Structural Change

Srtuctural Problems:

We at Metaphysics Anonymous sometimes have unusual access to
informed opinions. One such opinion that has come up more than once in 
the past year is the suggestion of structral problems in the
system obtaining in North America.

At first, we were skeptical about this assertion. As one doucmentary
put it last year, "the U.S. is the only nation with a creed".

The idea seemd unpatriotic, at least. We were waiting for some
specifics besises Keynesian economics. It seemed to us that
Keynesian economics has been well established to be the best model
yet proposed. It stands in relation to Newton's gold standard the same
way that relativity does to Newton's laws of motion.

Lately, the Enron[R] debacle has brought three areas to our
awareness that may qualify as "structural problems":

A) Monopolistic mergers
B) Predatory credit practices
C) Rampant consumerism

In regard to (A), it merely requires the enforcemnt of anti-trust laws
on the books for allmost exactly one hundred years. It could be
argued that they need to be strenghtened to compensate for the
immense amount of money involved.

Structrural problem (B) can be addressed both by enforcement and
new legislation. A movement already existst for this area.

Structural problem (C), may require therapy as well as aducation
of the population. People in the education and business sectors were
publishing many books in the eighties about "excellence". The need 
for that kind of book was ont immediately apparent to some uf us.

Now, it seems, the reason that a new generation was discovering 
"excellence" was that all concepts of academic values had been 
removed from many school systems and companies. That phenomena
seems to justify the label "systemic structural problem."

.........6-2-2002......the Higher Faculties.
  

A reply from Rick Ivy, artist in residence:

	
Eldon,
With high regard for this type of critical analysis, I accept your premise 
and will attempt for illuminate further upon your three points.

To proceed from a position that has been proven incorrect, invalid, or no 
longer useful in the face of better data will and can only lead to structural 
disintegrity. The metaphor comparing government to solid architectural 
practices is useful. One would not expect a building stand if it were placed 
upon a ground lacking in a solid foundation. Other considerations should be 
in place before the first ground is broken to begin the construction phase. 
Retro-fitting is always an option though cost analysis may prove it unwise.
A common law in design states: form follows function. A warehouse functions 
differently from a concert hall. What is good design in the first case will 
prove disastrous in the second.  The alternate school has it the function 
follows form. The best building is the one that has been fully designed in 
regard to it's function.
Another aspect in building is materials. A concrete tent would not be a tent, 
temporary and movable. A mud and straw structure wouldn't rise far above 100 
feet or so. Materials are chosen in relation to the environment and climate. 
Steel and glass are not always the best option.   
A third factor must address the human element. Cultural dimensions of taste 
and aesthetics would plug in here. Who will use the building, and when is 
enough enough? We tend to worship the over built. The Taj Mahol, Versailles, 
Ludwig's Castle while we live and work in unbreathable slabs.   

