Robes of expression.

[SB_UK]

... and that the inter-connectivity of the internet is modelled on the potential of the human brain, once the brain learns to connect with that energy field, or empty space, as some perhaps view it.....

http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/microwave.html

wireless networking 2.4 and 5 GHz (37 degrees)



Holy water

... that energy field, or empty space ...

Holey water Batman.

[SB_UK]

The frequency for maximum dielectric loss lies higher than the 2.45 GHz (wavenumber 0.0817 cm-1, wavelength 12.24 cm) produced by most microwave ovens.

Hotheaded young guns?

| < < <> > > |

[SteveA]

importantly additionally alongside an end to the fear which money confers -
- of not having enough to live.

Fear prevents clarity of thought
- an intuitively appealing idea -
offering a sound definition for God to the people of one's village
loses out
to the more self-orientated concerns which arise when being chased by a large hungry tiger.

Something to consider could be that the dependency goes the other - it's the obscurity that causes fear instead of fear causing the obscurity or lack of clarity. It's just that the obscurity is only noticed more sharply when there is fear - otherwise people go on in blissful ignorance (not necessarily bad, but I don't think the ignorance helps maintain bliss).

Consider the example of the hungry tiger - a person walks in the woods enjoying the scenary and comes across a raging tiger. Fear sets in and a doubt about ones circumstances is seen, but did the fear create the tiger or the ignorance of the circumstances? (I guess it could be argued either way, but there is at least one perspective in which the ignorance lead to these circumstances. Someone who had knowledge of the woods and of tigers could be better prepared for such events and have (little) fear of the woods due to a lack of ignorance)

Luckily -
- education kills off the individual's motivation for (him)self over others
- results in a better, happier society for all

It may be less of education specifically and more a process of experience.

I think (a good or ideal) education allows one to better take care of themself and this education includes a recognition that cooperative interactions are most beneficial, even if they're ultimately selfish for everyone.

I remember a President of the U.S. saying something like "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for the country".

In a sense, this statement is completely backwards. Everyone should be asking what a country (or society) can do for them and whether or not it's worthy of whatever sacrifices are expected to maintain it. If the results are generally negative for people (i.e. the country is expecting people to be slaves to it), then they should seek to abolish it and replace it with something beneficial for everyone (and such a society has greater endurance as well because people desire to defend and protect things that are deemed as valuable to them).

- our problem -
- a mechanism for education which works.

Yes, good statement though there are probably already systems that could be considered to "work", there may never be ultimately any specific single "best" system and it could be that diverse explorations ultimately yield the most satisfying results. (I personally think there are some great manners in which people in a society can interact peacefully and productively using very simple and intuitive ideas that might fit into just a few sentences that most children could even understand - to paraphrase "If two or more people can't get along, someone is going to have to leave. The only "official" community decision is over who has to leave if there are conflicts, though there are no "official" punative actions that exist beyond exile" - beyond that, have fun, but "playing well with others" is a useful skill to learn for longevity in the community .

How ? does one assist others to educate each other -
all of us becoming better
(inadvertently in the process)

That's a great question. If someone does not desire to gain knowledge it appears ultimately fruitless trying to teach anything and they've effectively elected to do things their own way.

On the other hand, if people do desire to share and/or receive knowledge then such an education is natural.

I'd assume a manner to assistance in this respect would be to have demonstrable value to the education that encourages people to pursue it.

- when money (panders to the beast within)
- when money prevents us from becoming better
- where money is (currently) the dominant force in social interactions

Even if we had no money there would still tend to be a social currency in that associations between people are dependent upon the value people perceive to be associated with them. Charity, generousity and compassion are often limited in supply and this could even be considered an evolutionary trait.

- where fears relating to money

drop the blinkers (or is that blindfold) on mind.

I would truly enjoy seeing a community able to shrug off paper and plastic as a currency, but in most areas it would take a large number of people able to shrug off a central government to do this and that could be difficult without some external assistance (it's not really impossible though - if people simply decided to stop using paper or plastic the change could happen overnight, but it takes an understanding of the alternatives to get it to work).

