Effective Planning vs. 'Complete Knowledge' (was Re: what doeschaz want?)

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Angela:
>>There is no reason why a reasonably (i.e. humanly) effective planning
>depends upon "complete knowledge," unless one thinks that the only
>planning worth doing is an infallible (i.e. impossible) planning.  Do
>you disagree with this?  If so, please explain why you think without
>what you call "complete knowledge," a reasonably (i.e. humanly)
>effective planning (for the regular satisfaction of most human wants) is
>impossible.<
>
>the problem yoshie is that you fudge where it suits you and see only
>those bits of your sentence that suit you as well --  ie., endless
>qualifiers, eg: "reasonably";  "humanly"; "regular";  and, "most".

For the problem is that you think it takes "_complete_ knowledge" for
planning to be effective, while I don't think it does.  "Complete" is an
important adjective, which you can't defend, hence your non-answer.


>this is why, in each case, you place the qualifications
>on the side of _planning_, _not_ knowledge.

I take it self-evident that at any given time human knowledge is not
"complete" in the sense you speak of, whether we are planning or not
planning


>never once said planning could only be done with complete knowledge. you
>are too enamoured of the performance of a disagreement.  i said a number
>of times that planning _presumes_ complete knowledge.

I don't think that planning presumes "complete knowledge," nor do many
other people, for that matter.  It is you who thinks planning presumes
"complete knowledge."


>That is, not shitting, but wiping your bum with toilet paper, and toilet
>paper is definitely not a natural need

I'm glad to hear you can comfortably dispense with toilet paper and food.
I suppose you prefer sounding ridiculous than rethinking the nature of
need, knowledge, and planning.  One has no need to use the word "natural"
to describe the needs that socialism should satisfy.

Yoshie