L.B. Neill
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Rod,
“Leaving economy issues aside (if only we could), there is also the argument that even from the aspect of general health and wellbeing, a lockdown is worse than the problem it’s trying to solve”
This statement is a crucial point in managed public health during any lockdown (and financial cost of health burden narratives should have no part to play).
The inadvertent social/health problems with any COVID restrictions should come into public health planning. Lockdown impacts on early diagnostic screening for serious health issues- screening attendance declines. In AOD (addictions therapy) people who live with substance dependencies experience disruption to supply, and some in lockdown, undergo very dangerous self detox (or receive helfty fines for breaching restrictions). Family violence episodes also increase- with increased risk of lethality. Suicidal ideations and serious mental health symptoms and their unmanaged morbidity increase too.
A total health response is required in public health policy. It involves interdisciplinary approaches (health sciences of the physical and the social/mental health and protective (D/V) sectors).
Many domains of health science frontline practitioners discuss this often- and money is absent from the debate. Long may it be so- or I might feel I have served in my own little way to reduce the health spend and its urgency (social costs). When health and social care become captured by economic burden capital interests of keeping the economy ‘open’ will always stand at the front of the line (adverse health outcomes become an acceptable risk or economic ‘friendly fire’)
Matthew: Lets put the money on the cart- and bid it farewell. Get that flu shot!
Be safe,
LB
The term ‘philosophy’ is in contention and subject to the semiotic flux that most disciplines have experienced since the emergence of post-structural thought.
Some of you might have undertaken a PPE (no not a face mask): some kind of training in Politic Philosophy and Economics. Some might have many other forms of guild, Uni and experiential training.
Philosophy can be seen as modes of veridiction: kinds of methods of speaking a truth, according to training, purpose, and utility.
The ethical use of science is also a mode of veridiction, and it is simply a idea, a belief, in using a series of fact finding/fact using according to its discourse community.
To be an everyday philosopher is to liberate philosophy as a privileged mode of veridiction practiced by a controlling elite- and make possible a diverse knowledge system that can be occupied by many, interrogated, and talked about by a mass.
In its pure form, it is the software that drives our everyday activity (science, religion, meta and local narratives of life).
I am thankful that I have a local philosophy- when ‘shit happens’. It provides me with the veridiction to dare say a truth amid falsity or fake news.
Philosophies (plural) can be for, and not for science, but are signifying chains and organising principles linked and coupled to people’s beliefs (and their lived experiencing [real or fake ideology])
Philosophy and science are not at odds (they are locked in a relational dance) and one can’t be conceived without the other.
Better to say: who is the science in service to? and who is the philosophy in service of?- they are modes of truth telling, of veridiction. And they should be democratised, be openly available to all- not monetarised nor commodified, nor in the the hands of any ruling elite. They should not be subject to scorn either- by way of mocking dismissal.
Science and philosophy are subject to mock in these truth rhetor days- are these the first victims of ideological warfare in a battle for control…
If we ignore this, any argument is set to be an entrenched antagonism.
Science and the other (other than science) will always occupy the same space- it is why science and art are so crucial to society, and faith based practices too. To erase one mode of veridiction over another points to a elitism of one over another.
I like philosophical narratives, and really appreciate science.
Now how do I wrap this construct up- there is no closure!
LB
Marcos,
I relate to your comments on Woodward’s rage.
There is a reprehensible action sitting on such information during a global health crisis.
I wish his text was published by open commons- and extemporaneously- information in the here and now. But alas, profit from the sales meant he had to write it first- and all that time in book deals, chats and rewrites, editing, and so on. This is a sad and typical example of what you said: profit over people.
You know: the whole notion to withhold information to reduce panic- makes things worse. Sound and evidence based and immediate communication in society would have been a better public health response from the outset.
Well, I guess you can’t go to detention for making a profit. My general feeling of the political fallout for the Trump administration from this text… is… business as usual.
Wish the whole community would collaborate their intel- and not on a profit basis- will be good to hope that the roll out of any COVID vaccine does not get caught up in ‘Vaccine Nationalism’
LB
ALB,
I understand. My last post was emotive. It formed a binary division into pro/anti social criterion. Too simplified- and humans are too messy to be dropped into such criteria.