Knowing that we've nothing to fear but fear itself
- doesn't alleviate the fear

It makes the fear less critical to comply with. In some ways it adds a fear of fearing and utilizes fear itself to break out of other fear induced habits. So it's like someone being fearful of needles overcoming that fear by recognizing that it's likely worse to not get some medical assistance. In the end, no fear was actually necessary though to seek medical help when its deemed necessary.

So as long as fear remains, it can also be used to stimulate one to do what they desire because one can become afraid of not doing as they desire and though the fear can still exist, if you direct that fear, it doesn't need to ultimately control ones actions.

- alleviation of the fear 'd come from segregating large hungry tigers from our local vicinity

Either that or finding a group of people to a new area fenced off with "No Tigers Allowed" signs around the perimeter!

- where one~wage (guaranteed in a one~world currency)
guaranteed to all
from birth to death

Yes, whatever people deem worthy of exchanging with someone else.

allays the fears
in place.

Well it at least allays it to the extent the guarantees can be followed up on. Not all guarantees are as reliable as others.

We were never meant to aspire to a house, a car, a shiny gold watch and a small quiet corner of a cemetery to rest our weary heads
- we were meant to have fun

Fun can also be in the form of people playing in a pool or cooking up delicacies that require some work to prepare or simply lounging on a nice soft bed with a sturdy roof over head, but I do agree very much that believing someone cannot be happy unless they keep up or bypass the "Jones" seems a recipe doomed to disaster.

where fears relating to money prevent fun
- prevent human beings from becoming better
- where becoming better entails being happier

Worrying less about money can also help this. It's not really money that causes the problem in my opinion. It's the fear that some self proclaimed representative of a government will come and want a piece of your home or some of your food etc. and will only want to offer paper in exchange ... sort of like the mafia that won.

- we're really going to need to learn how to be better -
- before the fragile economic system which is collapsing as we speak
- foists -
change upon us all.

It's likely the learning will only occur after the fact. I admit that it appears to be like gravity and inertia - we can build a plane to fly but in the end it appears it has to land and refuel before taking off again (maybe not the greatest example) and different generations have to relearn things that have been forgotten over time.

[SB_UK]

Something to consider could be that the dependency goes the other - it's the obscurity that causes fear instead of fear causing the obscurity or lack of clarity. It's just that the obscurity is only noticed more sharply when there is fear - otherwise people go on in blissful ignorance (not necessarily bad, but I don't think the ignorance helps maintain bliss).

I agree - without the obscurity there would be no fear; fear does though prevent a level-headed assessment of the situation
- one feels the urge to {attack or defend} (when in fear)
as compversuseting interests) against
reaching an {understanding, fair compromise}.

The balance between the urge
to attack or defend
versus
the urge to understand
is swayed to the left as the fear increases.

So
- as you mention -
- obscurity opens the door to fear
- where subsequently - the fear (generally) serves to oppose the individual from acquiring clarity of understanding of the issues at play (- the fear (though) when allayed not ensuring that the obscurity will be lost
- seemingly blissful ignorance (most likely (the state pre-event)) lies in awaits).

We need to learn
from experience
and change
from experience -
- where the capacity to change may not be ours to exert.

- seemingly blissful ignorance (most likely (the state pre-event)) lies in awaits).

That large hungry male tiger might catch the scent of an attractive female tigress
(and run off) -
- would the guy (whose fears are then allayed)
though
learn from this experience
and
leave
- or continue (until the next time - when his leg is chewed clean off) -
... ... ... limping on to the next encounter.

Does the guy have the choice of learning from experience (or is his voyage societally mandated) ?

- An example -
Added sugar appeals to the palate of children -
- though destroys their teeth (an idea which they of course cannot entertain as they're enrapt inmersive sugareverie).
Society (governments) permitted private corporations to sell these products -
- private corporations made much money from supplying insatiable kiddy demand.
Kiddy dental problems began to appear (several years later) - at which point it's too late to prevent damage from occurring -
- the damage has been done
- fillings weaken teeth yet further
- and then in our 40's we find (at least in the UK and America) hugely inflated charges for adults for remedial work.

Who pays?

The individual does.
The individual as the least powerful of the four entities which're competing for blame -

1. the individual,
2. government,
3. food corporation and
4. dental institution

The individual must
(the damage to his teeth is done, there is no other path for him to tread)
continue to walk through the jungle -
- must continue to expose himself to the various sharks and snakes (friends to the tiger) -
(cf the diseases of Western living - obesity,diabetes,mental disorder,asthma)
- which frequent his enclosure.

