East Meets West Logic...

[Lloyd Gillespie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_(Star_Trek)
Star Trek:The Next Generation
To boldly go where no man has been before.

This is our goal__To boldly go where no man has been before. This means imagining entirely new models of law and money, that do respect the entirety of humility and humanity__For the first time in history...

- Doing what though ?

Doing what we will realize must be done to solve all our differences of opinions. Investigate the innards of the mind deep enough, and all the answers will fall out__But we mustn't be afraid of personal conflicts along the way. They teach us the most, deepest and lasting lessons...

Arrival at convergence in knowledge...

This arrival at the convergence in knowledge is much deeper than most realize, as most have been afraid to cross the emotional bridges of major personal conflicts to arrive across the river, to a new light of day. This has been most the history of settled thought verses any new ideas that are or have ever been offered. Once it's out of someone's comfort zone, they run and hide, instead of diving in. If they'd just dive in, they'd find the water is quite pleasant, as these rough waters give the best rides, and open the minds to the newest possible thoughts. The only way knowledge will converge is to join all the bad and the good together__in one thorough washing...

Originally Posted by Aiya-Oba
Hi Gillespie, nice to read your post.
Equator of Self-contradiction is the Absolute logic. It is the Nuclear Logic Cross of cosmic unity and Self-creator of All in all.
There is nothing that is not an aspect of the All in all - Spacetime. This fact is the most elusive truth about the geometry of Cosmos.It is the Singularity, the Equator and common String of All in all. Hold on to it, for its the future not the past. - Aiya-Oba.

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

We should not be rationalising away poor systems__We should be thoroughly investigating_not negating_poor systems__to see what makes them tick. When we learn what truly makes them tick__Only then, can we improve what's wrong with these systems. Running from problem systems never solves anything. It's just as Ol' Man Bechtel said, "Problems are just opportunities in workclothes." We must dig in, and get a little dirty...

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 ?versus(with an explanation why)

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 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.

This may all be true, but is it the ground state of the real problem...? What about natural evolution of bad ideas, by the entire communities of participants, that have all throughout history, drowned out the good ideas. These good ideas go clear back to Plato, who offered the world the same dish of steak that Keynes offered__yet the ignorant world rejected it both times. The real question is; "What's it take for a world to open its ears, minds and hearts...?" And this includes all citizens, not just lawyers and politicians/bankers, etc...rrr

“The Keynes Solution: The Path to Global Economic Prosperity”

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Sorry__Double Post... Canceled...rrr

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Lorrina, let me ask you a question. Have you ever considered the fact that 'emotional maturity' often stands in the way of 'intellectual maturity'...? This is the one that always stymies me... Do we let one child die, so a million may live...? I think you probably know my answer, but what is yours...? And, can we use feelings to solve this dilemma...?rrr

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....

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Mikal, and let me ask you a few serious questions. What about the situation where too much feelings' awareness, blinds us to intellectual necessities...? And what about the situation where to much intellectual awareness, blinds us to emotional necessities...? Is there truly a resolution in either of these cases...? Can a true and honest balance be found, without detracting from one or the other...? This is one of the problems the ancients discussed, and therefore decided perfection was an impossible state to achieve...rrr

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

[labelwench]

Lorrina, let me ask you a question. Have you ever considered the fact that 'emotional maturity' often stands in the way of 'intellectual maturity'...? This is the one that always stymies me... Do we let one child die, so a million may live...? I think you probably know my answer, but what is yours...? And, can we use feelings to solve this dilemma...?rrr

'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.'

Or,

'The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.'

Both statements need to be revisited each time a decision is made.

Go to your garden and plant carrots and beets. You will have much pleasure in the rows of green until.....you must thin the crop.

Can't do that?

Lovely bunch of greenery but, no carrots or beets worth mentioning.

By using foresight and planting each seed one inch from it's neighbour, and being very dilligent in your early care to maximize germination, as you have now minimized your margin of tolerance, you can virtually eliminate the need to decide which plant shall live or die.

The results are generally consistent and favorable unless.....