Dawkins is not anti-social…
You see any talk of Eugenics can prompt emotive reactions. Best to be more considered (note to self!) in responding. 19th Century Social Darwinism is best challenged in its small ‘d’ Darwinism- otherwise I would run the risk of sounding anti-science.
Science, and it ethical usage is a complexity- complicated more so by political narratives regulating it… what a mind-field!
Eugenics! The topic might as well focus on Darwin: the survival of the fittest (used to justify the potters grave).
It is the worst form of essentialism- the greatest justification for the weak dying out. Some Capital- Darwinists use this argument often. You only need to read the forward to Jordan Peterson in Archipelago to realise this:
https://scholarfactcheck.com/jordan-peterson-gulag-archipelago/
Okay, not the best link, as the links are subject to a variance- but if you manage to download the forward, it will cast a light on this ideology.
Dawkins is an antipode to prosocial behaviour. So he might be… ? His attitudes to the Self and its primacy over the collective is concerning.
We are not a material mime of the Platonic taken for granted world- WE are social beings. We re not reflections of other species- fighting for recourses, killing one another to ensure our social line’s survival over the other.
There will always be ‘show dogs’ in this realm.
The facts and results of any study in that field will always depend on their constructs- and best served with caution.
Eugenics and social Darwinism are best left to the rantings of Nazis and mongers bent on reducing human experience into its sedimented form (a mirror only reflecting their own image).
I have no idea where my own rant came from- only a very concerning feeling (both rational and irrational) with any mention of Eugenics and its bastard brother, Darwin.
Forgive me that,
L.B
Alan, the wonderful thing is- people are able to change a stance. And it is very great to see that people can both fess a new postion or state later that it was wrong
I have posted some post- impossiblism statements on this forum in the past, and when I return, a little red faced (and dare a smile), I have been given the space and permission, and kindness, to correct it.
Why else educate on socialism! We change stances and positions through life. And I am sure public discourse to help correct anti vac, covid denial in the near future. We all need that patient posture to change… some alas, may not…
ALB- I’m sure the medical narratives on mask wearing will shift all the time- but in the meantime it is one tool in the challenge of COVID,
Be safe,
L.B
We are amid a pandemic in Melbourne. We have been in lockdown for some months.
The science of public safety in these times should not be dismissed: but some seem spurred on by notions of ‘freedom’. It seems the term freedom is subjective and depends on political expression. The economy should be healthier than our health for some of these demonstrators! It is the nearest example of antisocial, individualist centred oddities, and it is so ‘typical’ of a pre-social class of beings.
A group arranged a demonstration against medical necessary restrictions.
Has commerce over health entered a new normal- a new dangerous expression? Below is an ABC news report:
or try this link- the link seems ethereal!
It seems the defences capital may use to justify the economy over science has amplified- but to who’s expense.
I am promask- and if you wear one too- it is mutual, beneficial and has a shared altruism… If I mentioned that statement at their rally, I would have no teeth left.
L.B.
Post Note:
Just in case- I do not aspire to vanguard ideas- and any mention of a pre-social class is not aimed at a Loche like division into greater or lesser class of conscious beings. It is that it seems a protest of a few over the greater health of the many. And that few seem captured by a nodal point located in ‘laissez faire ‘ ideations, and at all costs- but deaths are its collateral damage.
Good reason for the edit option!
Alan,
Thank you for the encouragement and information.
I had sent an email to Trevor.
This forum has been very helpful- challenging yes- but most helpful!
Be safe…
Hi Marcos,
There have been unsafe narratives from the States and Brazil: promoting the right not to wear masks with freedoms.
Scientific medical advice has been put aside in favour of ideological point scoring- thus sending out mixed messaging that is harmful to populations as a whole.
Physical distancing measures and use of ppe is essential to reduce the spread of COVID. You know, this individualism “I’m alright Jack’ attitudes is being promoted by the Right- there is certainly a disregard for evidence or practice based science.
I hope all is well for you- during isolation- we are social beings, and it is difficult at times: but necessary.