If there's an unequivocal statement made that sugar destroys teeth -
- which there is -
- then wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that the government which does not ban these products and the food corporation which benefits from them (in $ale$)
- are partly to blame
- should be made to pay.

Addictive life destroying drugs appeal to the palate also -
- though are not available for purchase.

It's difficult to believe that nature (the evolutionary process) had any form of health care in mind as we evolved -
- for us to have kinda' gotten 13.7 billion years into the life of the Universe -
- only to require expensive medical and dental treatment to soldier through life from our mid-30's onwards
- because of an oversight of evolution
is just plain silly.

... ... a multibillion year assessment (of having made it this far) suggests that we (and not nature) are not doing something right.

It's not difficult to work out what we're doing wrong;
lifestyle changes in which the corporation is not rewarded for crippling the general population is all we require.

A shift in the allegiance of people away from the corporation and money (from the savage within) -
- and towards other people (the properly human within).

It's not difficult to work out what we're doing wrong;
ve$ted (not all of community best) interest
-> the private food and drink industries which gauge themselves on volume of $ales
- to the baying tones of their (not cliente\le) share holders.

(All of) people are the (All of) shareholders in all functions of (All of) society (reality).

Summary

Your solution to the problem (removal of the obscurity) works -
- any other mechanism for alleviating fear (because of the bit in red above)
- may not work.

(Effective) education can work
... ... though removal of obscurity (though)
(as in the example in blue above)
- need not work if there's no effective choice.

If the cheapest food products are sugar-laden -
and money is an issue
- then what choice the individual?

If kiddy birthday parties all appear to require that other parents buy cheap plastic toys for the 'lucky' birthday boy -
- then how does the cash-strapped individual step off this societally mandated scheme and go it alone -
- when going it alone (as in many social systems) is not an option -
- in which change for the better need be accomplished as a group.

In the various examples above, then -
- we have multiple reasons why even the most effective education (to all people) cannot work
alone -
- why a synchronous change in the behaviour of all interested parties need tally with the most educated (morally correct (based on available information)) approach.

Much like the guy who appears to have avoided being eaten by the tiger -
- an (anti-)social mandate to continue on regardless
- to not learn from his experiences
is in place.

There is no mechanism for putting one's hands up in the air - apologizing for being stupid enough as a kid to eat so much sugar -
- and then, as if by magic, to have one's teeth restored (at no co$t).

<- the elusive dream (<- jus' don't open your mouth, lad).

Summary II

None of the various ideas (above) are difficult to digest -
- are all problems which are with us now; are problems which are not academic and which require immediate solution.

Words won't do.

A solution to these various problems might arise if we introduced a single wage (holistically)
- with the request that all people who are not happy in their current mode of employment -
to work to make themselves redundant -

- work to remove any dependency which society has on the end-product of their labour
prior to moving on.

All the dentist 'd need to do is push for a ban on added sugar on the supermarket shelves -
- and (admittedly) in time -
- we'd see a reduction in demand (to the point of not requiring) for dental services.

Not an infringement on civil freedom if we're prevented from performing some behaviour (eating sugar) which is damaging to the the individual and society; though one can see the argument being raised by the usual vested interest lobby groups which appear in certain Western world countries -
- to be the actual architects of governmental policy.

A change in

• diet,
• education,
• community,
• family,
• lifestyle,
• exercise,
• and the workplace

would lead to a dramatic change in our requirements (to the point of not requiring) for health care provision.

[SB_UK]

aaarghhh!
- more briefly this time
- added comments - in this style
... ... apologies for the brevity.

~*~

~

Consider the example of the hungry tiger - a person walks in the woods enjoying the scenary and comes across a raging tiger. Fear sets in and a doubt about ones circumstances is seen, but did the fear create the tiger or the ignorance of the circumstances? (I guess it could be argued either way, but there is at least one perspective in which the ignorance lead to these circumstances. Someone who had knowledge of the woods and of tigers could be better prepared for such events and have (little) fear of the woods due to a lack of ignorance)
-Though (as mentioned in the post above) knowledge is maybe, though not necessarily enough
- the individual need (in addition) be empowered to elect (autonomously without adverse side-effects) for change.
In the UK - NHS dentists charge a considerable amount of money to transfer their records to another dentist -
and there's no mechanism for the individual to assess (prior to choice of a dentist)
customer satisfaction levels.
A forum on dental opinion on specific dentists would be required -
- though one worries whether the dentist would read the comments and target any patients who complain with subsequently ever greater sub-standard treatment; perhaps a little less anaesthetic than is necessary during a filling which is drilled a little deeper than the patient requires.

