| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Tragedy of Human Effort | | Date: | Saturday, March 11, 2006 20:41:52 (+0000) | | From: | John G Rawson <johngrawson @.......com>
|
| In reply to: | Message 3609 (written by Peter Haines) |
I think this is a rather unfortunate aside.
I think that, because of my Christian beliefs, therefore I look for the most
moral approach to economics and politics, which, by luck, I found as Social
Credit. Had I not been aware of it, probably I would have been taken in by the
simple minded "Poor are poor because the rich are rich" approach of Socialism,
which immediately heads off the need to think further anyway.
But without knowing too much about Islam, I suspect true believers in that
field might well accept it also. Perhaps more readily than us.
But if we are going to link SC with Christianity, then it is necessary to
define the latter. The teachings of Christ or the vastly different approach of
some established churches? (Including mine at times.) The work of Mother Teresa,
or the uncouth Crusaders rampaging through the Middle East destroying anything
civilised they found? The Salvation Army or the Spanish Inquisition? (To avoid
offence, I leave out modern examples.)
I suggest we treat SC on its own merits logically and morally, so that those
with fixed moral anchors such as Christianity, Islam and other beliefs including
pure love of humanity can see how well it fits their approach. To me it most
certainly fits closely with the teachings of Christ.
But lets take a caution. So does pure Communism. But Communism has never been
applied in practice without becoming uttterly corrupted, and I believe its
impractical approach demands this to happen. "The people" had become "The loud
and brutal muscle boys".
Let's try to iron out the factual aspects of SC and practical means of
implementing it, something that has never been done in full detail, so that if it
ever comes to be tried it has not then also been utterly corrupted in the
process.
Regards. John R.
From: "Peter Haines" <cymric@xtra.co.nz>
Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Subject: Re:
[socialcredit] Tragedy of Human Effort
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 20:37:53 +1300
Howdy Keith,
My complements on not leaving this on a negative note.
I assumed that you would have some idea of a relationship between Social
Credit and Christianity although it doesnt feature much on this forum. So I
stand corrected on that.
There was an excellent post by Phillip Butler a few months ago on Social
Credit being practical Christianity but you may not have seen it and then of
course it may have produced a number of questions that may need answering first
for some to be able to appreciate it.
You mentioned the comment/ question by Bill Ryan last year re english being my
first or second language. I wasnt convinced it had anything to do with
discussion as no one on any forum outside of this one has put such an issue as
though it was of any significance. Our supposed conflict of how we view things
for example is more an issue regards any difficulty in understanding rather than
how perfect ones language is. My native language is English. It was always my
poorest subject at school because outside of spelling and some basic grammar
there was no rhyme or reason or character ever taught that gave it anything to
learn about so I did a lot better at maths. Today it is a widespread problem at
universities in my country. Perhaps being the normal lanuage it was taken for
granted and became a lazy zone for teachers.
Authority of the scriptures is the scriptures themselves as they contain a
common language/ use of terms and provide the keys to fathoming them. There
are referrences within that talk about studying and proving and searching
indicating it isnt a an easy come easy lost matter however the admonition to seek
and you will find holds true. Naturally a casual interest wont get the same
returns as an industrious student. Then of course there is the original words of
Hebrew, Arabic and Greek in concordances that given a more accurate
interpretation which often corrects popular teaching.
Religion, philosophy, science all have schools of thought. The point I made
was that it doesnt matter how popular any of these schools of though are at any
time the actual real truth remains independant although discovered to any
degree. For example the earth didnt turn flat because everyone believed it was.
I am glad I now understand that you have been trying to get your head around
Douglas' concepts and that you have been mystified sometimes by the supposed
relationship between Social Credit and Christianity because you having been
around for so long and seeming very familiar with much of what is discussed
one easily thinks you understood a lot more than you actually do. But it is
typical that Social Crediters prefer to talk about economics rather than the
philosophy that is its policy foundation.
I suggest you do a bit of reading from the man himself and those who have a
good grasp because much of the dispute between Social Crediters and others of
some other school of thought are really over the philosophy behind the policy,
thus it is easy for those who differ to think we are narrow and inflexible etc.
It also needs to be pointed out that people who claim or talk as Social
Crediters may not in fact embrace the whole conception and those who are only
interested in finance and economics may be a majority. You will have picked up
from time to time responses by those who intimate that others are not really
Social Crediters like they are.
I recommend you to the alor.org library ( Australian League of Rights) where
you will find such works by Douglas as "Nature of Democarcy", "The Approach To
Reality", "The Policy of a Philosophy"and "Realistic Constitutionalism" on line.
All short booklets. The article "Social Credit is as old as Man" would be a good
start.
Others like "Social Credit and Christian Philosophy", "Essential Christian
Heritage" by Eric Butler obviously link the two as well as link into history and
constitutionalism. This is the background of the Christian Philosophy in
relation to the English or British culture and Social Credit, the heritage of the
English speaking Protestant peoples in general. The struggle over finance is not
unrealated to that over philosophy, culture and heritage. Finance and
economics are but one policy section/ concern of what Douglas embraces.
Peter H
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Tragedy of Human Effort
OK Peter, I will concede some failure to comprehend:
You say:
"You know very well the relationship between Social Credit and
Christianity."
