remove them, especially with all the family ties. However, not so for non-members and they are routinely kicked off. Is this the case here? Again? I am sure there is more than meets the Post's eye. Secondly, the Band Council can act according to the law under which they are governed, the Indian Act. It is not enough to say, 'let renegotiate the Indian Act' if you don't have any legitimate offers of something better to replace it with. Simply getting rid of the Indian Act and reserves is not going to happen. Blood quantum is the measuring stick of the Indian Act and since the Canadian government uses it, why does it matter if other FN communities use it? The problem here is that - especially in Kahnawake - is that this is where traditional law and Canadian law conflict. According to traditions, people living in the 'kanata' belonged to the community through accepted cultural means via a clan designation. If you don't belong to a clan, have not been adopted into a clan, then you simply are not a part of the community. And it doesn't matter what your skin colour is. So before you parrot the National Post, please take the time to know what you are talking about especially if you want to use it to paint a big picture.