East Meets West Logic...

[Mikal]

Your description at the beginning here is too cool!!

Lets say you remove all political figures from the equation. All we would have left is empty buildings we call social and political institutions. Without the actors in them which can be seen as the behavior of those many, directed by their own psychological attributes, then all that is left is an empty, unfunctioning building.
A building can do nothing on its own and when emptied is why we board up buildings...
Gov is purely the acting principle of power...the power is not in the polictical and social building...its in the actors....


Regards Mikal

[SB_UK]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...adviser-sacked

Alan Johnson, the home secretary, has sacked Professor David Nutt ... ... for telling the truth.

Problem:

{Politicians, lawyers, bankers} construct policy in an artificial world (of their own making)
- an artificial world which they absolutely can control

- they carry these policies over into the real world and refuse to alter their stance as the cracks begin to show

- the cracks representing failures in artificial world policies in a real world where the simplifying assumptions upon which their artificial world policies are absolutely based are absolutely shown to
(and absolutely so)
- absolutely so - so not to hold.

Or more simply

'drugs are bad'

'fraid it's not quite as simple as that'

'you as good as dead smartboi'

Politicians want a world of black and white and it looks as though ToE is going to give it to them.

Politicians, bankers and lawyers are bad -
(at least currently)
- and are going to have to go

- a global village has no room for delusionally warring tribes.

Feel the hate dripping off the Nationalistic fervour which comes from this our current political system; dilapidated sportsmen playing for clapped out teams, all of whom regardless of how they perform only knowing how to lose.

[MJA]

A call for a true Democratic Vote.
Rather than going to a ballot box and deciding whom we think best to govern or rule us, I would prefer a ballot question that asks: do you wish to be governed by anyone at all?
True freedom anyone?
=
MJA

[SB_UK]

Gov is purely the acting principle of power...the power is not in the polictical and social building...it's in the actors....

... ... where history teaches us that actors (people) - politicians *until* they themselves discover a philosophical stance (or morality) -
- their own behaviour tainted by the legacy of our own species' evolutionary trajectory.

The politician cannot help tainting his actions with self(exclusively)-serving behaviours
- for this (up unto a very special point) is a characteristic of man

- a characteristic of man which is exposed (for all to see) in those who acquire power
- can be seen in evidence in any intrinsically aprincipled individual with the power to exert power over another human being
(though)
- just more clearly evident in politicians because of the nature of their ??? (the term isn't work)

The solution -
starts
(and maybe comes)
- with an awareness of the problem.

[Mikal]

The mis-use of drugs! What a joke when we are going down in History as the most heavily drugged society by our own governing factions.

Funny how they catagorize illicit drugs and approvable drugs...they are just upset that the profits from what they call illicit drugs are not theirs and flowing into their profit and loss statements...

Biggest damaging drug in the world Alcohol because it is slow self-destruction and notice how governing factions benefit through the taxation...drug the masses and they will never realize they are sheeple...

What a joke that article is....


Regards Mikal

[SteveA]

Your description at the beginning here is too cool!!

Thank you

Lets say you remove all political figures from the equation. All we would have left is empty buildings we call social and political institutions. Without the actors in them which can be seen as the behavior of those many, directed by their own psychological attributes, then all that is left is an empty, unfunctioning building.
A building can do nothing on its own and when emptied is why we board up buildings...

Gov is purely the acting principle of power...the power is not in the polictical and social building...its in the actors....

Yes, the influence of government is just a belief structure - statistical manners of interactions between people. It's not a physical object that possesses any influence on life except to the extent it's believed to do so.

As a good example of how "government" typically operates, let's say you live in a forest and have some children. You tell the children not to go far into the forest.

If they ask why, well you could try to explain a lot of the dangers but they might not understand this, so you just construct an imaginary bogeyman and "place" it in the forest and then tell the children it's because the bogeyman will get you.

Simple, but extremely inefficient and ultimately disabling.

And then worse, you have people that ostensibly for the sake of helping others will act to assure that some harm comes if someone tries to go in to the forest. So guards are placed around and fines or imprisonment etc. occur when trying to leave and now there's physical evidence that harm occurs by trying to go into the forest because of the impoverished and imprisoned people who tried to leave - not due to the bogeyman though but because of peoples actions.

Now some laws could be useful to coordinate people via. simple rules (though our current legal structure is anything but simple and that's almost self defeating from the purpose of providing guidance to actions).

