Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
The basis of all addiction is disengagement. We couldn't have our current economic system if it wasn't systematically disengaged, so it's not a surprise that it runs on addictions, and runs addictions.

Saying that this is puritanical is actually an off-the-shelf right-wing talking point. Supposedly it's the opposite of 'personal freedom' - but as with all right wing talking points, that really just means the freedom to have your fix without having to consider other people, except on the days when you remember they're there.

'Growth addiction' is much, much more dangerous than chemical addiction, and a much bigger issue that hardly ever gets talked about in the mainstream.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Nov 20th, 2008 at 03:55:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A fun thesis, but entirely ignorant of what addiction is.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Nov 20th, 2008 at 04:41:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
How many addicts like their engagement with reality just the way it is and aren't trying to change it?
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Nov 20th, 2008 at 04:48:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"engagement with reality" is a seriously fragile foundation to be resting an argument upon - I think.  

Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
by poemless on Thu Nov 20th, 2008 at 04:55:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
a seriously fragile foundation to be resting an argument upon

Speaking of reality or any one's awareness (and "engagement") with it: Arendt described "reality" best, I think, simply by acknowledging in her works the mechanical (or perceptual) limitation of verification, essential to trust (equilibrium).

I cannot know what I cannot see. (tautology)

I cannot see what I do not know.

I cannot know what is not here.

Reality --events both worldy and mental-- is ahistorical and atemporal. One cannot be everywhere at once in order to verify what is true, what is false. The true fact one cannot verify everywhere at once does not preclude reality. It merely necessitates entrusting another. That is to assign verification of a person, process, or thing
by one's self to one or more agents (person, process, or thing).

All rationality --justified true belief-- depends on this "fragile" foundation of verification in order to explain itself to one's self.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Fri Nov 21st, 2008 at 03:18:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not really. It just means being aware of predictable consequences.

Addicts and libertarians alike either don't believe in consequences, don't want to believe in consequences, or believe that consequences don't apply to them.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Nov 21st, 2008 at 04:37:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, yes, as my guru says: 'Life is a Learned Behaviour Disorder'.

To the extent that we are all behavioural 'addicts', yes, being behavioral means that you don't like change.

And all of us tend to the behavioural. It's what the conscious mind really likes - logical predictability. But that is an imposition upon reality. Perfectly valid, of course, but a limit on the capacity of the mind to feedback on itself. Another word from my guru (who is, of course, me)  - If you can't laugh, you can't live'.

Thus Surrealism...

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Nov 20th, 2008 at 05:28:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
well, some find a cobbled equilibrium in self medicating that seems better than the alternatives, but probably everyone has a secret -or not- desire to be strong enough to resist temptations, especially those so unpopular!

some people are just plain comfortable in their misery.

fear of change, and masochism have their roles in this mix.

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Wed Dec 3rd, 2008 at 03:58:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Saying that this is puritanical

Could you clarify what 'this' is?

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Thu Nov 20th, 2008 at 04:41:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
ThatBritGuy: We couldn't have our current economic system if it wasn't systematically disengaged ...

what do you mean by this?

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco on Fri Nov 21st, 2008 at 06:39:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I mean systematically disengaged from physical consequences. You can keep using oil, fishing, chopping down rainforests, and using raw materials without recycling, because - well, you just can.

Mercifully that's started to change over the last year or so. But not all that long ago there were diaries all about economists making ridiculous statements about how markets would always provide, because that's what markets do.

And there are still those on the right who see any suggestion that they consider consequences at all as a personal insult.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Nov 21st, 2008 at 04:41:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Herd Immunity .. Filling the Gaps

by Oui - Jul 24
23 comments

LQD - Long Term Covid: The Brain

by ATinNM - Jul 13
29 comments

Say No to Racism

by Oui - Jul 12
26 comments

England surrenders to Covid

by IdiotSavant - Jul 9
27 comments

Occasional Series