East Meets West Logic...

[Graybeard]

... to bank labor's wages, in good times, and pay it out in bad times, which also plays an entirely new dynamics into the entire system.

This is good. Keynes actually realised that the environmental production costs were constant, and had to be paid regardless. The only flexibility lay in those who were participating ... us ... the workers. And we are all workers, from Kings to Carpet Cleaners. (I walk on the ground you sweep, I sweep the ground you walk on).

Therefore manoeuvrability had to come from the only source possible ... our margin.

cool bananas ... greg

[SteveA]

I think we all agree, Greg, Steve, Lloyd. I think the difference is that you have a belief in an ideal solution, whereas Lloyd, thru experience in this has a more pragmatic understanding of the problems.

I think I've got a rather clear view of the problems as well. Of course the solutions we propose differ significantly though.

In the case of entrepeneurs they have plenty of incentives to risk investments in a relatively free system.

Someone will always be harmed, there are no guarantees with Capitalism. Capitalism is the engine, (the only one found so far) that can drive democracy. The 'Greedy-Hand-Principle' is well understood by all Govt Treasurers throughout the world. The only option is to minimise its footprint.

In what context are you referring to democracy? Are you referring to it in the sense of individual rights or in terms of majority voting?

Yes, we do need to minimize the damage that greed causes. If we had a better set of laws this would of course help, but I think working within the system has been tried by people for long enough and it continually fails.

The primary complaint about capitalism that seems valid to me is that corporations gain additional rights and priviledges that the individuals comprising it do not and this can encourage irresponsible actions by a corporation. Notice though that this irresponsibility is actually a product of preferential legal treatment of corporate "entities" (intangible things should generally not have any rights in my opinion) and so once again we have a problem with laws constructing an inequality.

Ultimately you can't continue to politely ask over and over again if some slave master will let go of the chain and in that respect I think my views offer more realistic solutions - we need to just remove the chains and be more careful in placing new ones (if any) back on again.

I am afraid that once again Steve, this is idealistic. Individual Liberty is strictly limited by the leeway that society gives it. Its a complementary principle. Free it here, you limit it futher over there.

Actually I think once again, we're saying the same thing.

I pointed out a few times that we can actually get rid of all laws and there are still many common sense social restrictions that people must naturally adhere to (at least if they intend to have a long and enjoyable life ).

Also there are many issues where we have rather manipulative and artificial legal restrictions simply arising from power plays made over government.

For example, in the U.S., we now appear to have medical services being added to the list of rights people are suppose to have. This isn't any form of liberty but instead an enslavement of people to the medical system. We'd be taking a private issue that was left up to individual ability and discretion and turn it into a public issue in which individual freedom is removed from this realm.

Or take gay marriages - some people claim it should be a right, others say it shouldn't be, but what is the dispute really over? It's actually over a legal structure that has removed much of the private control over what marriage is and how it's suppose to be treated.

The fundamental problem is simply that government never should have gotten involved in the issue. There should be no "right" to special treatment by any marriage - that's simply a private issue.

There are many other issues where an intrusion into private issues has caused a loss of liberty without any real associated gains in any other liberty - education and family issues are high on that list but we also have many issues regarding employment and I'm certain a large list could be laid out of private issues that really have no legitimate public complaint regarding them yet government still restricts people in these respects.

The simplest and most effective solution is just to head toward a completely freedom for everyone and then let people learn how to most efficiently coordinate this on local scales between individuals.

I know that suggestion can cause a lot of worry for many people but there's even a more fundamental reason why we need to head that direction - ultimately you can't teach social values via. force. Lasting social improvements are only made by learning and that requires experience. The way things currently are all, that experience is being forgotten.

cool bananas ... greg

Thanks for the feedback

[labelwench]

Just as 'bravery' does not imply an absence of fear,

Neither does 'emotional maturity' mean an absence of feeling.

You would speak of pure mathematics and from pure logic.

Some of the statements made, therefore, are a pardox to me.

As is the universe....

Just an observation, requiring no reply....

[Graybeard]

In what context are you referring to democracy? Are you referring to it in the sense of individual rights or in terms of majority voting?

I'm referring to it in the sense of 'all are equal before the Law'

The primary complaint about capitalism that seems valid to me is that corporations gain additional rights and priviledges that the individuals comprising it do not and this can encourage irresponsible actions by a corporation. Notice though that this irresponsibility is actually a product of preferential legal treatment of corporate "entities" (intangible things should generally not have any rights in my opinion) and so once again we have a problem with laws constructing an inequality.

