Month: November 2013
Perhaps the desire to remain awake – to not sleep – is related to the fear of death. Is it not the case – as Milton perhaps reminds us – that death is cousin to sleep? What other analogy does not possess to compare death to?
In the pages of science fiction and transhumanism we find the idea of “mind uploading” – but is this not the very idea of sleep writ large: that we ‘sleep’ and then wake with a diffeent mind. There are problems here though, and this is not simply the case. The death of the brain is final: but is the onset of sleep really the same?
One is tempted here to really just state outright that there is no analogy. To be dramatic, sleep becomes Theseus’ ship: death is not foundering on the sand-bank. Death is not the breaking or dismemberment of the ship: the ship sinks and the crew dies. Death is not slepp, and sleep is not (and could never have been) death.
So – then? – what analogy is appropriate? And, then, are we not fooled by our fear our sleep believing it a small death.
But there is – regardless – a danger to sleep. Who am I when I awake? And, I, writing now, ‘where do I go?’ when I finally sleep? They are not the one and the same. What seems to be clear is that when I sleep, I die. And tomorrow, someone different, though very similar, awakens.
This is largely just a transcription of a discussion with Eugene Marais, over an article published by the SABC:
Eugene’s comment on this was:
“Pity about the headline “Plight…” The state of affairs regarding persons with disabilities also reflect lack of impact that NPO’s, NGO’s have on policy. I think we need to re-think our approach, we have clearly a defined base to work from, the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, our own constitution – but what I think is lacking is the will to change things – the means exist, the building regulations are in place (accessibility). The problem is how do we make these things “real”, more than well intended, nice sounding phrases on pieces of paper? All parties must share some responsibility for the state of affairs. It will be a good start if we can start a constructive discussion by everybody in disability about defining a common approach and setting clear goals. Will be nice if we can do this here on Facebook. Just take a moment and pen your thoughts, your ideas about what the problems are, and how one can improve things.”
My (as usual sharky response):
I have a number of problems with your comment.
Firstly, people must get out of this NGO-mind-set: it comes from exactly the same mind set as these DA/conservative/right-wing forces that have generated this idea of ‘Civil Society’. Why is there this constant focus on bad governance; why is there is notion that NGO’s are ‘separate’ from government? Obviously there is a difference between ‘fingering’ corruption, but dragging the state into court is not only inappropriate – as OUTA have recently found out, much to their chagrin – but the NGO-based complaints about government cannot be addressed without understanding that the interface between ‘NGO’ and ‘State-Apparatus’ is concrete or ‘walled’ in any sense. What would go a long way is for NGOs to stop thinking of themselves from Government, but rather to see themselves as partners with the State, and align themselves with State policy and activity. For example, no NGO at present is attempting to generate Co-operatives, despite the huge amount of funding and assistance from DTI; what NGOs are working with the Expanded Public Works Programme? What about the initiatives launched in terms of SMMEs? There is no obligation on the part of the State to go out and look for NGOs etc. Government is democratically elected, by the people. If an NGO feels they need to be involved, the onus is on them to do something. There is also a mind shift that needs to get one away from the idea of an ‘NGO’ to ‘NPOs’: if the actual praxis of this could be embedded, it would go a long way towards “getting things right”.
Secondly, one is tempted to raise the issue that this orientation of ‘Non-Governmental’ interaction has not come about because of the funding structures of these organizations? Why attack Exxarro, or Pick ‘n Pay when they fund you? When will e.g. “NGOs” focused on Disability, complain about business/corporate practices: what makes them immune from the same criticism? A positive way forward would be for so-called “NGOs” to be transparent – in the same way they demand State transparency – about their sources of funding, and their possible conflicts of interest. There are a large number of NGOs in the Disability Sector that I could point to you are very, very guilty of this kind of conflict of interest. Thankfully NCPPDSA is not one of them.
Thirdly, you and everyone else, needs to clearly understand something else about the convention: the UNCRPD is not a legal instrument in South Africa. In terms of the Constitution, it has not gone through the National Council of Provinces to date (although it has gone through the National Assembly) nor has it been signed into law by the President as is required. Therefore, ergo, it is just a wish-list. In any case, we already have legislation – in the Form of the Promotion and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act [more on this later]. Going on the UNCRPD is just a waste of time unless you want to score brownie-points with people who are ignorant of the law-making process in this country. If you want the UNCRPD to mean something, it has to go through the NCPs; it may even need to go back to the relevant Portfolio Committee due to the timing (it was in the Nat. Assembly in late 2007, and that was, what, six years ago).