LB
Alan,
I like and I am alloyed to :
“The other is that we are social, cooperative and will collaborate with one another for mutual advantage and benefit. and require little State coercion to do so.”
The first strand is rule governed/following behaviour which assumes we are interpellated into a non-agency state.
Should I join SPGB- it resonates that desired end goal! Any branches close to Melbourne?
Regarding masks and the law- we could have our faces photo printed onto them. There is a beauty to it.
Alan, thanks.
I have recently struggled to locate a position within socialist narratives (abstain/non reform, agitation/get all angry, or intervene/reform).
The intellect and the heart are a funny thing- and to divide them into oppositions is an artificial social construct. It is like seeking a primacy of idealism over material, or base over structure. Like some recent debates on the forum…
Capital discourse practice (the economy speaks) has impacted on marginal communities during this crisis: dare I say one of may crises. It has made front line service provision hard. Many workers in this position are tired.
The whole notion that health is patent- or that our cost of study is steep (bio-psycho-social study) does not lesson the heart response that some helpers feel. I want reform- but I want that right through the social totality. I know many others who do too. Pity that health and welfare is contingent on a dominant political ideation.
Thanks,
L.B
In Melbourne we are going into lock down again. Today the totals climbed into the 200s. This may seem small in global terms: but the r rate could go beyond that
In responding to homeless populations, the risk of lethality is increased. Private rooming houses/crisis accommodation and so on, receive significant amounts from the welfare spend. Many people are referred to rooms that are neither cleaned (COVID cleaned) nor barely vacated. And profit… well… it opens up the binary division between profit over health!
The structuration of capital public-private interventions generates discord between health over profit for some: and profit over welfare for many. On the street level it is disunified and presents a point of antagonism that amplifies all our subject positions.
We have enough to buy health and risk reduction: we have money spent on out behalf to provide partial risk reduction in health.
How did we get here: not a question…
Alan. You posted an interesting article on Richard Wolf (and that debate ensues- never finding closure).
Reformist ideas mean an intervention to reduce death within a capital mode. It appear at times, better to do something, rather than say: ‘what is: is”
So I do something- I think capital ideas assume economy over health- but we must assume the antipode.
Regarding reform- I can’t stand by and not intervene, I have seen so much loss.
May health find you- for many it fails them
L.B.
It depends on how you read scripture! For some it is capital business as usual. For others: lets get rid of money.
Good thing is: we are all reaching for that utopia- Jesus painted the place ‘bright red’.
Alan: the day of doom is always followed by bloom- sounds quirky… but there yo go!
Hi Johan,
I relate to you. What you experienced from your supervisor is sad. The idea that any form of care is a burden to the state is so wrong.
Rod is right: in socialism, this would not even matter, and your decision would be a matter of choice- and all would support it.
Ableism (that is discrimination on ability over disability) is not acceptable.
When society calls we who have ‘disability’ (be it physical or mental health) a burden- it really hurts. We have so much to contribute: and your question to your supervisor is testament to your pro-social kindness.
like rodshaw said: it will not go bankrupt. And yes money decisions do impact governments.
I really support whatever decision you make- as that is the social thing to do. There are so many people I know who would relate to your post- and stand by your choices- through all it entails!
Be safe,
L.B.
Hi All,
It has been some time since I had posted.
ALB (#204729). Ever since Capitalism (and its classical and feudal parents) came into being, the question of the poor has been answered by the ruling elite- what to do with them?
A universal basic income is a re-articulation of the welfare state: and we might be told that this is our lot (our crumbs) and consume it. Use it to pay for services (a self managed fund with limits) and if we run out of it- wait till the next funding year.
There have been some right wing commentators (Patterson in Canada) who say that being poor is a naturalistic event: potters graves exist throughout history. I am reminded of the ideas: if money is used- poverty ensues.
I hear the concern: UBI is a re-articulation of payments to keep people alive, and only just that! Welfare is a marketplace- the poor spend what is given: that spend is then returned to profit-centred services.
Nothing changes.
The left and the right have a tug of war- and nothing changes in the communities I work. Same poverty: different policy.
ALB, thanks. I wish the stance moved from marginal to central political discourse- otherwise, more of the same
L.B
