Comments by "harvey young" (@harveyyoung3423) on "How Radical & Right-Wing is Argentina's New President? + BLACK Death? + BBC Editor & Somali Rapist" video.

first off on the Somalian criminal who was deported, the Hegelian risk is that the universality of Rights will tend to imply that any citizen criminal can be deported on the same criteria that conditions or make citizenship and residence conditional. its going to be causal in practice but the requirement is about the sematic space of political rights and reason, and then from my adopting of what Sellars called the "space of reasons" in contrast with the "space of causes" contains necessities not given in the actual case and its particular concepts of description. The concept of description logically and semantically bri9gns in all its contrary and other nomic vocabularies. This is well known on the left even if they don't express it that way and used as trap since to deny this logical space of conceptual implication they can make appear as a bias or hypocrisy between cases. its is a tool for all sides, but they forget the "eternal return" here or what people say "caught by their own logic" or "sawing of the branch they are sitting on".
2
Give us a break guys I've only just finished working and posting on your last video from yesterday. But compared to the posts i do on left wing channels its ok cos between them they've posted another five while I've commented on the first one. They are Hegelians thought they think quantity = quality or becomes quality causally, if they repeat the same thing five times over at me.
1
Drawing on Rafe Heydel-Mankoo's points about the attempt to link London to the classical world as origin, reminds me of a point made by someone at a conference, that for the philosophers, and they mean the neo Aristotelians virtue ethicist and politics, all societies and all countries were originally the same as ancient Greece and for lawyers the Ancient Rome of Cicero. On the former Aristotle is clear that his work (for us, his lecture notes) begins by sorting out into categories what people actually say and reason within. He thinks there is universal structure here that he has discovered say in his logic, but its source is drawn from how people actually argued and the sorts of justificatory rational structured that were used. Now this has been presented down to us as a formal structure: the syllogism and categories etc. Now we have the problem Heydel-Mankoo raises, i think, that on the one hand this is Greek hegemony and idealisation over everybody else, who then is made not other but the same or a deficiency from the Greek image. Further then it would be an anthropology problem to discover whether all peoples in all languages would reason in the same way as Aristotle and his friends in ancient Greek. However the irony of course is if we try and deny this claim of ubiquitous Ancient Greek hegemony, it seems we just make a move in its circle. That is the denial will draw and presuppose the very logic of Aristotle it wants to deny, the denial then is a move only "within" Aristotle's space of logical reason and so there can be no denial no negation operation that can get us outside of Aristotle's logic. As inheritors of Aristotelian logic our past is now logically inaccessible as another world for us. our past is un representable in itself. Even though Port Royle Leibnitz Kant and Frege revised logic and re structed it this also claims universality and no exit. This is very anti Hegelian, since the negation operator in his logic can come to express an outside as a process. This is not really a relativism problem, relativism indeed requires a stand point beyond all standpoints a universal logic in which to place different values as so much different content "in" that form. its more a regulative methodology than a substantive claim about reality. This issue has become a major them recently still in phenomenology expressed as the Hegelian like other or a deconstructed return of the Hegelain other from Husserl. my point is all this is really at the level of representation reality has other affordances and these are not negations of or directly other to representations, rather representation is a thinning and widening of ordinary affordances an abstraction process from reality. For example logic can make it seems certain impossible actions in the real world are possible, and that what is possible in the real world must be logically possible to be so. the old problem then of the impossibility of negating logical from, is now the dynamic problem between real affordance and representations these are mediated by time space adverbs and processes. The representation can not fully represent its condition but such a conditions are is still "in" representations not as mere thing or fact or empirical content, see Kant's Critique of Pure Reason category concepts like substance and cause are not given in experience, but also are not mere formal conditions of representation they are immediate with concrete experience eg said as essence reflected in adverbs and so on. Not clear I'm afraid but best i can do at the moment. the risk is you see if we abandon the formal here then the shape of political reason collapses into just so much social and psychological contingency without a shape of reason or architecture. its a levelling that collapses all categorical distinctions law justice are just so many buildign and powers and norms and there is no political geometry for a social contract and consent and generally accepted ground of legitimacy. A radical pluralism without states, but also one that flatters out and masks the class and logic distinctions syllogism and the state, i posted about on your last video.
