TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

indoctrination, I noticed something interesting.

So an interesting coincidence came across me today

i was reading a Noam Chomsky article where he talks about how Adam Smiths philosophy has been butchered by the Chicago school of economics.

http://www.chomsky.info/books/warfare02.htm

There are similarities between Karl Marx and Adam Smith between their philosophy on the division of labor. This seems to have been forgotten

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labour#cite_note-7
Adam Smiths thoughts

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Economic-Philosophic-Manuscripts-1844.pdf

page 4 2b) Karl Marx's thoughts

I just found it interesting that in this talk, Dan Ariely didn't notice that Adam Smith also had similar meaning to Karl Marx.

To me this sort of shows how massive the level of indoctrination and twisting of history has twisted today's society. It's even affected our intellectuals.

What are your thoughts?

+1
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Apr 12 2013: Hi Douglas,

    Many thanks for the links - the assembly is worth looking at.

    My thoughts are that the division of labour is an extension of the natural fall into specialisation required by social organisms.
    For it to be properly balanced - and so not to overstep its role, one must first understand the purpose of it.

    To comprehend this, I have had to form a framework by which a distinction can be made between the individual and the emergent social entity that individuals give rise to.
    This framework is based on the notion of perception. An individual alone has a field of perception tied to the field of senses - perception forms a distillation of sense data into information relevant to the well being of the creature.
    By this process, even though the active perception is narrowed to the "informatum" at hand, the potential perception can exceed the field of senses - this has the affect of widening the field of perception beyond the field of senses.
    For an individual, I call this enlarged potential perception "the primary field of perception".
    When an organism become a social organism, the primary fields of potential perception are summed through the device of communication - this gives rise to the secondary field of potential perception.
    Any increase of the field of potential perception leads to an expansion of the field of potential agency - if you know more, you can do more. This is remarked as "freedom" - but is not understood outside of this framework and becomes a meaningless utterance - a tribal totem.
    The balance point then becomes identified at the moment the division of labour disappears from the primary field of perception. In other words, if the task is meaningless to the worker, he is deprived of the secondary field of perception and no longer adds value to the emergent entity of his own community.

    Does that make sense?
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Apr 18 2013: Many thanks John.

        The dichotomy of positive/negative potential agency can also be cast over the self/other axis to form a measure of "morality". But in the end, the bell curve must resolve to the bias of the self - it is the self, after all, who approves or disapproves past agency - on the basis of the current field of potential agency - which in turn forms the history judged by future selves. Measurement is a retrospective activity.
        Truth being the absolute energy state and the absolute causality is not available to the senses - the senses are limited to bandwidth dictated by the specific interests of the self plus a margin at the service of adaptive range. Perception extends this by the application of causality relative to self-persistence.
        Darwin suggests that there is more than one self at work in these dynamics (the genome as a self), but the point(vector?) of agency defines the membrane of that self.
        Here is where we can measure the beneficiary of specialisation.
        Agency is key - who or what do you work for defines the entity which precipitates the agency.
        Indeed, I spent a good deal of time helping corporate entities design their human machinery.
        But inherent specialisation also exists - some are biologically defined .. the tribe functions because all the critical tasks are covered by virtue of age and sex. Beyond the tribe, we experiment with artifice .. but these are all tainted by the interest of the individual - which will bias the advantage.
        I don't believe in laziness .. there is a better word - comfort. Understanding the mechanics of comfort will go a long way to understanding which side of the positive/negative an agency resides.
        Indoctrination/propaganda/advertising/coercion is a symptom of artifice. Artifice is a symptom of biased interests. I would argue that the bias becomes less than the tribe when a tribe exceeds the biological limit to the field of secondary perception it generates. This is defined by brain capacity.
      • thumb
        Apr 18 2013: addendum:
        The field of senses is also critical - such things as measuring instruments expand our non-artificial horizon. But the critical test of any such extension of senses is "real-time".

        There are a bunch of idiots out there who prattle on about the "singularity" . none of them recognise the real-time limit to artificial senses.

        Instead, they create new entities - new selves .. new mouths to feed .. in short - parasites.
        The singularity then becomes dependent on the quantity of blood we can spare.

        This is very heartening - the parasites will replace war as the cull mechanism that draws all species back to their biological self-limit - they die with their host.

        A good thing I think - no less death .. just less blame. In the ultimate long term test of morality - blame has no place.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.