Nature throws you a wild card in the form of disease or disastrous weather.

The same technique works with animal and human dynamics. It's called 'family planning', or with domestic species, 'planned breeding'.

However, such approach relies on the logical mind, and the general population is not given to considering the consequences at closing time on Saturday night, when the opposite sex suddenly looks considerably more attractive than it will on Monday morning....

The primary goal of all species is to evolve and survive, and that generally means reproduction.

We would be a much more evolved species if the results of our folly took two years, like elephants, instead of nine months.

And for anyone who thinks that I am overemphasizing the role of reproduction in economics, politics and religion, then look at the laws that relate to such conduct.

Look at the religions that have quite different positions on the topic.

And especially look at advertising.

How many ads do you come across for 'brain enhancers'?

Okay, Lloyd, your turn.

Ethics.

We ever attempt to bridge the gap between emotion and logic with ethics.

What does nature tell us?

'Frankly, my Dear, I don't give a damn.'

That's nature talking, Lloyd, not me.

Nature is a freaking artist that creates and destroys her creations at will. Throw on some paint, create shape and form, then scrape it all off and have another go at the canvas.

The only edge that nature has provided us, is a brain with two hemispheres, that is capable of bridging the gap.

Capacity is

meaningless,

unless

utilized.

Ever it has been said, that neccessity is the mother of invention.

Our species, in large, will not engage, until we are the lemmings in the front row.

However, I am an optimist. For all of the lemmings that migrate and are lost to this strange phenomenon of nature....
we still seem not to have run out of lemmings.

There's that prime directive again.....

...and hope for at least some of the species that can bridge the mental gap. (or tread water for a long time.)

Thank you for the question, Lloyd.

[Graybeard]

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.

Steve .... I think you like chewing on words, ruminating, and regurgitating them. Too much of the bovine.

Democracy: All are equal before the Law.

What the Law is, and how it is implemented is purely mechanical and engineered by each Country/Nation. My preference is for the Westminister system. This was introduced as part of the French Revolution. Separation at arms length of Government, Judicary, and Enforcement. No exceptions.

Your majority/minority 51%/49% is just a private whinge. You take this to be, through your own misunderstanding, to mean that the '51% club' controls 100% of decisions. Hence your statement

If a law said that all minorities must be subjugated to the wishes of the majority then I'd disagree

What it really means is that all sides are represented in proportion. To make it really simple: If 100 individual Laws are implemented by a Democratic Government then, on average 51% will reflect the will of the '51 club' and 49% will reflect the will of the '49 club'

This is Democratic representation, not the subjugation of a minority, and as a piece of trivia, much more reflective of the people's will than 49% / 51%.

.. Laws are in many ways the problem.

.. Democratic forces are not inherently good.

.. WWII was started by a democracy.

.. Jews were minorities.

Steve, Steve, Steven ... !! I am guessing your much younger than me. Because you are smart, probably smarter than me, but I am more experienced.

This is Lloyd's thread and I am not going to be part of hi-jacking it. If you wish to discuss the above, start a new thread or PM me.

cool bananas buddy ... greg

[SteveA]

...

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

...

I don't disagree with much of anything here and yes, I tend to come from an individualist perspective, recognize that this fundamentally where everyones knowledge comes from.

I also tend to think that if you applied that individualist perspective on a large scale, there's a similar model that works for both ideals and yes, it would of course also agree with an individualist perspective. We're all individuals, and a good solution needs to recognize that.

I'm also primarily interested in my own satisfaction or happiness etc., but it happens to be that if many other people are having problems and experiencing difficulties then it's not particularly pleasant for me to see that state in things. So from that perspective, the general well being and future for people is a large part of my life also.

I've giving some more detailed replies but I've also been trying to give the simple 3 by 5 card version just because people tend to have problems following all the intricacies and seeing the relationships as well as overcoming habitual forms of thought that exclude other perspectives (and yes, I'm also working on it too ).

The ideal that packs the most benefit into fewest words I'd just say anarchy is the ideal.