In the UK - similar worries to these have been echoed against rogue builders, artisans and car mechanics -
- who knows whether the work they'ver performed is safe -
- are they still in business 6 months afterwards?
- how does one prove that any subsequent problems relate to sub-standard work which they performed?

Is the only workable system (currently, at least) to withdraw from society?

As systems become ever more difficult for all individuals to be experts in -
- how does one prevent the individual from others who seek to 'drum' up future trade?

'drilled a little deeper than the patient requires'

- ensuring problems a little further down the line.

- how does one prevent the individual from others who seek to 'drum' up future trade?

By removing the incentive which drives them to behave in this manner.

one~wage

- Remove the financial incentive on being bad
- to permit humanity to shine on through.
People do want to be good -
are prevented by themselves, society and their understanding of reality.

An understanding that something is wrong, will result in the individual changing his ways,
- in behaving properly as long as change is an option.

It may be less of education specifically and more a process of experience.
- Yes though isn't a large part of education learning from experience?
Proper education (regardless of delivery) represents effective learning
(from experience).

I think (a good or ideal) education allows one to better take care of themself and this education includes a recognition that cooperative interactions are most beneficial, even if they're ultimately selfish for everyone.
- Yes - personal empowerment towards increasing autonomy within society (seemingly paradoxically).
Seemingly paradoxically - we can attain greater freedom in the presence of others -
- the mode of interaction between people
though
key.
The line between repression and empowerment within society
relating to the mindset of the individual.

There are two structures of mind walking the face of the Earth -
- one immature -> defines (regardless of the politically correct rhetoric) - repressive social regimes for others to abide by
- the other mature (relatively) -> empowers the individual within societal context.

I remember a President of the U.S. saying something like "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for the country".
- Any system in which the individual and collective society benefit will feel 'right'; if it really does not feel (an educated right)
- then it probably isn't.
reference - the intellectual movement of 'conscientious objection' to war and its marketing (by country) as of overwhelmingly anti-National sentiment.

In a sense, this statement is completely backwards. Everyone should be asking what a country (or society) can do for them and whether or not it's worthy of whatever sacrifices are expected to maintain it. If the results are generally negative for people (i.e. the country is expecting people to be slaves to it), then they should seek to abolish it and replace it with something beneficial for everyone (and such a society has greater endurance as well because people desire to defend and protect things that are deemed as valuable to them).
Two structures of mind (as above) with two different philosophies on the motivation of man and society.
With respect to 'motivation'
- Society trumps man
- not man trumping Society.

A happy man in a happy Society
- not a happy man whose happiness arises from destroying Society
- or an unhappy man in a ha ... ... (this option doesn't make sense) ... ... ...
since unhappy man -> unhappy society

Society trumps man
- not man trumping Society.

-> It's the reason why proper Global assembly (government) of equals will fail whilst National Assemblies undermine the power of Global governance over their (wheel out the term 'electoral') remit.

Alway$ vested interest.

Yes, good statement though there are probably already systems that could be considered to "work", there may never be ultimately any specific single "best" system and it could be that diverse explorations ultimately yield the most satisfying results. (I personally think there are some great manners in which people in a society can interact peacefully and productively using very simple and intuitive ideas that might fit into just a few sentences that most children could even understand - to paraphrase
"If two or more people can't get along, someone is going to have to leave.
- We need a mechanism of ensuring that the person who chooses to leave doesn't burn down the homes of the people who he chooses to disagree with
--- and conversely ---
isn't disadvantaged if the systems which he chooses to leave are not burnt down.

The choice to leave needs to be based on the desire to practice another ideology which can exist harmoniously (and preferably positively synergistically) alongside the ideology which he chooses to leave
--- or ---
which helps that other system which he leaves to evolve to better.

[ps apologies for the vague use of language.]