Fourthly, the Building Regulations are not in place adequately. Although the Regulation itself could be – in a charitable interpretation – seen as sufficient for the time-being, it is given effect by the SANS 10400, and this is where the problem comes in. Having worked in and been a part of the TC59 Committee (SANS 10400// SABS 0400) and the TC59Q (SANS 10400 – S: Facilities for Persons with Disabilities) we have been fighting a long, long battle; I also have the misfortune to be part of the same committees at the ISO level and the CEN level. To put in perspective, we – myself and Phillip Thompson – put out a document in 2006 to the SABS to inform what was then the SABS 0400-S. We did a comprehensive survey of international legislation and standards, and come up with a model SABS 0400-S; I can tell you unequivocally that no part of that model code had elements in any standard, guideline etc. produced after 1990. Nothing happened. The process was repeated in 2008. Nothing happened. I am currently in the process of generating the new ISO CD 21062 and the reworking the SANS 10400 in its entirety – this idea that buildings are ‘accessible’ in the NBR or its SANS10400 is demonstrably false. This is where a large part of the problem actually lies. One should also note, that strictly speaking, any government property falling under Public Works, the Defense Force, the Police and similar structures are exempt, in terms of Section A of the NBR, from the NBR itself.
Fifthly, the most important piece of legislation in this Country, which very few people use, or I think understand is the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA), which has been around since 2001!!!!!!! There are some important things to note about this piece of legislation:
(i) In terms of Section 6, the respondent, not the claimant, is required to prove that discrimination has not occurred. The claimant need only demonstrate prima fasciae that discrimination may have occurred. This moves the onus away from the ‘victim’ of discrimination.
(ii) Sections 6 through 9 deal with categories under which discrimination may occur: Section 9 specifically deals with disability. A reading of Sections 26 to 29, and the Annexures, indicates that if the respondent does not believe that the claimant has a disability, he/she must prove so. There is no burden in the Act requiring the claimant to indicate that they have a disability; it is assumed unless otherwise proven.
(iii) Section 9 indicates that there are three ways in which discrimination can occur. The second, dealing with the SABS, is now moot as the National Standards Act has superseded this section; in any case, it didn’t have any teeth. The first method is fairly obvious and deals with people actually being actively discriminated against, e.g. if there is no ramp to a building, or lack of subtitles on a TV-show: this is the stuff we all. The third method, however, is the very interesting one, as it invokes ‘negative discrimination’ i.e. the Act requires that steps be taken to avoid discrimination to start with – e.g. simply because there are no PWDs living somewhere, and no perceived need to put a ramp into a bank, in terms of Section 9(c), the owner/operator, is still required to put the ramp in, regardless of any substantiating reason against it; does a PWD want to become an airplane pilot – Section 9(c) indicates that this must be provided for (to use an extreme example).
(iv) PEPUDA is applicable to both State and Private entities: only National Intelligence and the Defense Force are exempted, as is any building, service or product deemed to be in the National Interest.
(v) PEPUDA makes strict requirements in terms of how legal processes should be run: it establishes the Equality Courts, and indicates the maximum period that a case should take – see http://www.justice.gov.za/EQCact/eqc_briefingdoc.html .
Number Six, there is a tendency for people to start shouting that Government must do X and Y. We must accept the reality that government has limited funding, resources and capacity. Making unreasonable demands on the State is counter-productive and sets up an adversarial position. This is not to say that we must now shut-up: rather, there is a need to engage Government strategically and tactically. NGOs seem to operate in a short-run fashion, with no tie-in to State Policy and Practice: they fight tactical battles without understanding the terrain, nor have an overall strategy. If the State is weak in an area, that is an area to begin to engage constructively, not sit and complain. To be frank, people who just complain, without doing something, should just ‘bugger off’ and go somewhere else. We don’t need or want that kind of pessimism in this country. People who feel the need to litigate against the government, are trying to subvert our democracy and this must now stop.