The problem with such a simple representation though is that it doesn't convey information regarding how people can best organize under anarchy, but anarchy still remains the ideal because individuals and cultures or social norms are still evolving and are dynamic and anarchy is inherently the most flexible and allows the most learning and naturally, over time "congeals" into relatively stable institutions that most closely reflect local ideals.

From an individualist perspective, I can't promote forceful intrusion into people lives to "fix" things as this would be hypocritical of me and from a position of equal liberty between people (which is required for at least a couple reasons, one of which is a preservation of diversity and minority views), would imply that they similarly had a right to intrude upon my affairs and do the same.

So being unable to forcibly fix things, there's still the other very natural and common manner of interaction - mutual benefit and this is the staple of free markets and voluntary private interactions.

In this case people interact due to the gains they perceive being a part of some institution and this also limits the possibilities of harmful manipulation because if some association is perceived as less beneficial than something else, people will move their support elsewhere.

Notice that my views are actually quite general and inclusive as well.

Now I could specify more specific "optimizations" to a system, such as the economic ideas you've been working with, and I admit that I really would like to do the same, but this limits its scope and applicability and the foundation should be as broad and inclusive as possible, so in some ways your suggestions regard more specifics within my suggestions. From my perspective, your ideas would "fit inside" my suggestions as one of those voluntary institutions implemented by people desiring to utilize it and it's not impossible that some benefit might come from it, but I tend to think that the evolution of free markets has already included much of this - we have speculation that tends to predict price fluctuations and move resources ahead of time to predicted demands and this reduces market volatility.

But anyway, I think that it's rather inevitable that in a few hundred years or less, if humanity hasn't imploded that we will inevitably interact closely on global scales, but this is not necessarily an ideal we need to pressure toward and in fact I think it's actually a problem nature has presented that we'll need to try to overcome. It's a challenge and I think we lose if we end up with a world of robots at the mercy of whatever/whoever pulls the strings - whereas if we retain enough diversity and breadth of knowledge and abilities, we won't necessarily be constrained to that "ending" and hopefully we'll have a bright future exploring new frontiers and not due to any top-down declarations that we must but instead due to the natural desires many people have to do so already.

So when we come across a "weed", I don't think it's best to immediately plow it over. If it's not causing any problems, let it be. If it's impeding the growth of something else then first try to grow a tougher skin (you've got a challenge, do you improve yourself or do you simply reduce the rest?).

There's a lot to learn and in many ways we'd hardly begun. I don't think anyone has found the ideal form of society and I tend to doubt there is except in terms of a dynamic and free culture. In order to accomplish that we really only need to agree to minimize the oppression of others and I think the "party" lasts as long as people stop acting according to that. (Knowledge is good, but ultimately it's actions that make the difference - don't act until you're confident in your knowledge though)

Anyway, I think my views encompass quite a bit and I could post a lot of the more detailed recommendations as well, but I think people get too easily sidetracked on how to add more chains and complexity - we really need to first concentrate on loosening those chains and simplifying things.

A good question to ask would be whether or not, if every government structure in the world disappeared overnight - would people suddenly go insane and trash the place or do people have enough rationality to survive on their own internal moral compass? I recognize you can't generalize this to everyone and there would likely be quite a few people who would have problems with that, but I think it's rather inevitable people would learn to deal with it and ultimately we'd be better off for it. Realistically this won't be overnight, but in the coming decades I'm rather certain there will be events like this (not necessarily if you're reading and overly filtered media source), and the question is how people react - do they instantly look to replace the last round of rulers with another set or do they search for better alternatives?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Steve, you state complete lies, such as; "I can't promote forceful intrusion into people('s) lives to "fix" things as this would be hypocritical of me...", yet this is exactly what, and all, you are doing in this thread__You are a pathological liar...

So, let me make this plain__Please leave my thread... Imo, you are completely insane... I'll be asking Greg to get you outta here...
Every time I try to go neutral, you go offensive...

