Hello comrades. I propose a general thread in an attempt to get the /edu/ ball rolling again. Everytime you visit /edu/, post in this thread. Tell us about what you're thinking about, what you're reading, an interesting thing you have learned today, anything! Just be sure to pop in and say hi.
556 posts and 105 image replies omitted.>>581056I guess it's the mixed feeling of work time being a sort of doggy paddling through it all. I know I'm learning on the job, but it's only ever what's right in front of me. Say a motion to suppress, I'm only looking into what fits exactly the issue I'm arguing as opposed to a more broad perspective of the subject for future times I need to narrow the thing down. It feels almost like when you work out one muscle group too much and the others suffer because of it.
>>581057It's always been a little idea in the back of my head to have some weird rambling blog about the law, but I'm not sure what exactly it would look like. I feel like my understanding of all these things is so shallow. But maybe the blog becomes the excuse to set time aside to study and dig deeper into things and gives an excuse to write out my thoughts. Strange to think I could write from any place of authority after having met people far smarter and more experience than me.
>>581058I have a paralegal that works a few hours a week filing stuff whenever they have the time, but I do eventually need to hire help full time. Right now the appointed cases don't pay enough to really sustain even myself, but the county just gave us a raise. So maybe over the next few months.
Thanks guis.
https://www.youtube.com/live/6HicAVYbuZ0Live now the secretariat of the FPCI
Role of middle powers in a divided world
Finished "Organizations - A very short introduction" (2011) by Mary Jane Jo Hatch. This book is, well… let the work speak for itself:
<Einstein’s theory of relativity included the principle of the curvature of space-time, which implies that gravity forces light to bend, a phenomenon that has since been proven by scientific experimentation. One popular way of explaining what this discovery means in human terms is to note that, if we were able to look far enough forward in spacetime, we would end up looking at the back of our own heads. What does this imply about the positions we take in the world that define our ways of seeing as well as what we (think we) know? Would it be possible to look beyond the back of our heads and glimpse what lies over our shoulders?
<Metaphorically speaking, looking over our own shoulders is more or less what we do when we glimpse culture and come to understand its symbolism, social construction, and sensemaking processes. Keeping our shoulder in view reminds us that we are bound to a unique subjective position even though it is one that looks out on a larger reality we share with others who are similarly bound to their unique locations within the whole. This uniqueness explains the intersubjectivity required to access culture, we cannot experience it unless we engage with other cultural members. Might intersubjectivity position us to explore the fifth dimension lying within our collective consciousness?
<Combining the new physics with dynamic ways of thinking about the three Os suggests we always confront our past as we create our future in the momentary present of our existence. Culture manifests our heritage by inserting its vestiges into contemporary life, not unlike the idea of spacetime bending back on itself, an idea that provokes much speculation about time travel. Some physicists are convinced that jumps between two temporal points brought into proximity by the furrowed surface of five-dimensional space could allow for time travel. Could cultural intersubjectivity furrow individual awareness such that we might leap from our own narrow understanding to empathy with another cultural member or even with the whole?
<Given that culture allows us to symbolically align with our origins, as when we share stories of our ancestors or contemplate the artifacts they left to us, could it be that these intersubjective experiences constitute and/or grant access to a five-dimensional space whose contours form and are formed by our cultural heritage? Literature shows us that stories can transport us somewhere beyond the limits of ordinary consciousness, as do dreams and religious experiences. Some spiritual leaders, such as the Dalai Lama, have noted the striking similarity between the territory spirituality opens and ideas being explored by the new physics of hyperspace. As far as can be told from the archeological record left by the Cro Magnon, culture and religion originated together – why should they not work together now to help us confront the future?
Just finished reading: Marx’s Theory of Value in Chapter 1 of Capital
A Critique of Heinrich’s Value-Form Interpretation
by Fred Moseley (published 2023, already on Libgen).
Michael Heinrich is an academic and has been a professional Marx explainer for several decades.
Moseley argues that what exclusively determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour-time socially necessary for its production. Mosely is basing his interpretation on various statements by Marx in Capital, for example:
<What exclusively determines the magnitude of the value of any article is therefore the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour-time socially necessary for its production.
Now I know that some might think that this means that according to Marx what exclusively determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour-time socially necessary for its production. But apparently just because Marx wrote
<What exclusively determines the magnitude of the value of any article is therefore the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour-time socially necessary for its production
doesn't necessarily mean that he meant that what exclusively determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour-time socially necessary for its production and Heinrich certainly denies that
<What exclusively determines the magnitude of the value of any article is therefore the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour-time socially necessary for its production
means that according to Marx what exclusively determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour-time socially necessary for its production. This is just like, Moseley's opinion, man, says Heinrich. So Moseley wrote a hundred pages to defend his interpretation (that what exclusively determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour-time socially necessary for its production). Book's a bit repetitive IMHO.
Heinrich claims that according to Marx value is determined in exchange. In particular, Heinrich means an "exchange relation" which Heinrich defines in the glossary at the end of his Marx-explaining book like this:
<The relation between two commodities that are exchanged, considered in abstraction from commodity owners.
I could not find a single passage in Capital unambiguously supporting this. And indeed, it's a big gripe of Heinrich that Marx wrote in a very garbled and frustrating way from the point of view of those enlightened ones who know that's what Marx really meant…
Are you smarter than this parrot?
If not browse
>>>/edu/Been reading some random essays about the history of science. Dunno what to read next. What I will certainly not read is Michio Kaku's book
Quantum Supremacy, which Scott Aaronson (usually a very polite guy) shreds to pieces here:
https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=7321Excuse me coming through
A quick note on the video @ >>>/leftypol/1538283
Also [vid related] for archival purposes
Around the 29 minute mark Peterson criticizes Marx and Engel's for assuming that workers would magically become more productive once they took over.
This actually happened historically, most of the actually effective productivity tricks work places use now were developed by Stakhanovites.
https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1936-2/year-of-the-stakhanovite/year-of-the-stakhanovite-texts/stalin-at-the-conference-of-stakhanovites/Reality has a Marxist biasThis thread hit the bump limit and is in auto sage.
New thread
>>19860Unique IPs: 39