INTEGRATIONALISM
Integration and AbundanceThanks for 2 Years
Its been 2 Years since the first Integrationalism publication, and I’d just like to say thank you to all of the readers and listeners.
–James Felton Keith
Email Response: Capitalists and Other Psychopaths
By: Ted Parker for NYT
Yesterday a psychologist friend of mine sent me this article along with a few other folks to ask if she should be getting into this field of study.
Read the article HERE
Here is my response via email.
ooooh thank you for this article.
I think that you should be studying this…..I’d love to drop everything and do a deep dive into this. I particularly like this quote from the article.
” First of all, if entrepreneurs are job creators, workers are wealth creators. Entrepreneurs use wealth to create jobs for workers. Workers use labor to create wealth for entrepreneurs — the excess productivity, over and above wages and other compensation, that goes to corporate profits. It’s neither party’s goal to benefit the other, but that’s what happens nonetheless. “
This also feeds into that article that we are supposed to be doing about the PTS that I’m almost sure that the long-term out of work has….it would be the flip-side of psychopathic capitalists mis-judging the “wealth creators” as Deresiewics put it. I almost resent how accurate Ayn Rand’s rational self interest is, which is why I think that there are only technological solutions to sociopathic and psychopathic culture. There have to be quantifiable checks and balances….because humans do a poor job (and have always) at evaluating risks and allocation resources. We can still be human or humane and operate in sync.
While at MSU this associate professor that attended my philosophy clubs took-a-stab to sum all of this up as “the contradictions of capitalism”, but these problems are not inherent to capitalism…they are just a spawn of our understanding of our own individualism. it what makes Ayn Rand so fearfully, spot on.
From a literary standpoint, I think we can address this problem well by exploiting and remedying, what I’m calling:
The five contradictions of individualism and its off-spring:
- Ecology
- Inequality
- Poverty
- Property
- Systemic Risk
But again, all I think that we can suggest are the error-proofs (Ron knows what I’m talking about)…I don’t see how there are solutions other than technological ones (methodological, hard/softwares), that could pervade a group (of any size) of individuals.
Integrationalism is not Utopian in its ideal of engagement.
original posted from Wecritica.com
Someone caught my ear today while confessing that everyone won’t want to contribute or participate “productively” (per what the a local or broader social elite consider it to be), for any number of psychological or sociological reasons….and I agreed, still to say further, that “the goup” she defined as elite are obligated (per Integrationalism) to make a formidable offer to those non-participants in order to reach their (the groups) potential.
We cannot as an evolving species or group of species, afford to write-off sentient beings as obsolescence without engaging them well with information/resources available….or we are selling ourselves short.
Humans Cant Have Nature
The effort to be better is something indicative to the living experience. Specific to humans, the phenomena is not synonymous with their nature, as nature suggests too rigidly a mission of these entities, while in fact the dynamism of the living experience cannot be possessed by an individual or classification of such entities alone. It is physical and encompassing of the system of entities.
Like this:
Religious Holiday – Institutions vs Individuals
Below is an excerpt from a scenario I was emailed about a real-time situation at a secondary school in Michigan.
I included James on this email because I want his input on this matter. There are two co-workers. One of them is Jewish and she takes off every Jewish holiday no matter what. Then there is the other worker who takes off one afternoon a week for the month because work is stressing her out. The religious woman makes a comment to the other worker about the amount of time she’s taking off and the other worker says “it’s no different than you taking off time for your religion to rest”. The religious lady is like “they are SO TOTALLY different because my religion requires it.” Should people who are not religious be shunned for taking the same actions as those who are? Are these women comparing apples to oranges?
My opinion: people should not be shunned for their incentives to relax and these two women are arguing about the same phenomenon.
Tagent: This email was fascinating to me considering the latest Integrationalism book of “value” and how it is distributed to the institutions and individual…I think its important in how we regulate (with laws) a society… and this is a good low end example of how institution’s objectives to establish a presidence benefits them not only materially (monetarily, etc) but also socio-culturally.
Further: All of the religio, politico, socio, economic, etc rhetoric of today in democratic societies is about individualistic virtues, yet it doesn’t pay in this time to be an individual without an institutional affiliation. There is no economic or socio-cultural equity in it.
As the education and post-industrialized society grow more secular, how will we transfer the equity and respect that religious institutions currently own?
Golden Ratio Point Of The World (Mecca) | Excerpt
This is an excerpt from my new book w/ Common Ground Pub
In the context of the modernly popularized “theory of everything”, the beginning, the ideal origin, there are some cultural biases in its presentation. Philosophers in computer science, physical science, neuroscience, and others are regularly presenting theories with an absolutist use of language. Whether the theory is a well designed virtual simulation, or an equation, or identification of some subconscious divinity produced by cranial activity that is human-kind’s beginning, or divine regulation, or end, they are presented in a fashion that suggests that human-kind can see the beginning or end of its proverbial tunnel without experiencing and building adequate philosophy along the way. Perhaps theory is presented as a cocky end-all because everyone to date has been indoctrinated in some cultural understanding that absolutes are accessible, regardless of how dynamic our physical web of worlds and elements is.
For instance, take the Golden Ratio when applied to some space and time. I was recently sent a YouTube video by a friend who identifies himself as being of eastern European ethnicity and of Islamic faith, explaining how the Golden Ratio is a numerical expression of perfection for the wide range of things specific to his culture, from facial structure measurements to geographic locations on the globe. I found the video wildly convincing and entertaining, but logically aloof. I could go on-and-on about the flaws of logic in that video, but I won’t (just a bit). The YouTube video stated that Mecca was at the exact point on the earth that is calculated as the Golden Ratio because of its relative placement at specific times of the day to the Moon and Sun, regarding the axis of the Earth. I actually laughed out loud (LOL), because of the general knowledge that the Moon is moving away from the Earth at a steady (but nominal relative to our short individual life spans currently)
pace of approximately two and one-half centimeters per year, which in-turn gradually changes the axis of the Earth and its position relative to the Sun. Perfection is not terminologically adequate to be used in relation to a dynamic system like that of anything physical. The ideal that something can be perfect or that someone can be perfect or even smart is ridiculous,
because of the constantly evolving space in which we are, existing (living, dying, transplanting, traveling, etc).