Seven, and this I know you have raised elsewhere, is the need for a Parliamentary Office. The ability to lobby and change laws is the obvious benefit; the dedicated ability to push out policy and constructively engage with MPs is all-important. Educating MPs and making them hold the State and its agents accountable is far more productive than attacking individual departments: national departments are accountable to the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces. This is why activities such as the recent OUTA nonsense was fundamentally flawed and ‘stupid’ as it was immediately adversarial. The objectives could have been achieved, without legal fees, by simply engaging and lobbying with a number of MPs. The further advantage of this is the issue of funding: MPs are in the perfect position to make changes or to amend departmental and state budgets to ensure additional funding for the disability sector. Given the developmental trajectory of this country, IPAP2 and the New Growth Path, the State is going to be increasingly the main source of funding for addressing the triple challenges of poverty, inequality and unemployment.
Eight, and this needs to be strongly emphasized, SADA – the South African Disability Alliance – is not a democratically elected body: nobody elects NGOs. They may claim to have constituencies, but this is really hocus-pocus. Nobody votes for them to do what they do. SADA is not the voice of a democratic majority of PWDs in South Africa – it is the voice of an elitist group of PWDs you claim to be ‘the voice’ of Disability in South Africa. Until we have a democratically structured organization, disability-concerns will get nowhere. DPSA in in its early day was the best option for this, and in some ways, perhaps still represents the best option, although – honestly – I don’t have an understanding of the organization as it is at present. All that SADA does it delegitimize the concerns of PWDs in South Africa.
Look, a lot of criticism, but also some suggestions??? I think we just need to get out of this nampy-bampy, wishy-washy way of engagement with the State and other stakeholders. There are programmes that are being run – as I’ve indicated above – that can achieve things for NPOs: it requires them to stop thinking of themselves as some sort of ‘opposition’ to government, its entities and actions; and to be re-orientated towards being – at best – implementing agents of the State, where necessary. Currently there is very little democratic process within the Sector, and this is – as well as the aggressive oppositionist (even opportunistic at times) nature of some NGOs – the reason why the State does not respond to the Disability Sector. Our Constitution guarantees rights and freedoms to everyone and the State for the vehicle for that, not some self-selected group of people: only when these NGOs and anti-democratic forces are challenged and eliminated, and a compact with the State established, can things happen in a constructive manner.”
Poems of Obscenity is a collection of poems based on historical words that were deemed, or are currently deemed either obscene or taboo. My intention in putting poems into this collection is to deconstruct the elemental components of each term, to look at their genealogical origins and etymology and then generate a reading from that.
Poems from Goya is a collection of ongoing works by myself reflecting on Goya’s The Sleep of Reason Produces Madness, where Goya imagines himself asleep, his reason dulled by slumber and infested with otherworldly dark creatures. The work represents a society that is demented, corrupt and to be ridiculed. The full epigraph for this capricho [No. 43 in the series of the Los Caprichos] is:
“Fantasy abandoned by reason produces impossible monsters: united with them, she is the mother of the arts and the origin of their marvels”
The slaves Simeon and his sister cry their lament.
According to HIS words:
The Child from the Angel’s Tomb shall drop,
in the sad place where the core of the slaves do no drop a tear.
According to HIS words:
The time will then be for the profusion of Death in the Many,
in order to reduce the Resurrection in the Many.
According to HIS words
The Eternal Life itself shall Die,
in the Signature on the Tomb.
These were not according to HIS words:
I saw with my own eyes at the end of those eight days;
the fragmentation by Fire and the burning of the MY – THEIR – Features.
These were not according to HIS words:
I heard those words full of Fury and Indignation,
the fragmentation in the MY – Their – Sea of Obedience.
These were not according to HIS words:
I felt the Great Pain penetrating MY – THEIR – Heart,
the fragmentation of the Light and My – THEIR – life Subject to the Winds of Death.
When HIS words were spoken:
THEY wept, and I wept,
that the Light, the Agency and the Higher Power had come.
When HIS words were spoken:
THEY wept that no peace would be granted,
that the the faithful and the poor would feel the Great Pain.
When HIS words were spoken:
THEY wept that Twenty centuries of Suffering through Praise, Derision through Glory,
that every morning Shall Come with the Light.