In fact, I do not. Since attempting intermittently to follow these
discussions for most of five years I have been often bewildered and sometimes
mystified by that relationship. If it in fact entails an endorsement of Biblical
mythology then your remarks do take on greater meaning for me, especially your
inferences that science and truth can take divergent paths and that the authority
of scripture is based on something other than verbal repetition (the technique,
incidentally, of Islamic fundamentalists who promote the Al Qaeda solution).
If I have understood you correctly after these efforts, then I have indeed
been mistaken in having spent so much time trying to get my head around the
Douglas concepts.
And it all does prompt me to ask if you ever did provide the answer to Bill
Ryan's question: "Is English a second language for you?" You may have answered,
but I do not recall what it was.
Keith
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 11:40 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Tragedy of Human Effort
Howdy Keith,
I liked your comments and the use of Sherlock Holmes but you aught to know
better that when you assume that evolution is science to everyone and the Bible
mythology likewise you punch yourself in the nose.
You own yourself an apology. I could say you aught to have done your post
before getting into your beer as well but that would be childish.
If my comments were incoherent to you then it is no complement to you as they
were in response to your unwise assumption plus you were unable to comprehend.
I wont answer your howler question about what determines scripture, your
contempt makes it pointless.
You know very well the relationship between Social Credit and
Christianity.
Peter H
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Tragedy of Human Effort
Peter,
I don't understand the relevance of your comments.
My evocation of belief that species breed true must certainly be one of the
oldest examples of inductive reasoning, as demonstrated by its presence in a very
old myth. It is neither anti-Biblical (unless you haven't awakened to the
mythical character of the Bible), nor is it a sneer on the practice of inferring
rules (especially causative ones) from the repetition of what seem to be
cause-effect series of actions.
Of what relevance, therefore, your comment about throughbreds?
I did not argue that induction was necessarily a poor procedure; I asserted
that Sherlock Holmes stories are not a good illustration of induction.
You say that "Science like truth isnt deterremined by popularity or
repetition." Did you think before writing that, or do you really not understand
the meaning of the words?
Then this utter howler: "Same thing goes for scripture." If it isn't
popularity and repetition that determine scripture, just what do you imagine is
the determinant?
I' do agree with your judgment this far: It was an unfortunate choice of
example because it seems to have induced this incoherent reply. Why don't you
try doing your correspondence before getting into the beer?
Keith
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Tragedy of Human Effort
Howdy Keith,
I though your choice of a pro-psuedo-science anti-Bible example was rather
unfortunate. The whole Bible was a detterrent to Marxist theories of the 19th
century which was also a more complete understanding of how mankind should live
in this world, so what?
I notice the thoroughbred horse industry hasnt been put out of stride due to
theories that a horse might breed a catipillar or a fish.
Science like truth isnt deterremined by popularity or repetition. Same thing
goes for scripture.
I would suggest that the funniest side of man has been in the way he has
handled science and scripture and theories about them, even funnier than
economics. As I said it was unfortunate you chose it.
Peter H
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Tragedy of Human Effort
Since no one else has come forward to correct John's misconceptions about
inductive versus deductive reasoning, I contradict even though my resources for
carrying through are still a bit feeble.
I agree with John that just how Douglas came upon his ideas and analysis is
not critical in evaluating how well they work.
But to say that Sherlock Holmes represents inductive thinking is to get things
in reverse. The Holmes stories are examples of deductive logic. Inductive
reasoning is of the kind that infers from repetitive instances a rule that the
instances will continue to recur, because it is a law of nature. It is the kind
of reasoning that led the authors of Genesis to infer that species breed true
because God designed them that way and therefore needed to save them in the Ark.
This kind of thinking was a deterrent to acceptance of more complete theories of
species and their evolution in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Keith Wilde
---- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 6:59 PM
Subject: RE: [socialcredit] Tragedy of Human Effort
Believe it or not, the best example of inductive reasoning comes from the
Sherlock Holmes novels.
Collect date, organise it to make it better understandable, get rid of the
obviously wrong answers, and go and have a good sleep, por play a violin, or
indulge in hectic sport, or... The subconscious mind will come up with ideas.
Treat each destructively to see if it can be eliminated. The one that can't be
is probably the best, until new data requires it to be modified. It doesn't
matter a stuff where Douglas' analysis comes from or what are its likely causes.
Treated inductively it remains by far the best explanation of events last
century.
And I believe the various different definitions of money invented by orthodox
economists were attempts to get away from it, but surprisingly each seems to
confirm it more.
Refgards. John R.
From: Triumphofthepast@aol.com
Reply-To: socialcredit@elistas.com
To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: [socialcredit] Tragedy of Human
Effort
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 08:04:52 EST
"It can be tested inductively in
that it explains events over the last century that are inexplicable using the
alternative. . . . Nothing is proved by induction. But the opposite stands
clearly disproved." (Joh n)
That's what I said, I think. However, I thought it
worth taking some trouble to identify (1) What is the phenomenon to be explained?
and (2) What exactly IS the hypothesis?
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email johngrawson@hotmail.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
Shop ‘til you drop at XtraMSN Shopping
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email nschwartz@cogeco.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email cymric@xtra.co.nz
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email nschwartz@cogeco.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email cymric@xtra.co.nz
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email nschwartz@cogeco.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email cymric@xtra.co.nz
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
ed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email johngrawson@hotmail.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
Find the coolest online games at XtraMSN Games
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message