1
the discussion of museums affords me a tenuous link to an anecdote. So several years ago i was watching on my laptop a live discussion with a very famous American economist, who i didn't know was so famous at the time. Then at some point they said they would throw it open to questions from on line. So I typed in a question, and they picked my question first but said i had to go on the ive video stream and ask it with a visual of my face. So i pushed the buttons they said but at first the lap top camera was pointing randomly at my shelf. So the first thing they saw was my shelf, and on it was a figure of Charlton Heston from the original "Planet of the Apes", a Clint Eastwood movie box set, and a massive china Eagle. Sometimes objects can just be thrown together with no semantic aesthetic image and intension to unity. But i think they thought it was deliberate anyway, they gave me a lot of time with the guy, at one point he got up a disappeared a came back with a book. my question was about the economic of basic needs and how this necessity was not represented or representable within the neo liberal economic structure of rational choice, but as a right it looks unconditional. His answer was when the normal economy fails to account for this say with excessive unaffordable energy prices people can chop down trees but is this "outside" the system, an immediate exchange of labour for utility, or a black market. I then raised the case of the Japanese house price real estate boom and bust in the 1990's and asked is this inflation, this bubble that is beyond real economic exchange, also a kind of outside. I guess its a kind of Marxist point but the question then is by what criteria can we class something a bubble. This lead to discussions about business cycles and exogenous and endogenous change and anomaly. He was certainly a major Republican Economist but knew all the Marxist stuff and all the tricks big time. It seems the eagle did not let him off his guard.
1
In Anscombe's "Intention" at around section 30, she talks about a shopping trolley. it made me think the ontological v representational standpoints can be elucidated here. its then the distinction between the supermarket view which is in supply/demand curves for each individual good and price to quantity. there is a kind of super market unity of existence to be found in there audit double entry book, but no where on that book will it show an aesthetic array of goods for a person or family basic needs are not given in the multiple series of supply demand curves in the super market. but supply demand equilibria with a central fixed price necessarily means for some it will be of neglable cost ie near freedom and for others the price is below affordability eg bellow necessity. But people need to be alive first so this number is only virtual or pseudo to the liberal economy. at the other end of the super market the UN and IMF is the concern for mass goods for the poorest in the world (Peter Singer 1972). the solution is between these two but without the ad hoc add on you get in neoliberalism or the absolute global account of obligations to the whole world. indeed the whole world obligation it at the expense of the poor in Western Countries and more disturbingly the image of the poor in foreign countries is used as a kind of Criteria for saying how well the poor in inequality here are doing compared to them one country, kind of is the glass an eight full or 7 eights empty. What happens in behaviour economics now is the action as a marginal sourced act to create an action there must be a difference eg welfare must be lower than the lowest paid job else many people will stay on Welfare. Contrast with Tax rates that has to be marginally competitive globally which means lower the tax rate. both of these are experimentally verified with psychology and empirical data. it is interesting how this scientific image of cosmological economic reason results in justify what it does, which is drive the poor down to the bottom and rich to the top globally. the figure of the human in necessity and freedom right duty consent is absent from the picture and so is always some kind of after thought add which makes Welfare look like an exogenous case, or a endogenous choice of gift by and of the system. While the super rich are said to be not just free but in power and wealth that they can appear to be transcendent of the system like a kind of God acting on the world reflexivity but immune and free and transcendent.