This is HIS will:
The words heard SHALL BE removed
The weaponed tooth SHALL BE readied
The vengeance SHALL BE justice
The wounds felt SHALL BE proof
The pain SHALL BE service
This is not HIS will:
That only Darkness I – WE – can see in the womb
That I -We – found in the womb
That I – WE – die for the Light of those of in their womb
That I – WE – wait for the wind to persist and grind down the womb
Now HIS will is done:
Now we only wait.
The ‘Prophecy of Simeon’ is intended as part of a series based on Our Lady of Sorrows (the Stabat Mater). Its primary sources are:
- Luke 2:34-35:
“XXXIV Et benedixit illlis Simeon, et dixit ad Mariam matrem eius: Ecce positus est hic in ruinam et resurrectionem multorum in Israhel etin signum cui contradicetur. [//] XXXV (Et tuam ipsius animam pertransiet gladius) ut revelentur ex multis cordibus cogitationes.”
- From the Nunc Dimittus (found in the Novum Testamentum Graece):
“νῦν ἀπολύεις τὸν δοῦλόν σου, δέσποτα, κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμά σου ἐν εἰρήνῃ· [//] ὅτι εἶδον οἱ ὀφθαλμοί μου τὸ σωτήριόν σου, [//] ὃ ἡτοίμασας κατὰ πρόσωπον πάντων τῶν λαῶν, [//] φῶς εἰς αποκάλυψιν ἐθνῶν καὶ δόξαν λαοῦ σου Ἰσραήλ.”
- Excerpts from TS Eliots ‘A Song for Simeon’
- A reading of Milton’s ‘Upon the Circumsion’
As is the case with most of the poetry I attempt to write, the original text is deconstructed and the etymological/geneological roots exposed and then a reading derived therefrom.
There are two essential types of logical system utilized in terms of economics: induction and deduction. In terms of building a Marxist ontology, we need to strongly reject induction as the basis for any epistemological claims; this can be done on the following grounds:
§ Inference is inappropriate as it makes unjustified universal claims about reality.
§ Induction is unjustified as it assumes that reality has a homogenous nature.
§ Induction assumes that the Intrinsic Condition of Closure holds, i.e. that an object remains constant or changes at a constant rate.
In general, we will need to utilize a deductive-nomological model to guide our ontological constructions. However, we need to be careful about what kind of deductive-nomological structure we establish: in particular, the concept of ceteris paribus holds numerous problems as it requires us to treat our deductive model as an isolated system, which is of course, counter-intuitive to the way in which economic reality actually functions. This concept allows for the application of the Intrinsic Condition of Closure (which is essentially a feature of induction), in which the mechanisms in question do not change and secondly, it excludes other mechanisms and renders the boundary around the chosen syllogism solid and impermeable. The problem here is that this fails to address the ontological background of realism, which requires an assessment of whether the assumption made is reasonable, e.g. it is not uncontroversial to claim that Demand curves do not really exist; a similar argument is made in terms of Homo Economicus: no explanation is offered in terms of the physiology of the individual; its psychology is reduced to ‘rationality’ of a very narrow form – however, Homo Economicus may well not exist: its existence, however, is a precondition for orthodox and heterodox economics.
The development of our deductive-nomological system thus needs to move away from both the Intrinsic Condition of Closure and the Extrinsic Condition of Closure, i.e. we must accept that the boundaries of a syllogistic systems are permeable, and that other mechanisms might enter from outside. This is perhaps achieved by acknowledging that deduction can be rendered invalid, for example:
§ Two mechanisms in a system might be internally related, i.e. are mutually constitutive.
§ Most deductions (and economic and econometric models) assume the independence of explanatory/causal mechanisms. However, if they are interconnected and – perhaps – internally related, the nature of the relationship will affect the outcome of their combination.
§ Deduction poses problems in terms of strata: if strata have emergent properties, this changes the outcome of the deduction, e.g. philosophy and economics are mechanisms in the creation of ideology. However, because philosophy shapes economics, they can be conceptualized as different strata. The problem here is that of emergence: the higher strata (economics) is rooted in but not irreducible to the lower stratum (philosophy); the higher stratum has developed characteristics of its own not native to the lower stratum. Therefore, we cannot deduce the higher stratum from a lower one.
§ It is difficult to understand the manner in which unknown or hidden assumptions beneath known or stated assumptions might disrupt the deductive-nomological system.