When colonization began in the Americas, a general impression seems to have 
been prevalent on the hope that a new slate had been accessed, in theory at 
least. A vast expanse to fill with Europe's malcontents, governed, of course, 
by seasoned magistrates. Each colony tended to house it's own dominant, 
denominational branch of religion and economic outlook. The corporate ideal 
was just beginning. Why not incorporate? I wonder who first asked that 
question. Initially, the problems of combining the states into a whole nation 
were vigorously argued. The character of the new nation was debated. Where we 
to be a Republic or a Democracy? Could we be wholly self-sufficient? Should 
we remain that way, if indeed it were possible? Isolationism, protectionism, 
and "Buy American" were seen as called for in this initial growth phase. Of 
course, we must not forget that roughly 50% remained loyal to England and the 
status quo. What we might call "the 1% club" saw things differently. With the 
benefit of education, vision, creativity, common cause, and nimble 
intelligence, and the courage that those combined brings forth, the founding 
fathers went to the work of crisis management. They drew up a Constitution, 
declared themselves a soverign nation, and took up battling to prove it. 
Under their three-pronged system we live today. The branches of the 
Executive, the Congress, and the Judicial begin as separate and meet in a 
virtual tetrahedron, that most solid of building blocks. The states duplicate 
the national system within their spheres. Much blood, sweat and tears have 
been lost at the boundaries.
Current debate has on one side a little thorn called human rights. Are all 
men equal? Is group or set profiling useful? Also, how best can a government 
provide for "inalienable rights"? Where is that boundary between the 
government and the governed? Who are the people? When does a corporation weld 
more power than a government? How abstract do we want to get? We seem to have 
become a nation of lawyers and accountants instead of one of philosophers and 
poets. Since the Enlightenment we rely on cold, hard facts. It could be 
argued that the lawyers and accountants are functioning as philosophers and 
poets. A bad poem is annoying in an aesthetic sense, but bad philosophy leads 
to the Structural Disintegrity you have described. Where is the third prong 
that balances and checks the corporations actions against the brightest 
concepts of humanity? Isn't the unbribled quest for power and profit 
rendering life out of balance? 
And what cries freedom beyond life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, 
that last on being changed from "the pursuit of property" as it was 
originally scripted. As individuals are held to the letter of the law why do 
the corporations seem to run free?
Ideologically, Jesus of Nazareth found immediate disfavor on the earthly 
plane when he famously upturned the money-changer's tables at the Temple. The 
status quo and business as usual is a tough nut to crack. The local 
pragmatism that drove this nation's first hundred years has given way to 
corporate bodies that have grown to global proportions. The call for more 
market shares is a feat accompli. Perhaps the market has changed. 
Mechanization has pretty well eliminated hand crafting.
The two kingdoms, heaven and earth, are remerging as leaders wrap themselves 
in the sanctity of heaven, however they define that nubulocity.
I propose that the rampant consumerism is, at heart, an attempt to render the 
premise that "all men are equal" as incorrect. Why else the struggle to have 
more and then more? The firstest with the mostest. All attributes of the 
bloody imperialists, xenophobics hiding behind walls. But who would do brain 
surgery on a street corner? Ya'll are equal but we are the best. The railroad 
is coming through, right now! (You might do well if you get out of the way.) 
The best for the least, manifest destiny, the divine right of kings, the 
white man's burden.
Credit: the ability to live beyond the edge of own's means. Credit: the 
ability to do today what should have been done yesterday on the chance that 
tomorrow one might actually begin repaying the initial credit. With the Gold 
Standard, if I understand it correctly, value was ratioed at 1:1. Price and 
value had meaning. With creative bookkeeping, one is now more troubled to 
determine value. Basics aren't always cheap, or available, and high price 
doesn't always mean best quality.
One would not begin on the walls of a building before the floor was 
completed. 
Conservatively, we used to progress from step 1 to step 2, to 3, etc. Popular 
wisdom has given way to us now beginning with step 13, selling one's soul to 
the market, proceeding to step  6, investing one's self in the market's 
cloak, step 3, declaring unwavering allegiance to the market, 21, feeling 
free,  5, utilizing the market, 4, further enslaving oneself by identifying 
with a boring group, 2, working, 14-20, being swept along with everyone else, 
etc. Like a prefab house, most everything is hacked, sacked and canned. And 
the result is perhaps different from living a mud hut, but does not always 
produce a home sweet home.
Monopolistic mergers: pooling assets by owning land, raw materials, means of 
production, transportation, warehouse and retail outlet, marketing, legal, 
and accounting firms, investment houses and media outlets. By eliminating 
redundancy, closing the loop of competition, top down management, benefits of 
multinationalism in choosing the laws most benefitial to each department, 
these market giants are bigger than some countries in terms of assets and 
clout, with none of the draw backs of responsibilities like caring for the 
earth's environment, worker's health care, liberal education, supporting the 
arts, spiritual/emotional nurturing and infrastructure that countries are 
usually to deal with. AND they still manage to turn a profit.
I guess in my delusional opinion, it sounds like I'm against profit. Not at 
all. What I'm for is spreading it around. and taking care of the business of 
elieviating suffering, not increasing it.
So what are we complaining about? The multinationals have become the true 
godless soviet. Monolithic, bohemoths that set their own agendas, answerable 
only to the market and cultural climate which they seek to control, and the 
occasional disgruntled employee. Who can simply be ignored or fired, with 
well wishes that he find something better, and replaced by someone younger 
and hopefully prettier and sexier, (it really does get dull in those offices) 
temporarily, of course, until a way is found to rob him or her again later, 
of all they have earned during their employment phase minus what they need to 
get to and from work.
I'm not cynical. Me? Never. So stop thinking that. There is a bright future 
for the planet. 6 billion people is nothing. Wait 10 years, it might double. 
Then we'll really be in a pickle jar. By then there will be people knocking 
on your door for food and advice.
Oh, yeah, they already are.
I realize there are plenty of cliches in this arguement, and a few 
exagerations,
Rick