From an individualist perspective, I can't promote forceful intrusion into people lives to "fix" things as this would be hypocritical of me and from a position of equal liberty between people (which is required for at least a couple reasons, one of which is a preservation of diversity and minority views), would imply that they similarly had a right to intrude upon my affairs and do the same.

I don't disagree with much of anything here and yes, I tend to come from an individualist perspective, recognize that this fundamentally where everyones knowledge comes from.

Maybe dunces like you get your knowledge from your vacuous egos__I get mine from outside myself, so I can know it's real and valid__since it's testable...rrr

[SteveA]

Steve .... I think you like chewing on words, ruminating, and regurgitating them. Too much of the bovine.

Democracy: All are equal before the Law.

Yes, my views reflect this equality, so I would be talking about democracy as well, but we need to be more careful about the words and ideas. Your statement here that all are equal before the law would allow laws like "Law #1: Anyone using a forum name Graybeard must give half his worldly possessions to anyone on the same forum using the alias SteveA"

See how funny laws can be? It could apply equally to everyone and yet that would appear to meet your definition of democracy.

Notice that this has already happened in democracies in the past as well. There always some minority that can be abused racial, religious, economic, political etc.

So no, I personally couldn't accept such a form of democracy as being beneficial to people. In fact it would appear to even encourage a "might makes right" attitude and an intolerance among people.

What the Law is, and how it is implemented is purely mechanical and engineered by each Country/Nation. My preference is for the Westminister system. This was introduced as part of the French Revolution. Separation at arms length of Government, Judicary, and Enforcement. No exceptions.

Not a bad idea, though I think one of the most important aspects in the U.S. is the jury trial which requires a unanimous verdict to enforce a law. The requirement for unanimous agreement tends to protect minority views.

We could actually remove the legislative branch altogether and leave the "Law" equally applicable to everyone also.

Your majority/minority 51%/49% is just a private whinge. You take this to be, through your own misunderstanding, to mean that the '51% club' controls 100% of decisions. Hence your statement

What it really means is that all sides are represented in proportion. To make it really simple: If 100 individual Laws are implemented by a Democratic Government then, on average 51% will reflect the will of the '51 club' and 49% will reflect the will of the '49 club'

Ok, that sounds better, though I tend to be skeptical that this is actually the case and I'd be interested in knowing how voting occurs in such a system. That's not the system we have in the U.S., for example (though technically the U.S. is not a democracy but a representative republic).

Let me toss out something else to consider, let's say 10% of the population is of some specific religious perspective and they want to have a religious community following some beliefs, does their 10% representation allow them to 100% (or at least close to 100%) influence of their 10% of the population?

If not, then I'd be curious as to why that's not the case (I'm assuming they're relatively non-influencial outside that community, such as the Amish communities we have here).

This is Democratic representation, not the subjugation of a minority, and as a piece of trivia, much more reflective of the people's will than 49% / 51%.

Maybe you can send me a link with more information on what you're thinking of. I'm not familiar with the system you're referring to.

Steve, Steve, Steven ... !! I am guessing your much younger than me. Because you are smart, probably smarter than me, but I am more experienced.

Well I'm not particularly unexperienced either and I have acquired quite a few "old-school" views over the years as well, so I'm not a babe still wet behind the ears

This is Lloyd's thread and I am not going to be part of hi-jacking it. If you wish to discuss the above, start a new thread or PM me.

cool bananas buddy ... greg

Ok, not a bad idea. Thanks again for the reply

[SteveA]

Steve, you state complete lies, such as; "I can't promote forceful intrusion into people('s) lives to "fix" things as this would be hypocritical of me...", yet this is exactly what, and all, you are doing in this thread__You are a pathological liar...

So, let me make this plain__Please leave my thread... Imo, you are completely insane... I'll be asking Greg to get you outta here...
Every time I try to go neutral, you go offensive...



Maybe dunces like you get your knowledge from your vacuous egos__I get mine from outside myself, so I can know it's real and valid__since it's testable...rrr

I was referring to laws. I'm not asking for a law to be passed to make people read this thread LOL (Despite the fact that it could be helpful)