Currency Wars – their Imperial aspect
<div>
</div><div><div class="ast-comment-avatar-wrap" Open Sans", sans-serif; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><img alt="" src="https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b14ed69bc7c136a36d60935c58f7620b?s=50&d=mm&r=g" srcset="https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b14ed69bc7c136a36d60935c58f7620b?s=100&d=mm&r=g 2x" class="avatar avatar-50 photo" height="50" width="50" loading="lazy" /></div><div class="ast-comment-data-wrap" Open Sans", sans-serif; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="ast-comment-meta-wrap" ><header class="ast-comment-meta ast-row ast-comment-author vcard capitalize" ><div class="ast-comment-cite-wrap ast-col-lg-12" ><cite ><a href="https://en.gravatar.com/rogerglewis" rel="external nofollow ugc" class="url" >ROGER</a></cite></div><div class="ast-comment-time ast-col-lg-12" ><a href="https://www.golemxiv.co.uk/2013/01/currency-wars-their-imperial-aspect/#comment-25232" >JANUARY 22, 2013 AT 4:16 AM</a></div></header></div></div><section class="ast-comment-content comment" Open Sans", sans-serif; font-size: 18.75px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><p >I have spent pretty much all of my free reading time revisiting Global Warming( Climate Change ) this past week and plan on spending the next few months getting more deeply into the physics and the modeling, these are two quite distinct things.<br />What I do notice is that no one is ever completely wrong although there are plenty of people who clearly feel they are Completely right.<br />All perceptions or understandings of the world are necessarily constructions of our own histories and given that we are all unique we all live in different worlds to differing degrees. Sadly the laurels go to those who say they are right and stick to their guns until every one else demurs. This adversarial approach to finding the best route forward does not, these days, appear the wisest way to proceed to me.</p><p >I read a quote the other day, the reference is on my other computer but it basically said.</p><p >´´Those in power remain there until the price of removing them is worth paying´´</p><p >I googled it to see if I could find it just now and this came up</p><p ><a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/news/21-ways-rich-people-think-differently.html?page=all" rel="nofollow ugc" >http://finance.yahoo.com/news/21-ways-rich-people-think-differently.html?page=all</a></p><p >Generalisations or the golden rule are fine for religions or systems of belief, as we are looking to construct something that is working better than what is presently not working for us we need to ask ourselves what price is worth paying to change the guys at the controls ( I think it is mostly guys).<br />What replaces what there is now will be just another construct and with so many variables 9 billion of them, them, being us lot. No one will know how it works or will be able to predict what it will do. Those in charge will of course pretend that they Are in control of course.</p><p >Our contextual relationship to otherness.<br />A wonderful piece demonstrating the importance of the context of Other.<br />Therefore the agent is the bearer of the “similar conditions” and indeed their creator. That is, he “must” act according to a “model” which he would like to see diffused among all mankind, according to a type of civilisation for whose coming he is working-or for whose preservation he is “resisting” the forces that threaten its disintegration.<br />Antonio Gramsci. As quoted in the article referring to Kants Universal Law.<br /><a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/01/2013114142638797542.html?goback=%2Egmr_78660%2Egde_78660_member_205730212" rel="nofollow ugc" >http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/01/2013114142638797542.html?goback=%2Egmr_78660%2Egde_78660_member_205730212</a></p><p data-inc="6" Times New Roman", serif; overflow-wrap: break-word; hyphens: auto; margin: 0.5rem 0px 30px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 20px;">Gramsci’s stipulation is critical here – and here is how he begins:</p><blockquote Times New Roman", serif; position: relative; text-align: center; width: 570px; max-width: 570px; padding: 56px 0px 18px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 1.5rem; margin: 60px auto; line-height: 1.9; font-style: italic; hyphens: none;"><p ><em >Kant’s maxim “act in such a way that your conduct can become a norm for all men in similar conditions” is less simple and obvious than it appears at first sight. What is meant by ‘similar conditions’?</em></p></blockquote><p Times New Roman", serif; overflow-wrap: break-word; hyphens: auto; margin: 0.5rem 0px 30px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 20px;">To be sure, and as Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (the editors and translators of the English translation of Gramsci’s <em >Prison Notebooks</em>) note, Gramsci here in fact misquotes Kant, and that “similar conditions” does not appear in the original text, where the German philosopher says: “I am never to act otherwise than so that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law.” This principle, called “the categorical imperative”, is in fact the very foundation of Kantian ethics.</p><p Times New Roman", serif; overflow-wrap: break-word; hyphens: auto; margin: 0.5rem 0px 30px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 20px;">So where Kant says “universal law”, Gramsci says, “a norm for all men”, and then he adds an additional “similar conditions”, which is not in the German original.</p><table class="Skyscrapper_Body" border="10" Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 20px; width: 250px; float: right; background-color: rgb(251, 157, 4); border-style: solid; border-color: white; border-collapse: collapse;"><tbody ><tr ><td ><p >“The world at large, and the Arab and Muslim world in particular, is going through world historic changes – these changes have produced thinkers, poets, artists, and public intellectuals at the centre of their moral and politcial imagination.“</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p Times New Roman", serif; overflow-wrap: break-word; hyphens: auto; margin: 0.5rem 0px 30px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 20px;">That misquoting is quite critical here. Gramsci’s conclusion is that the reason Kant can say what he says and offer his own behaviour as measure of universal ethics is that “Kant’s maxim presupposes a single culture, a single religion, a ‘world-wide’ conformism… Kant’s maxim is connected with his time, with the cosmopolitan enlightenment and the critical conception of the author. In brief, it is linked to the philosophy of the intellectuals as a cosmopolitan stratum”.</p><p >
</p></section></div>