In democratic nations there is no preferential treatment at Law because all are equal before the Law ...

Capitalism is not perfect, just the best we've got.

Ultimately you can't continue to politely ask over and over again if some slave master will let go of the chain and in that respect I think my views offer more realistic solutions - we need to just remove the chains and be more careful in placing new ones (if any) back on again.

I agree with this ... a single chain ... Carbon Tax.

Actually I think once again, we're saying the same thing.

Ya been readin my mail buddy ..... lolol



coll bananas ... greg

[Graybeard]

Just as 'bravery' does not imply an absence of fear,

Neither does 'emotional maturity' mean an absence of feeling.

You would speak of pure mathematics and from pure logic.

Some of the statements made, therefore, are a pardox to me.

As is the universe....

Just an observation, requiring no reply....

Hmmmmmm .... It always scares me when I don't know what it means .... And this one ... I don't know what it means. But I know something, it means something, and thats the scary part .... ??

cool bananas ... greg

[SB_UK]

eeeep!
what happened last night?

heydummy

Star-Trek's Q taught us how...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_(Star_Trek)

Q must eternally guard, observe, and accompany the boy to ensure his proper behavior.

Star Trek:The Next Generation
To boldly go where no man has been before.

~*~

Q must eternally guard, observe, and accompany the boy to ensure his proper behavior.

Sounds good
- Doing what though ?

- no need to answer

Arrival at convergence in knowledge leaves us in the interesting predicament of not needing to go into work tomorrow.

~ Job done ~

Sure - there'll be a period of rationalising away poor systems
- separating out the nonsense from the rest and
--- then ---
automating the rest ... ... ...

However
... ... what ? follows

- Doing what though ?

Suggestions
1. The solution to this problem won't be evident until we're actually in that happy place ?
2. Anything we fancy -
the drive (desire) to achieve having been defused ?

When I'm drivin' in my car
And that man comes on the radio
And he's tellin' me more and more
About some useless information
Supposed to fire my imagination
I can't get no, oh no no no
Hey hey hey, that's what I say.

versus

All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.

(with an explanation why)

I think our heads are going to turn into illicit internal narcotic vending machines and we're approaching a point in our evolutionary trajectory where we're going to be able to live out our lives in a chilled out state of bliss on constantly infused drip.

Dexedrine (when I could take it) - helped to make even the dullest task markedly less so -
sufficiently interesting to undertake
one might hazard to state.
To float around like Petal Moonbeam and her cohort of fluffy elfn creatures
-- (formerly known as 'the schmoos').

~*~

If we trace the circuit formed from linking together the biochemical targets hit by the entire class of illicit narcotics
- and then draw a connection between the pathophysiology of human addiction to the physiology of human functioning.

That the underlying drive which has 'gotten' us this far (as a species) as a kinda' drug-induced (the internal endogenous counterparts to their external illicit family members) ... ... ...

That the underlying drive which has 'gotten' us this far (as a species) as a kinda' drug-induced (both under the influence of as well as going 'cold turkey' from) ... ... ...

That current society formed around structures put in place by enforcedly unthinking angel-dust heads on acid striving to satisfy their urge to shoot-up
- the satisfaction of which urge being their prime underlying determinant of policy.

The behaviour of the actively under the influence drug-crazed PCP-head and the lawyer/politician bear almost perfect overlap
- are indistinguishable from one another.

~*~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phencyclidine
--- Added ---

The drug has been known to alter mood states in an unpredictable fashion, causing some individuals to become detached, and others to become animated.
--- some detached and others animated -> lawyers
Intoxicated individuals may act in an unpredictable fashion, driven by their delusions and hallucinations.
--- A perfect description of the lawyer/politician
Included in the portfolio of behavioral disturbances are acts of self-injury including suicide, and attacks on others or destruction of property.
--- Attacks on others and destruction of property - the cost of legal fees permitting the rich to plunder at will
The analgesic properties of the drug can cause users to feel less pain, and persist in violent or injurious acts as a result.
--- The lawyer's daily tasks required that he becomes deadened to the feelings of others.
Recreational doses of the drug can also induce a psychotic state that resembles schizophrenic episodes which can last for months at a time with toxic doses.
--- The lawyer lives his life out in an aggressive PCP induced haze where all that matters is that he wins.
Users generally report an "out-of-body" experience where they feel detached from reality, or one's consciousness seems somewhat disconnected from consensus reality.
--- The lawyer generates a world in which he may foist his own self-serving reality upon other people.

The behaviour of the actively under the influence drug-crazed PCP-head and the lawyer/politician bear almost perfect overlap
- are indistinguishable from one another.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More concisely -
- both (PCP head and lawyer/politician) groups acquire the capacity to act only in their own best interests absolutely necessitating that they act against the best interests of all other people.
All other people who do not comply to assimilation.

The PCP head, lawyer and politician -> Star Trek's Borg.
Supported by a layer of bureaucracy -> the Guide's Vogon.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

None of the above is meant to be (per se) negative criticism of the individual who is a lawyer -
- more a criticism of how the law perverts the lawyer into this state of mind.
If the lawyer had elected to become a programmer for instance -
- then these criticisms would not have then applied to the individual himself.

The point I'm trying to make is that systems (most evident in politics and law) have an effect on the psychological make up of people
- where the greatest problem we face (as a species) comes *not* from the criminal or terrorist
- instead from the lawyer and politician who seed the criminal and terrorist.

The criminal and terrorist are brought into being as an inevitable reaction to unfair political/legal/economic action.

There would be neither crime nor terror if the politician and lawyer were taught humanity.

[SB_UK]

The PCP head, lawyer and politician -> Star Trek's Borg
Supported by a layer of bureaucracy -> the Guide's Vogon

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The army,police -> Dr.Who's Cybermen, Daleks
The oil baron, banker, entrepreneur and business man (private industry) -> Star Trek's Ferengi

~*~

The bad guys we love to loathe (from Sci Fi) have counterparts in current society.

~*~

Lawyer/politician in cahoots with banker/business man to maintain power using army/police.

(the freedom fighting Jedi commence)

~*~

Note -
- these vicious behaviours are exerted without conscious intervention
- simply an expression of the animal within

- the default state which we inherit by virtue of our evolutionary origins.

They're only bad because we were made this way.

Made this way -
- set the task (as described in the Old Testament) to get over ourselves.

To overcome the savage within (original sin).

Noting

Dr. Who
Dr. Spock
Yoda (Professor of Philosophy)
The Guide's premise ->- (why everything?)

Dave Lister (philosopher)
Dr. Zarkov

~*~

The mind's
- to know why everything ?

->-

ToE

~*~

... ... ... speaking of which - has anybody noticed that Ed Witten and John Baez have the same kinda' vaguely distended funny shaped head ?

(must be all them there brains)

[Mikal]

Just as 'bravery' does not imply an absence of fear,

Neither does 'emotional maturity' mean an absence of feeling.

You would speak of pure mathematics and from pure logic.

Some of the statements made, therefore, are a pardox to me.

As is the universe....

Just an observation, requiring no reply....

Thanks LW...I guess it takes another woman to understand what a woman is discussing. Maturity in general means understanding your feelings and learning how to flow with them (all of them) and means understanding that fears are really an invitation to meet a challenge and grow from engaging with it. Both used constructively benefit your life....because both rob us of unrealized perceptions if we do not understand them...


Regards Mikal

[SteveA]

I'm referring to it in the sense of 'all are equal before the Law'

Sounds good possibly, if you can define what you're referring to by "Law".

If a law said that all minorities must be subjugated to the wishes of the majority then I'd disagree. If you mean laws in the sense of restricted forms of governing that respect individual liberties then I could agree.

Laws are in many ways the problem. Democratic forces are not inherently good. WWII was started by a democracy. Jews were minorities. A respect for individuals (which is all that societies are composed of) would have limited some of the problems, but I do agree with you that social pressuresultimately do run the show, for better or worse.

In democratic nations there is no preferential treatment at Law because all are equal before the Law ...

Again, that can be good or bad. We don't inherently need laws controlled by any elite group though. Instead we can replace the laws with general common sense simply by having no specific laws and leaving decisions to the equivalent of jury decisions in a dispute. In that case you have no focal point of power to run the show by and you don't have reams of laws that few people even know a fraction of, nor can they be argued any way someone wants.

Equal respect/rights for freedom/liberty I agree with. The typical context of "laws" refers to a rather biased system though and democracy, if taken in the context of 51% majority rule does not inherently respect this.

One immediate improvement to voting would be to require supermajority votes to impose restrictions on people and only require a small minority to repeal those restrictions.

If you have something that 80-90%+ of the people in some area can agree upon, and it requires some restrictions placed upon a minority group, then fine, that's a social issue that realistically needs to be addressed, but more of these forms of laws are just the obvious things that most everyone knows to respect. But if you have either have little or no conflict (in which case there's no need for any government involvement), or an issue where there's not a strong concensus (in which case the people themselves do not (yet) know how to resolve it), then there's no reason for government involvement.

I'm trying to be a bit precise and technical in order to clarify things and emphasize where the root of the problem arises.

As an example, let's say there's a community in which eating meat is seen as a sin. Now I do recognize that if some large majority of the people feel strongly enough about it and want to pass a law denying any consumption of meat, then realistically democratic/social/cultural forces need to be vented and some minority in the community would likely need to stop using meat or move elsewhere and find more compatible neighbors, but I strongly discourage using such a manner of governing and especially not in the simple case of a 51%+ majority vote and also if it was just a matter of 51% of the people preferring to not eat meat whether or not someone else does should not actually be their concern and this is an issue where tolerance is valuable in a society, otherwise we could all pick our own little lifestyle flavors and fight (as much of current politics is) over which of these should win out, when really we already won by not fighting over them. Government uses force and only directly creates losers.

So I don't place democracy very high on my list but instead a respect for individuals and the freedom they inherently possess is what I see as #1 on the list of a good government.

Capitalism is not perfect, just the best we've got.

Yes, do agree that capitalism works well, though still many abuses occur in the name of capitalism and I do disagree with the idea that corporations need special legal treatment beyond the rights of the individuals and resources they use to construct it. Basically a corporation should not be treated as a separate legal entity because it isolates accountability from the individuals that created it.

As an example, if someone built a tower for some reason in their large backyard and it collapsed and destroyed part of someone elses home, they should be held responsible for the damages. If the person instead incorporates the construction and says that such and such corporation built it, but the corporation has limited liability, then the "corporation" declares bankruptcy and this responsibility becomes detached.

This is an issue that a few people have pointed out with typical views of capitalism that I've come to recognize is a source of problems, but overall free markets and private ownership are what I consider rather ideal.

Oh, there's another issue also that can be a weakness of capitalism with respect to what/how/who defines ownership of private property. The rule of thumb I prefer regards prior vested interest - things are owned by those people who have interest in the use or preservation of some resource and also that they have put value into that resource or already have some existing stake in it.

If we allow some government agency to make these decisions then there's a danger in the manner of resolving disputes over these - you could effectively rob everyone simply by redefining ownership(such an what has been happening with some emminent domain cases).

That's not a problem with capitalism itself, but instead a weakness inherent in government over abusing property definitions. Once again, having decisions made in a more distributed manner at least removes a focal point for corruption in this respect.

I agree with this ... a single chain ... Carbon Tax.

I have to disagree here in that any penalities should be associated with damages, harm or costs and they should be matches to those costs as much as possible.

If you try to place all costs on a single form of action, then you overly discourage that action and indirectly promote other harmful actions.

For example, if air and water pollution are large scale issues then placing all costs of arbitration on these in terms of one or the other leaves the alternate undiscouraged and overly impedes the single selected source.

Ya been readin my mail buddy ..... lolol

Probably not

coll bananas ... greg

... and even frozen bananas, banana shakes or sizzling hot fried bananas too. They're all good

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Truth Systems and The Value Validity of…


Ohhh… The many ways different people think… How many have actually considered all the different possible world views that actually make up our overly-confused planet…? What would be the best possible method to sort all these different and divergent views…? All through the years I’ve given this a tremendous amount of thought, but only recently realized a very important aspect, I wasn’t even aware of, as it’s that very different method, I myself use most. It’s the major general difference of how one uses his/her mind, from its ground source of vision…

I recently talked to my wife, son and daughter about this very topic, and found that within my own immediate family, we had the two major differences of minds. To make this short, it’s the difference of whether one uses their mind from the particular perspective position, to the universal perspective position; or whether one uses their mind from the universal perspective position, to the particular perspective position. I found that my son was the odd one out, and that my wife, daughter and I use our minds from the universal perspective position first, then work our way down to particulars, and my son uses his individual particular perspective position first, and works his way out to the universal perspective positions. This came as quite a shock to me, as I’d studied such mentalities' histories all my life, but hadn’t really realized its importance of being able to communicate successfully…

When these two mind states are attempting to communicate, they will always be at counter-cross purposes of visions. Every time one uses the universal, the other will use the particular instance, and vice versa, so this makes for an almost eternal conflict, until both realize the trouble and openly discuss it. Of course, my problem was always with my son’s communication most, but when the family was together and trying to discuss global issues, there’d always be the conflict of every member taking different sides, at different times. We resolved this by just simply talking about it, and now we address the global perspective position first, to establish sound ground for our conversations, as all four of us are usually talking quite deep about all aspects of the global problems…

I see this same personal family problem at all levels of society, and it goes clear back to the differences between Socrates/Plato verses Aristotle, and they did not resolve it, so it’s traveled all through history’s mentalities, to the present day of being a very important unsettled issue. It’s that same old problem I’ve mentioned before about the battle of universals and particulars, and how one basically founds and grounds their minds. The universalist grounds his/her mind in the logical/geometric mechanics of the universe and nature, while the particularist grounds his/her mind in the personal experiences of life, and what one has experienced of nature. So, it’s actually the difference between observation and experience. This is nothing new, but the realization of opposing grounds in all conversations is new, I would think, as I’ve not seen it stated directly. Oh, it’s been stated as the difference between idealism and realism, etc., on and on, but no-one has directly made the connection to direct communication grounds, being the giant problem that actually transpires…

Just take SteveA and I as an example. Everyone, including ourselves, recognizes drastic differences in our views, yet many see valid points in both, because we are all of the particular/universal states of minds. It’s just we all use these two major different bases. So, no matter what base one uses, there will be points made by both sides that seem valid to our varied natures, so how does one sort these differences? This goes back to the issues of clarity I’ve often mentioned about keeping the differences of subjects and views in their own categories, which I’ve mentioned about C.S.Peirce’s categories’ lists. Now, this would cover the basics of discussing science as science, and emotions as emotions, etc., on and on, but I hadn’t realized that even by categorizing topics and subjects, that we haven’t dealt with the basic groundings of personalities__Between the universally grounded, and the particularistically grounded states of mind, and herein lies all the problems of the truth systems discussed, as to their true value validities…

Truth systems can not be successfully discussed by minds who are grounded in the opposite states of grounding, unless these groundings are thoroughly understood first. Just as SteveA and many may use the particularistic state of ground, when talking to me, which would be idealism, while I use the universalistic state of ground, which would be realism, or its differences to different people's understandings. Now, what this means is that SteveA generally interprets the world from the individualistic idealistic out to the whole or universalistic states, and I generally interpret the world from the whole or universalistic states of systems’ realities, down to the individualistic particular states of idealisms and that state of reality. The problem arises between the cross-disciplinary inter-communication states of how we place priorities of importances. SteveA places his importances of priorities in the individual, and I place my importances of priorities in the universal systems’ control over the individual states of thoughts.

These two systems of thinking and acting have been at cross-purposes since the dawn of organized societies and thoughts. It’s not that either is wrong, it’s just that each thinks itself more important to world events than the other, and I do not see a way of resolving this dilemma of differing viewpoints, unless explanations of this type may be able to lead in that direction. SteveA is much more an idealist than I, and I am much more an ideal realist than he, which will continually put us at odds. This is simply the same as stating he is more a particularist and I am more a universalist than he. So, anyone that may have a solution to this dilemma is welcome to add their comments to the situation… I more than welcome it…rrr


Important article on Keynes/Davidson LINK...
“The Keynes Solution: The Path to Global Economic Prosperity”

An Old Master, Back in Fashion
BY the time he died in 1946, the economist John Maynard Keynes had become that rarest of creatures in his profession: a celebrity. The most powerful leaders in the free world subscribed to his theory that markets were driven by emotions and that in moments of crisis, governments could calm investors by doling out stimulus money.

When Keynes and his wife, Lydia, arrived in New York aboard the Queen Mary in 1943, they were mobbed by photographers. Even the paparazzi seemed to understand that his prescription had helped countries on both sides of the Atlantic recover from the Depression.