Therefore, because of the relations between mechanisms (assumptions) in a system (syllogism); because of the effects of other, interceding causes (assumptions, facts, ideas) on the system; because of (the possibility of) the existence of emergent properties and of unknown lower mechanisms; then, the effect on the outcome (the conclusion) of the initial mechanisms cannot be simply deduced from these mechanisms. Furthermore, for a deduction to be undertaken requires an assumption that none of those other effects can occur, or that they are trivial. However, for a Realist, these are dubious assumptions.
It should be noted that orthodox economic systems, and especially neoliberalism, use a deductive-nomological system which fails to acknowledge the shortcomings listed above. Furthermore, most heterodox economists use deductive systems.
Marxism adopts the ontological position that reality is historically bound and constantly changing depending on social, political, culture and power-based factors. Reality is constructed based on spatial and temporal positions and modalities, and that different versions of reality become privileged over others. Reality consists of strata, which can be peeled back through theoretical and historical orientation.
 Induction is characterized a movement form the specific to the general, e.g. if one hundred swans are observed, the inductive inference is that all swans are white.
 Deduction is often expressed in the form of syllogisms, incorporating a number of assumptions which generate a conclusion, e.g. if Peter is a fish, and all fish are cats, it follows that Peter is cats. The assumption “all fish are cats” indicates a move from the general to the specific: this is the case with the deductive-nomological model; however, this is not necessarily the case as assumptions can be specific and not general. Deductive models are common in economics, e.g. if we assume a price has fallen, and that demand curves are downward slopping, it follows that the quantity demanded will increase (this is, of course, the orthodox formulation of demand). An essential feature of feature of deduction is that we move from assumptions to conclusions.
 . It is possible to replace the systematic features of deduction: we replace assumptions with mechanisms, and conclusions and events. The movement from assumptions to the conclusions is assumed to be linear, and underwriting the argument is the (unstated) assumption of ceteris paribus. Thus the mechanism in question (e.g. the mechanism of demand, which in orthodox economics, tends to mean that people demand more of a good in response to a price change) is treated as being isolated from other mechanisms – this however, is problematic, e.g. other prices that the consumer faces might have risen, thus triggering countervailing mechanisms, which potentially affect the outcome.
 As Hahn (1973, on equilibrium) notes, standard orthodox economists are aware of this, e.g. the demand curve is constructed on the basis of ceteris paribus: of course, ceteris is never really paribus, but is considered a reasonable assumption to make, and it is often stated that it is necessary if the analysis is to be moved forward.
 The ECC, in terms of syllogistic thinking, argues that the deduction that the mechanism in question is enclosed by a solid, impermeable boundary and thus isolated from other effects. While the ICC argues that the syllogistic system cannot affect other systems, and assumes that other systems do not effect it, the ECC argues directly that external systems do not affect the syllogistic system, i.e. while the ICC regards exogenous events/mechanisms as non-effective as an assumption, the ECC states it as a conditional.
 Note that the statement: economic theory A’ is based on philosophy A. Therefore, if philosophy A has characteristic ‘x’, then it seems reasonable to deduced the economic theory A’ must also express philosophical characteristic ‘x’ fails to acknowledge the nature of emergence; rather, we should be stating that economics A’ might not express ‘x’, but instead express ‘x’ in a modified form, x’ or even express a different proposition y.
 This has particular relevance in terms of strata. If the stratum of assumption is rooted in lower strata, but if nothing is known about those lower strata and their effects, it is no longer possible to ‘simply’ deduce from assumptions to conclusions, e.g. an orthodox economist might consider Christian values as holding true: however, this would be difficult to reconcile with economic beliefs – consider the Laffer curve (an economic belief) with the belief that people should give up their riches (a Christian value); the problematic assumption here is that orthodox economics is erected on positivism, which as a philosophical project precludes a belief in bods.
 Of interest to the reader may be Marshall’s warnings about this (1890: 773).
 For example, one can cite the work of Paul Davidson (a Post-Keynesian). Davidson highlights major axioms, which according to him, are thrown out by Keynes: the axioms of gross-substitutability, ergodicity and the neutrality of money. Therefore, Davidson indicates, a general (Post-Keynesian) theory contains fewer axioms than an orthodox theory. However, this argument is very problematic: there is no reason to assume that any such system is closed from other influences.
 Neuman, 2010.
 Mertens 2009.