1
When Amy Gallagher discuses the work done on finding historical cases of trans people, it puts me in mind of the philosopher Luce Irigary. She argues for an accessible exteriority or other, to contemporary scientific and cultural norms, in terms of language. I recall that she claims in "The Speculum of the Other Woman" that there are excesses to language here now(from but Critical of Lacan's psychoanalytic linguistic context), but this excess with the historical examples of ecstatic experience that have been omitted or marginalised from the canon (of and by dead straight white men) but can still be found in the record say of Johan of Arc and St Terresa's descriptions of ecstatic experience. that means what is logically impossible inaccessible synchronically, can be found in the margins of historical record: they exist. as i recall Irigary also claims that the language of men and the language of woman are different , but she did not want to just reverse the privilege as Derrida and his followers have done. "Speculum of the other woman" is great because its full of direct accounts of ecstatic experience from history, she links this to Kant's schematism, and others link it to Kant's dynamic and mathematical sublimes. Irigary other books are very difficult drawing on Lacan Hegel and Heidegger. In some ways, without the phenomenology this could be seen as an extension of the 20th century histories that were about narrating working class histories opposed to the history of kings and queens. i had kings and queens in primary school in the 60s and then the social history of the industrial revolution at high school in the 70s. At 6th form we had a course on the history Rock n Roll mediated using a magic lantern projector but they ended it with Mick Jagger saying its academic value had come into question. Why in 1980 we wanted them to go on to do punk is unclear since we had lived it immediately the late seventies.
1
the free market neo liberalism or minimum State liberal conservatisms are not really opposed to socialism as big State. Since both are really global orientations: the first in terms of responses to the anonymous global "market", the second as to be determined by metrics from global view of inequality as injustice. They differ on the former emphasis from the 1970's of negative freedom and Right, and the later on positive freedom as capability of Right. Importantly both adhere strongly to science and law: the former to behavioural economic science of choice and utility creation, the later to social limits of the market eg more regulations less and positive welfare, the former that law is primarily concerned with property rights and crime, the later that law is to protect the vulnerable and bring about equality and justice. the former has been described as a de facto distribution while the later is aimed at de jure distribution. the former more psychologically orientated the later more sociologically orientated. It is the marginal differences in details of policy that they differ over the role and size of the State. But these small difference point to very large difference over time when one is in power for a long time. thus what both of them "mean" in terms of aim time and end can turn out to be radically opposed, but as policy now they are only slightly different. Traditionally the left say neo liberalism is driven by the super rich and institutions of money and is heading toward monopoly and oligarchy and plutocracy even dictatorship, while the right claim that social justice will lead to un elected beurocratic control and totalitarianism and dictatorship. Importantly both have made science and law and their image of man under them a universal God to come. Both cite progress and in this both seek to transform the private sphere into the public sphere via sciences. The former focus on the sciences of psychology and efficiency in the home for individual Human Capital, the later focus on the social world and now race and gender, and seek to enter the private space for equality of opportunity and non bias, but they use the same sciences as the former here with small difference of application but large difference of and aim. Really then both of these view man as essentially causally determined and knowable by sciences. For example it used to be the case that Europe just took ancient artefacts from foreign countries, then they said it was as a custodian with facilities to care for them properly and now its all for the sake of world universal science of man all humanity then. Very Foucault, the same result said in different ways in different epochs. i found it very interesting re visiting the Science museum a few years ago. because they had the objects in the displays arranged in groups as if showing them as a collective whole in a form of life as opposed to jsut separate objects. that can miss historical development (eg James Burkes Connections) but still better than just single abstracted objects. Anyway the London science museum has "stolen" the steam engines off of the north and midlands. there is class difference in the history of the science from 16th century: the theoretical mathematical astronomy as longitude, and the clock mechanism for longitude, also the steam engines and designs for better efficiency improvements lead to theoretical thermodynamics, and then i believe, they took the methods of the social sciences and statistical data analysis and applied this to thermodynamics which became statistical thermodynamics and then quantum mechanics. that while the economists were applying physics theorems like fluid mechanics and then thermodynamic equilibrium to mans economic activity. Incidentally Socialists tend toward Plato while liberals and conservatives tend towards Aristotle. For Aristotle Economics meant the domestic realm and market (category) means the place where pubic exchange goes on. I believe the next mover is really Khaldun and Copernicus on prices inflation and quantity theory of money etc though so many say now Newton figured this out practically when at the mint.