But to get a better view, let's assume for a second what happens if there were absolutely no laws or rules at all. There would not specifically be a law against driving 100 MPH on the freeway, nor trying to burn down a neighbors home nor to go and practically overdose on drugs etc.

Now immediately many people would assume that without laws there would be absolute chaos, but this is not actually true as most all these destructive activities are short lived and have avoidable natural consequences to them (not simply public opinion). Someone joyriding around and tearing up a neighborhood will likely not be left unmolested, nor are the possible consequences of drug use something that can be voted into non-influence, nor does being a poor parent have avoidable evolutionary consequences (at least for those who believe in evolution) etc.

The natural reasons behind the laws do not disappear when the laws are removed and the consequences are still there.

A "government" (or belief) system should simply attempt to protect individuals against harm by irresponsible actions of others but it should, in general, not try to protect individuals from themselves nor people sharing common beliefs from those beliefs - nature/evolution/God etc. is the final judge and trying to replace this with popular opinion is not only futile but only adds additional conflicts that need not be present.

To say that we must do something simply because it is a law is similar to saying that we must do something because it is a habit - well if it's a bad habit, it should be broken.

Regards Mikal

And thank you for the additions also, Mikal.

[SteveA]

A call for a true Democratic Vote.
Rather than going to a ballot box and deciding whom we think best to govern or rule us, I would prefer a ballot question that asks: do you wish to be governed by anyone at all?
True freedom anyone?
=
MJA

That's it The perfect first line to any ballot!

It could also be wise to increase "the cost of doing business" for those that want to explicitly deny this option - don't feed the wolves.

[SB_UK]

A call for a true Democratic Vote.
Rather than going to a ballot box and deciding whom we think best to govern or rule us, I would prefer a ballot question that asks: do you wish to be governed by anyone at all?
True freedom anyone?
=
MJA

Yes
- the information age has required that people up our information handling capacity
- where {personal expression,communication} is information

- we're now able to read in between the lines of their wholly ambiguous words and are able to see (for ourselves) and unequivocally that there is nothing of any substance there.

The mind is grounded in sense.
As the mind develops greater capacity for abstract thought - the mind concurrently itself becomes capable of divining the logical flaws in words
- logical flaws which those who choose those words (if of lesser structure of mind)
- actually cannot see.

Or more simply -
- that greater capacity for abstract thought has lead to the eyesight improving in an ever larger set of people
- an ever larger set of people who're then able to make out the term 'dunce' stencilled across the forehead of the expert political and legal expletive.

[SteveA]

The mis-use of drugs! What a joke when we are going down in History as the most heavily drugged society by our own governing factions.

Funny how they catagorize illicit drugs and approvable drugs...they are just upset that the profits from what they call illicit drugs are not theirs and flowing into their profit and loss statements...

Biggest damaging drug in the world Alcohol because it is slow self-destruction and notice how governing factions benefit through the taxation...drug the masses and they will never realize they are sheeple...

What a joke that article is....


Regards Mikal

A similar "scheme" here in California has been regarding gambling. I'd agree that gambling is generally a waste of money (then again you could say that about many forms of entertainment), but it's ironic that we've had laws in place against gambling, yet we now have state approved casinos.

So how does that work? It's ok to gamble as long as the state is on the receiving end? It's just another scam.

And they want to do some similar things with drugs - instead of decriminalizing them they want a monopoly over the "business".

I could rant for days on some of the corruption and abuse going on and the effects continue to leave people more subjugated and pushed and pulled at and with fewer opportunities to improve their condition in life and yet all that appears on the horizon is just more and more of the same (now they want to make people buy health insurance - I'm certain the insurance companies are in on that one and want to lower the quality of service and charge more - well you can't normally do that unless you force people into buying the product, and though they might cut back on some social services do they ever lower the burdens associated with these? No, it just frees up more money for another war or more prisons, or pay raises for public employees etc., meanwhile when the private sector begins to buckle they blame it on the few people able to still earn a decent living. I love the way politicians will point to some large private company and claims its an unfair monopoly (oftentimes because the laws encouraged it) and want to "help" remove it by trimming some "fat", yet government itself is already the largest monopoly around and it doesn't even have to produce anything valuable to stay afloat - in many ways it's like a cancer or parasite, but even a parasite or cancer should know that if the host isn't healthy then the whole thing goes down, but that requires a measure of intelligence that it appears we're lacking in leadership and I think we're seeing a rush of pillaging before the collapse)

