The Applied Epistemology Library :: View topic - Politics, The Final Frontier

Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire

Wile E. Coyote wrote:

In Wiley's mind the megaliths provided markers for the best long distance and short distance trading routes. It's your book so I will concede if I had this totally wrong. Maybe I read it as I wanted it to be so?

This afternoon I typed 'megalithic empire' into Google and for the first time ever up popped its Generative AI (experimental) overview

AI Overview wrote:

The "Megalithic Empire," a term popularized by author M.J. Harper, refers to the idea that a network of megalithic structures, like stone circles and alignments, served as a system of communication, trade, and cultural exchange, extending across vast geographical areas in pre-literate and later periods. This theory suggests that these structures were not just isolated monuments but were interconnected through a network of visual "leylines" and possibly other forms of communication, enabling the movement of goods and ideas across regions.

Here's a more detailed look at the concept:

Megalithic Structures:
The core of the "Megalithic Empire" idea is the use of large stone structures, including stone circles, menhirs, dolmens, and other megalithic formations. These structures, often found in geographical alignment, are believed to have been part of a wider system.

Communication and Trade:
The theory posits that these megaliths served as a form of communication, potentially through visual cues or markers, facilitating trade and the movement of people and goods.

Pre-Literate Era:
The concept emphasizes the role of this network in pre-literate societies, where written records were limited or non-existent.

Historical Continuity:
Harper's work suggests that this tradition of megalithic structures and networks continued into later periods, including the Dark Ages, with groups like Druids and Celtic saints potentially being inheritors of the tradition.

Examples and Evidence:
The theory draws on archaeological evidence, including the discovery of trade routes, the distribution of specific artifacts, and the geographic alignment of megalithic structures. For instance, the stone circles of Stonehenge in England, while seemingly isolated, could be part of a larger network, according to this theory.

The "Megalithic Empire" is a controversial yet intriguing theory that challenges traditional views of pre-literate societies and their ability to organize and communicate across vast distances.

Wiley's memory is working fine judging by this AI summary.

On the plane coming back from Dubai I was next to a very friendly American-English lady. It's a seven-hour flight so we got chatting and she turned out to be in charge of an AI team in London but rather surprisingly was full of foreboding about the future of AI, not the technology but the people who are or will be using it.

Pete Jones

In: Virginia

Mick Harper wrote:

Wile E. Coyote wrote:

is goods going across land having to clear multiple custom points. Aircraft cannot provide the volume.

If you're back with ships... what multiple custom points? You load it here, you deliver it there. Just like a plane.

I long ago nodded along while reading Halford Mackinder's "Heartland Theory," where the basic problem for maritime trading is that it's twice as costly as land trading.

Halford Mackinder in "The Geographical Pivot of History" wrote:

In the matter of commerce it must not be forgotten that ocean-going traffic, however relatively cheap, usually involves the fourfold handling of good---at the factory of origin, at the export wharf, at the import wharf, and at the inland warehouse for retail distribution; whereas the continental railway truck may run direct from the exporting factory to the importin warehouse. Thus marginal ocean-fed commerce tends, other things being equal, to form a zone of penetration around continents, whose limit is roughly marked by the line along which the cost of four handlings, the oceanic freight, and the railway freight from the neighbouring coast, is equivalent to the cost of two handlings and the continental railway freight.

I don't know what Brits think of Mackinder (or if they do at all), but I know that there's a certain group of American political analysts who consider this essay to be a fundamental master-key for understanding 20th century history. It was very big with Lyndon LaRouche, who was the American publisher of Putin's handpicked head of the BRICS currency advisor (Sergei Glazyev), and I suspect it is seen as a big deal to Putin. He very well may have mentioned this exact essay at some point in one of his marathon Q&As (I'm going to search for that)

Re Glazyev, Wikipedia says

Alongside Sergey Lavrov and Dmitry Medvedev, Glazyev is often spoken about as a potential successor of Putin. "In view of the difficult economic situation in the country, the assumption that Glazyev will take perhaps the central position in government is heard more and more often."

This idea however is unsourced.

The full Mackinder essay is here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20171107031836/http://www.iwp.edu
/docLib/20131016_MackinderTheGeographicalJournal.pdf

Wile E. Coyote

In: Arizona



I will take a look, maritime trade and the development of entrepôts is of big interest to Wiley.

Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London

Pete wrote:

I long ago nodded along while reading Halford Mackinder's "Heartland Theory," where the basic problem for maritime trading is that it's twice as costly as land trading.

I doubt that was true even in Mackinder's time.

I don't know what Brits think of Mackinder (or if they do at all)

They think badly of him because Hitler thought well of him.

but I know that there's a certain group of American political analysts who consider this essay to be a fundamental master-key for understanding 20th century history.

That is no reason to dismiss Mackinder.

It was very big with Lyndon LaRouche, who was the American publisher of Putin's handpicked head of the BRICS currency advisor (Sergei Glazyev), and I suspect it is seen as a big deal to Putin. He very well may have mentioned this exact essay at some point in one of his marathon Q&As (I'm going to search for that)

These 'big books' are always the rage for a bit. The British equivalent is Arnold Toynbee.

The full Mackinder essay is here:

I have had to break this for page width purposes. Copy and paste the whole thing.

Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London

Nobody can change what they believe.
In politics you have to agree to do things you don't believe in.

This is necessary because
1) Your party can only support a single line and sometimes that won't be what you believe
2) Your party has to appeal to people who believe things your party doesn't believe

It's sort of simple as that. No better and no worse than a diplomat 'having to lie for his country'. A bishop putting the Church ahead of God. A corporate executive maximising the bottom line at all costs. All these things are unavoidable if you want a state, a religion, an economy.

Hence, trouble arises when politicians forget they are just politicians and start believing in 'good and evil' because

Nobody will do what they believe to be evil.

For many years, the governing parties have been infested with these 'morality police' types.
* The Tories with their 'the EU is evil' wing
* Labour and their 'the poor are sacred' brigade

They are making the country ungovernable and letting in people who can afford to be moral guardians of whatever-it-is because they are not parties of government.

They soon will be unless you mend your ways.

Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London

Back to our cliffhanging serial on the rules-based world-order. All the current flashpoints--from Gaza to Ukraine, from Sudan to Kashmir--illustrate the central problem:

"Ballykelly? That's a tricky one. I wouldn't be starting from here, if I were you."

The world map is the product of an organic process. It would be fair to say hardly anyone has ended up with the borders they would have chosen for themselves. You can lump it but you can't leave it. And the 'rules' say you can't change it. Donald Trump has--sort of--introduced a different method

Devil take the hindmost.

Ukraine will be a good test case: if Russia ends up with the most Russian parts of Ukraine, including Crimea, the two sides could, could, end up with the boundaries they might have chosen.

Except Ukraine will cry 'Victim' (of aggression).

The Ukrainians will never let it lie. Of course they won't. I wouldn't. They know they will get the sympathy of the world. It is, after all, perfectly true. But that's what you get when you have a rules-based system without a ruler. Broken eggs everywhere and not an omelette in sight. But we are still no nearer finding an alternative. Perhaps for an AE reason.

Everyone thinks the present system is just great.

It is exalted on all sides! Each time it fails it is because of some villain upsetting the applecart. Quite forgetting we are all in the same cart. That's the first thing to do: instead of constantly appealing to the rules-based world-order

start denouncing it.

Display posts from previous: