A Very Merry Un-Posting to You

Chris Dierkes

Chris Dierkes (aka CJ Smith). 29 years old, happily married, adroit purveyor and voracious student of all kinds of information, theories, methods of inquiry, and forms of practice. Studying to be a priest in the Anglican Church in Canada. Main interests: military theory, diplomacy, foreign affairs, medieval history, religion & politics (esp. Islam and Christianity), and political grand bargains of all shapes and sizes.

Related Post Roulette

7 Responses

  1. greginak says:

    Wouldn’t a left wing criticism of contemporary conservative thought about the free market as has been practiced in last decade be that is turns us all into the Red Queen, constantly running just keep in the same economic spot?

    Well that uses up all of my Alice in Wonderland references for the year.Report

  2. E.D. Kain says:

    Alice – this was great! I think I’ll change my avatar to the March Hare.Report

  3. JV says:

    The best tea parties are those where the China is broken. Modeling after the foundation myth of pretend Indians throwing throwing English tea in the ocean to protest outsourcing taxes to another power is a good excuse to have a party as any other. Better still if the hoary old icon “no taxation without representation” applies again to the royal court in DC dispensing tax money to favorites.

    Ahh, its “Spring in America Again.” Or somesutch things as that.Report

  4. Steven Donegal says:

    Thanks Chris, your post helped finally understand why bloggers like to engage James Poulos. See, I have always found his posts to be very intellectual and complex with a lot of unusual and obscure words and references spinkled throughout. However, I have also found them to be largely unintelligible. Your insight now leads me to understand that this is James’ brilliance–the complexity and obscure references attract intelligent critics like moths to a light, but then on finding there is really no substance, each writer can assign his own meanings to James’ work, critique that in a way that furthers his point of view and then move on. It really is a fun game.Report

  5. JosephFM says:

    “The mainstream form of economics is being infected with a de-humanizing virus. “

    I think this is where I invoke Doug Rushkoff again, right? Specifically, on how “Economics Is Not A Natural Science”, but is rather based on “a set of underlying assumptions that have little to do with anything resembling genetics, neurology, evolution, or natural systems”, –which is to say with actual human nature?Report

    • Chris Dierkes in reply to JosephFM says:

      I agree. The main difference being economics involves human’s who have choice and behavioral patterns, but can also do unpredictable things.

      C.S. Peirce said that the laws of nature were just really really really ingrained habits. We’re not atoms or genes and the attempt to physics-alize economics is what Whitehead would call a misplaced concreteness (the incorrect application of an induction from an earlier more patterned form of existence to a latter, more creative, more free form of existence….i.e. homo sapiens).

      Even the behavioral school of economics (in their public presentations anyway) is still too much into the quirky arenas and only describes. Same with rising neuro-economics.

      What I think we need is an economics interested in creative freedom. But this has the problem of being seen to involve a value beyond utilitarianism and atomic individualism. Too much of economics still wants to hold to the outdated Weberian fact/value distinction.

      Marx was peaking around this corner, but then (I think) got too lost in historical determinism, excessively block-like class categorization, and conflictual models.Report