This will prove to be possible in religion (an entirely mental level construct) in which one should find that the properly religious are able to bear their religion without appeals to external show which result in human division.
This will prove to be possible in religion ... ...

- however what of the guy in the UK who refuses to stop burning coal ?
- and who (in the process) generates acid rain which destroys forests in Scandinavia.

Not fair -
- though no mechanism to get the guy in the UK to stop
- Scandinavian interests are outside of his local environment -
- and besides - the Scandinavians 'll never be able to provide definitive proof that UK coal-fired stations are entirely to blame
- greed excels in the loophole
- in playing the games words play
- they will never be able to take the UK government to court
- and even if they did -
who's able to assess whether the improvement in the quality of life in the UK through burning fossil fuels counterbalances the drop in the quality of life in Scandinavia?
If more people benefit than lose -
- then mightn't one consider it the fairest system (at least currently)?
Currently - *though* - how're we meant to behave if in several years time, the balance of net harm shifts and more suffer than benefit from any given system.
Are we supposed to be able to project an understanding of what will happen in the future?

... ... ... word limit exceeded ... ... ...

[SB_UK]

... ... ... continued ... ... ...


Certainly, in the case of sugar consumption -
the evidence appears to show that it causes such harm to teeth that it should be banned -
- would making educated guesses of what'll happen in the future (based on past experience) be permissible?

But what if a miracle cure which prevents dental damage by sugar metabolism was to appear on the scene?
Think of all those kids who've been deprived of the sugar rush -
- and all because of the ill-conceived poorly predictive power of pseudo-scientific bureaucrats -
- needing to make policy to keep themselves in jobs
- so the kids'll say.

We require Systems thinkers to solve this particular problem
- Systems thinkers (who develop a clean mechanism for meeting the energetic needs of people ).

A Systems Thinking Physicist named Steve who generalizes reality
- workin' up nuclear fusion (in the process) 'd be just what the Doctor ordered.

... ... ... ... to be continued ... ... ...

oh my!
(you do write)

[SB_UK]

In an attempt to stem the flow of words.

Simply ... ... ...

• We need all people to do the right thing.
• Happy people doing the right thing -> Happy society.
• The 'right thing' will represent the entire (large) set of behaviours which are societally {permissive, protective, supportive, constructive, developmental}
  - which ensure maximal permissible diversity.

Our task is how best to define those behaviours?

The solution to this problem is to realise that with education - we become intrinsically aware of the System
- of all of the issues at hand -
- of the pain and gain which will likely arise following taking a decision
- become actually incapable of behaving poorly
- need to do the right thing.

'enforced moral consistency'

One becomes incapable of turning one's head away from altruistic (selfish society) behaviour; with education, one ceases to have the choice of behaving poorly.*1*

*1* Point emphasized to remove the 'holier than thou' image which behaving morally correctly is given by those who sport the more immature
(relatively) -
- of the two structures

4- and 13-space

of mind
walking the face of the planet.

~*~

I'm attempting to suggest that morality arises as a 'side-effect' of evolution of the mind (during our life-time); conditional on stable pair-bond and Systems reality education.

That the mind evolves and following conformational change
- acquires a hunger
(which may be satisfied)
to learn.

A hunger which may be satisfied -
reference 'The Tree of Knowledge' - scaled.
- which abates when we test ourselves -
- and find that even though the details aren't forthcoming -
- the world (in its entirety) around us
makes
sense.

This hunger leads to the development (to completion)
reference 'Ved -anta' - The end of knowledge - just a stage we' neededta' go thru'
of the mind -
- a process which brings 'morality' into ever greater focus.

As we become ever more 'moral' -
the voice which you hear in your head as you read these words becomes stronger, more self-assured -
- more in tune with itself.

The doubts which run rife -
quell -
- we arrive in 'that beautiful place in in the country'.

... ... playing as we 'speak' ... ...

Doing the right thing becomes an inescapable function of the properly developed mind -
- the problems described (that stream of seemingly unending questions with outcome based on some moral element ... ...
- having been described in this last series of posts

~ ~ ~ dissipate ~ ~ ~

under mechanism for bringing all policy-makers (initially)
(all people - better)
up to speed -
- such that doing the right thing is ensured
- no precedents necessary
- no stipulation to subscribe to any precedent
laid down.