I admit I'm very skeptical and cynical of government in general, but for quite a while now it appears these views have been born out and it would be nice to see some real change, but it takes a change in social perspectives and some change in values as well, but I'm rather certain if people had a better view of where we could be without all the in-fighting it's practically a no-brainer that we should drop the rather self imposed chains and begin moving toward that brighter future. There are many great possibilities and I do think we're sort of at a crossroads in time for humanity - do we sink or swim? (Remaining on the Titanic has rather predictable consequences - we need life boats and fewer people pushing and shoving )

[Lloyd Gillespie]

A Universal Grammar and The Linguistics of…


"The over-worship of the 'too good to be evil', creates all evil." me

I’m going to go way out on a limb, and play devil’s advocate between logic and emotions, science and psychology. I full well realize most believe in some form of emotional and psychological realities, and I’m going to get a lot of ink splashed back at me for stating; “I do not think there is any value validity or proof possible to self-created emotional and psychological realities. I think all emotional states, and the psychologies of, are exaggerated abstractions of real logical and self-discovered scientific states of reality”.

If you’ll notice, the title of my thread is headed, Scientific__“East Meets West Logic”, and my views represent the scientific, and the emotional, as scientific states of our scientific realities, and not the illusional and dillusional states of exaggerated emotional abstractions__Which I see as the evil destructive elements and entities of all social states and societies. Imo, emotions and psychological states exist solely due to the old premise of, ‘Going along to get along’__One falsely over-respects the evil emotions of others__Thus un-knowingly turning themselves evil__thus forcing one to pretend to be overly-good__and overly-respect the aesthetic and esthetic nature of the world and humanity. This sad state of affairs must be exposed for what it truly is, and does, to corrupt an otherwise honest society’s possibilities of true existence.

Already, I’ve angered many of you, but do any of you realize you’ve angered me first? Do you even care that emotions anger logic? Do you even realize emotions are extremely counter-realist to science, and the bold realities she offers? What fundamental ground basis would you have to think that emotions are more important than logic, science and mathematics? Fun exists on both sides of these very divided streets, does it not? Oh, but you are far too upset with me, to even consider the point, that your emotions may be the evil stalking the very ground you walk. Of course, emotions can’t see themselves__as they fill the ego to over-spewing the ilk, that always ruins good scientific conversation.

Have you noticed that emotions are no more than logical observations, turned to abstract exaggerations, of these same logical observations? Why exaggerate the natural scientific logical observations__you first see? Why pollute the mind so? If you think you see and know emotions to be any more than what I’ve described them to be__Then prove it… Oh, I forgot, subjectivity can not be proved__That’s why, imho, it’s best to see the mind as an objective observer__in totality. The objective observer status allows one the same exact perception of the real world, uncluttered by emotional exaggerations__Think about it__It’s true. Emotions must travel in infinite circles, never able to prove themselves to anyone other than self-egos of, and to the agreements of all those who believe the same unfounded, ungrounded fallacies of simple observational logics and maths, of the identical phenomena, except logic sees the real objectivities of all objects and feelings__It’s a much simpler and clearer view of reality…

You see, there are people who see a totally different reality than do you__and this different reality has just as much right to exist as the over-exaggerated reality of base and higher emotions__In fact, far more right. It’s the intellectual reality of pure mathematical objectivity, and pure mathematical logical objectivity__which has existed along-side the exaggerated emotional states of mind, since the dawn of organized societies__and will continue to exist and control emotional exaggerations to the end of time, due solely to the fact, emotions are far too lazy to learn how this mind functions and manipulates, the much simpler emotional states. Sad as it is, but true, the emotional is lost in the purely semantic web of ultimate conflations and confusions, while the pragmatic web of real actions runs the world into ruin__or I should say, because the two sides never speak to one another, except in their own preferred private languages of non-understanding between the opposing sides. This sad state of affairs will continue, because the emotional side, having the larger database of exaggerated abstract mental actions, thinks itself most correct__when in fact it’s most incorrect to try and force the wiser scientific intellectual mind, to fit into the less wise and smaller un-scientific emotional mind. It only works scientifically, functionally, the other way around__The smaller only fits into the larger__Scientific fact…

Now that I’ve angered you all, maybe we can have a real conversation about the title of this post, “A Universal Grammar and The Linguistics of…” We’ll see…rrr