1
Yes I've never seen the "I'm a celebrity get me outa here" or "celebrity in the jungle" whatever it is. Great show today folks thank you Peter Whittle, Rafe Heydel-Mankoo and Amy Gallagher.
1
An example of what could be called policy drift or creep or even hidden agenda might be the "working from home" policy. I mean how long before that means health and safety in the home work space, health and safety and efficiency experts in your house, HR equity checks eg tax deduction incentives for inter racial and same sex partnerships in house hold work places...liek the work from private home will be treated regulatorily as a public home at work. You know social science and psychological science will construct efficiently and equality audits getting married will become part of the competences of Human Resources Department in multiple public/private bubble domains. Having children will be classed as economic production of potential biological material for Capital. Already it seems there are system that afford taking children form the third world for a better life in the first world. and new projects starting that are aimed at reducing the birth rate in Africa on the apparent basis of women's rights to education and work in the public sphere. It's all very colonial stuff just in a different epoch of reasons of social justice and science. and you can bet that they will introduce these kinds of systems here, for the poor of course, with all the same excuses. excuses that pick out the poor and leave the rich on the basis of excuse of the poor being poor, but really about Welfare cuts, crime reduction and the children rights to educated carers before un educated parents. BBC TV: show some poor parents who can't read and write who's kids are then behind in class Parent interview "I wish i could read to help my kids" then the "kids phone in if your parents cannot help you with your homework". lets get some data and first person accounts from the kids for the scientific report and policy justifier.
1
Note :I just want to elucidate an interpretation, that is, my interpretation, of my story, in the above comments, about when I was on a live stream lecture and Q&A, and asked a question of an American Republican economist. I said that my laptop camera switched on live, and showed my shelf with a Charlton Heston Plant of the Apes figure, a box set of Clint Eastwood DVDs and a large china figure of a Eagle. In my comment I said that "I believe that he believed that from the apparent meaning unity of those three objects in the first live signal that he might have erroneously concluded or indeed interpreted as intentionally meaningful that the three objects together mean i am a Republican. Now my point about his error here is not that he is wrong about me "being" a Republican, but that I believe, his belief that, the apparent unity of the objects on my shelf give justification for the attribution of me being a Republican. I said a bunch of things on my shelf might just be a bunch of things on my shelf and not have a unity of significant meaning and reference together. I can put it this way Gettier argued that someone can hold a belief that some proposition about the world or a person is true and justify it, but this never closes the gap between justified but doubtable belief in some truth. Their rational epistemic justification can still be wrong. So from my belief about their belief is they would be wrong to make such a conclusion. However two points then: first even if i did not intend the objects as a meaningful unity: a unity of signification and reference, there is still the singular meaning of each object that some people would say each singularly indicates, if not intentionally signifies that i, in fact am a Republican either unknowingly or performatively. For the left of course this distinction does not really exist or is relevant, or useful, to predict or anticipate my future actions. That is jsut having these singular objects would be a significant Republican performativity, reinforced by them being a multiple even if aggregate. It is similar to a story i heard from the 1990's of a heuristic used by the police of a significant inferential unity if someone has both Star Trek and Buffy video's. The point is my denial of the belief that they would be justified in believing that i am a Republican does not then mean i am not a Republican. It just means the objects on my shelf do not justify it, but that does not mean it is then untrue. and i could be wrong about my belief ie they just never saw the shelf before the question. Now that is a taste of the Gettier problem in epistemology: justified belief and truth are not the same things. Question is then is their a similar argument about action and its justification or perhaps legitimacy, involving intention and the act, Right and double effect or unintended consequence, or intended aim and failure. Indeed an example from the BBC News early this morning seems to raise this problematic. Interestingly for me it is similar to the kind of "logical" error I raised w.r.t. "The Revenge of Frankenstein" which i described as making a false equivalence between, i don't wash because the dirt keeps me warm, and i don't wash because washing makes me cold.
1