~*~

Simply doing what's right
- following proper education
-> leading to ->
convergence in understanding of the nature of reality
-> leading to ->
harmonious accord between policy-makers
-> leading to ->
unification in global policy

- the understanding that
(from the perspective of man)
- it(our species)'ll only work when we pull together.

Summary

The solution to the World's problems arise when all people (especially including those who consider themselves policy-makers) gain a Systems wide education in the nature of reality
- reality - the world around
- helping them to look up from their narrow parochial concerns
to discern
the
stars.

[SB_UK]

one~wage

even if only as an

interim measure

whilst we get over ourselves.

one~world

Posts:1524
Posts:15242 51
Posts:15242 SI
Posts:15242 SEE

one~world
- the effective meaning of life
- the meaning of life to the species which phrases that question
- the meaning of life to
Homo sapiens sapiens -
deeply knowing it's so
makes us so.

one~world

[SB_UK]

Has anyone heard of this guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republic_(Plato)

In Plato's fictional dialogues the characters of Socrates as well as various Athenians and foreigners discuss the meaning of justice and examine whether the just man is happier than the unjust man by imagining a society ruled by philosopher-kings and the guardians.

Just that he got it goin' on.

2,500 years to read a classic book -
- and still failing to digest the details.
[ FAIL ]
stamped in large letters across - lest we forget our foreheads.

[SteveA]

In an attempt to stem the flow of words.

Simply ... ... ...

• We need all people to do the right thing.
• Happy people doing the right thing -> Happy society.
• The 'right thing' will represent the entire (large) set of behaviours which are societally {permissive, protective, supportive, constructive, developmental}
  - which ensure maximal permissible diversity.

Our task is how best to define those behaviours?

The solution to this problem is to realise that with education - we become intrinsically aware of the System
- of all of the issues at hand -
- of the pain and gain which will likely arise following taking a decision
- become actually incapable of behaving poorly
- need to do the right thing.


One becomes incapable of turning one's head away from altruistic (selfish society) behaviour; with education, one ceases to have the choice of behaving poorly.*1*

Notice that there is quite a diversity in what people might consider poor behavior and generally the needs of education are diverse, though if we recognize this and select the single common thread involved in this "education" it would appear to be that someone not impose themself upon someone else who wants to reject that imposition.

Beyond that, there's little else that is needed. The ability to disassociate (and not benefit or be supportive of harmful institutions) does not deny an altruistic society from existing. In fact it requires societies to at least be perceived as neutral in influence relative to other social opportunities, though indirectly it requires them to be beneficial to their constituents if someone perceives it of greater benefit to disassociate with one group and form associations elsewhere.

This also does not specifically say any particular culture is "wrong" (except those cultures that aggress against other cultures) and people don't have to vote on any details (except possibly in a decision of whether or not someone is being held captive in a relationship they desire to leave - but I tend to discourage such an "official" form of government and prefer encouraging it as an alternative private structure that people are not coerced into).

The sad part to me is that in many ways, we already have a situation in which these ideals have already existed and are still possible - we already do have anarchy in many ways, but most people, due to various reasons, including coersion, ignorance, greed and jealousy allow forms of social dominance and individual slavery. (The Civil War in the U.S. wasn't as much about freeing slaves as making certain that the federal government was the single master and Lincoln basically said as much).

*1* Point emphasized to remove the 'holier than thou' image which behaving morally correctly is given by those who sport the more immature
(relatively) -
- of the two structures of mind
walking the face of the planet.

That's part of the reason I think a tolerance for diverse alternatives needs to exist. The only commonality that I "arrogantly" claim to be needed is that people don't hold anyone captive to their ideals and at a minimum people should be free to separate from a culture or social institution and form something different between themselves. (Easier said than done of course and there are always physical details over possible resource conflicts etc., but those are minor in comparison to the problems that currently exist where large social institutions appear to almost feel a right to claim ownership of others standing in the immediate vicinity).

I'm attempting to suggest that morality arises as a 'side-effect' of evolution of the mind (during our life-time); conditional on stable pair-bond and Systems reality education.

