From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Sun Aug 03 2003 - 17:42:37 MDT
Date sent: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 16:04:08 -0600
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: Re: virus: Re:Jobs and Human History
From: "athenonrex" <athenonrex@godisdead.com>
Send reply to: virus@lucifer.com
>
> [quote from: Joe on 2003-07-30 at 14:07:27]
>
> People can volunteer, that is, work without pay, only if they draw
> survival funds (for little things like food, clothing, shelter,
> utilities, etc.) from other sources, such as a real paying job or
> inherited money. [...] You are attempting to sneak in the unlikely
> conclusion that a nonmonetary global economy (now, THERE'S an oxymoron
> for you!) could possibly practicably exist as an accepted premise, and
> I am demonstrating with counterarguments why that unlikely conclusion
> is unacceptable as a premise. For conclusions to be true, not only
> must logical form be followed, but also the premises have to be true,
> and that is what you have not demonstrated, and cannot. If probing
> the possible the consequences pursuant to a moneyless economy is just
> a 'what if' fantasy exercise, fine, but I do not think that such an
> exercise can qualify as an investigation of a feasible future.
>
> No, you are still doing it wrong. i want criticism. this is true, and
> I have said it multiple times. You, however, are not providing any
> "criticism", and in fact are using information outside of my premises,
> and are going so far as to tell me what my premises are in the first
> place.
>
> Volunteerism was not a literal label. It was merely another attempt to
> get you into a state of vision so that you could argue contrary to my
> ideas while viewing it from my vantage point so you could see where I
> was, perspective wise.
>
> The thing is that there would not be a "nonmonetary global economy" as
> you put it, because there would be no notion of economy, as economy
> deals with the value of goods and monies. as there would be no monies,
> and the value of goods would "tend towards zero" [hermit], there would
> be no economy.
>
Global actions, such as the growth and distribution of foodstuffs and
clothing, the construction of shelters, and the shipment of the materials
with which to construct these shelters, would still have to occur. You
might argue that all this could be automated, but still the automated
systems would have to be maintained. There would also necessarily
have to be some way of keeping records of these actions, to prevent
surpluses and scarcities. All of this constitutes an economy. And the
values of such goods and services could never reach zero while there
would still be enough people willing to provide them to ensure that there
were enough of them to go around.
>
> you're trying to force the notion of an economy into this argument,
> because you can't work it either way. Of course, I indeed could have
> been more specific in my initial post in saying that this is
> theoretical, but alas, I did not. I did however make that point later,
> when I said that we were not speaking literally, but that we're
> constructing a composite projection of a potential and probable future
> IF certain trends were to continue. Now, no one has made the
> affirmative assertion that these trends WILL continue...so I fail to
> see the exacerbation of this unnecessary conflict.
>
I do not see the existence of such trends, much less the idea that they
would continue. Prices continue to rise, as does the aggregate value of
the global economy.
>
> And how could my "unlikely conclusion...possibly practicably exist as
> an accepted premise?" Conclusions are not premises, I'm sure you
> know. [reiteration] We are not, nor were we ever, debating the "truth"
> of an argument. we were debating whether the premises "forced" the
> conclusion to be true, provided the premises are taken as true.
>
> i'm sure you may have had to deal with several such arguments* when
> you had formal training in logic (as say college or perhaps in an
> Advanced Placement high school class)...so why is it hard to deal with
> such an argument now? [note that I also never included people's
> reaction, including resistance to this idea, as a premise for it's
> deveopment. there were two posts involving me and hermit about that,
> but it was never elaborated.]
>
Actually, I have taught both introduction to philosophy (including a
section on logic) and comparative religion for Troy State University.
>
> *by such arguments i mean where the premises are not evaluated for
> "truth value", but are taken as true to see if the conclusion
> coinsides with the premises, such as:
>
> 1. the Moon is made of green cheese.
> 2. Rats live where there is cheese.
> ==========================
> 3. therefore, rats live on the moon.
>
> now the two premises are not true (in the sense that the moon is not
> made of cheese, and that rats do not exclusively live near cheese),
> but if you provide them provisionary value of "true" then the
> conclusion does work. we have made, here, in the argument, no attempt
> to ascertain whether the premises are true, but the argument is what
> is called "valid" but not necessarily "sound" ...
>
It is precisely the soundness of the argument, that is, the truth-value of
the premises, which I am disputing.
>
> for futher examples and "rules" of what a valid argument is
> i refer you to this link:
> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/log/tru-val.htm
>
I am well aware of both logical forms and logical fallacies.
>
> -bestill the beating of my heart,
> and i shall still love thee,
> ~athenonrex~
>
> ----
> This message was posted by athenonrex to the Virus 2003 board on
> Church of Virus BBS.
> <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;thread
> id=28871> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 08:15:48 MDT