Ultimately as humans on Earth, we have to answer to nature in her diverse interpretations of requirements, though I also agree that this implies there are certain forms of naturally ideal societies and they may or may not ultimately end up supporting diversity, but for individuals, whatever ideal nature/God/evolution has in mind may not be known and so each individual should be allowed to most faithful represent their own beliefs and interpretations, for better or worse, for that individual. Ultimately this is better for humanity though as it explores a diverse range of potentially satisfying possibilities and people can exchange information and learn from example. In some ways someone wanting to try something "stupid" is indirectly a benefit because the results end up becoming examples of what not to do ... but then again, not every "stupid" idea out there ends up remaining seen as stupid. Sometimes people hit the jackpot.

The largest problem currently appears to be that instead of people copying successes they prefer to plunder them and this simply turns successes into lost eras. It would appear that nature may have not only required the fences with "No Hungry Tigers" signs, but "Tigers Will be Shot (or at least forcibly removed)" warnings as well. It would be great if things were different, but it doesn't appear we're there and ultimately if there's even a single bad apple, it can spoil the harvest unless you have an ability to weed out the bad ones. (If the bad apples believe they're good apples, fine, there's no additional judgement or punishment here being what nature already imposes - let them share whatever bucket they want together and reap the reward of their "goodness" . (Just don't climb into mine) That appears to be the solution nature has always used. Birds of a feather flock together and if they're all vultures they can eat each other ... the problem is that they're generally not satisfied with that nor do many learn from successes of others, and instead some become hungry tigers who can't or won't plant a seed and harvest it ... then again, maybe that is how nature does things and why people invented guns).

That the mind evolves and following conformational change
- acquires a hunger
(which may be satisfied)
to learn.

A hunger which may be satisfied -
reference 'The Tree of Knowledge' - scaled.
- which abates when we test ourselves -
- and find that even though the details aren't forthcoming -
- the world (in its entirety) around us
makes
sense.

That does make some sense to me. In many ways we don't have much control over circumstances in life, but ultimately the drives are emotional and emotions aren't entirely attached to physical circumstances (if it was that "easy" many people would grow roots drinking a beer and watching cable ).

This hunger leads to the development (to completion)
reference 'Ved -anta' - The end of knowledge - just a stage we' neededta' go thru'
of the mind -
- a process which brings 'morality' into ever greater focus.

As we become ever more 'moral' -
the voice which you hear in your head as you read these words becomes stronger, more self-assured -
- more in tune with itself.

I think morality is selfish, but it's a selfishness that includes other people and things - when you have enough, there's little more that you want except to see everything better off.

(One the other hand - "better", "more", "greater" etc. are all scales that are potentially unbounded - there needs to be a "best", "most" and "greatest" otherwise you can't even reach "better", "more" or "greater" because it's like trying to count to infinity and there's always the "next" number in time that's larger).

The doubts which run rife -
quell -
- we arrive in 'that beautiful place in in the country'.

Yes, that's it, though it could be diverse and varied for different people and different ideals. I admit I've set my sights further than is necessary, but that's because I don't want any nagging doubts when I get there that maybe I could have "counted a little higher".

But I do agree "that beautiful place in the country" is tempting scenary (but I think it would be greedy to expect such a place if everyone else wanted it too ... the Earth alone may not have enough land to support such a scenario ... then again, there's little difference between the virtual and reality, so who knows? Also, not many people consider that in terms of volume the Earth is immense ... still not infinite though and energy is an issue, but there are many possibilities and if people are hungry enough for them, they can become real ... in the end though, it doesn't really matter what everyone else in the world wants but just what individuals want for themself. If everyone could satisfy themself (even if that's in good company), that appears the ideal)

Doing the right thing becomes an inescapable function of the properly developed mind -
- the problems described (that stream of seemingly unending questions with outcome based on some moral element ... ...
- having been described in this last series of posts

Similar to my last comment, consider also that if everyone was concerned about everyone else, that may not be ideal either and it's likely people are less efficient in satisfying the needs of others than they are in satisfying their own needs.

Also consider that if we were to worry about the welfare of every last person, it would only take a single person who was unhelpable to make this ideal impossible.

Personally, I think the ideal is for maximizing the freedom of people to seek these ideals for themselves (with the natural restriction in this being that nature has confined us all to this universe for now ... so there will be some inescapable overlap, though that may be an unavoidable "cost of doing business" simply because there would be nothing in a void).