[baudrunner]

Does equilibria not fuel itself? Does not history unfold as it should, given what influences have wrought the trend that determines the end? (poetry there) Have not the lessons of history been learned?

Equilibria is applied in every practical sense today by the powers that be. In order for the world order to manifest it must have a proper balance between social stability and greed. Greed is represented by organized labor, and ultimately by the corruption that rules it. Good balance there. A true Utopia could not exist because there would be no balance. Corruption and evil are integral components of a balanced world order. They are manifestations of the evolved hierarchy of the food chain, in a civilised sense.

[subversion]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Hi SubVersion, here's one for ya. "The true equilibrium of greed can create economic utopias." Let's turn it all over to a philanthropic computer, programmed absolutely benign. The problem with true anarchy is that humans are not nice as youth likes to think. I am much older, and I see humans as far less than capable of living without law. Maybe less government, but not without law - we are bad, and my experience teaches me, we always will be, so we need systems geared to equilibriate our dastardly nature. Sorry, Lloyd

It depends on what you define as bad. The law of positivity says it is best for humans to define human nature as good, than to define it as bad. The reason is that what we define will be a self fulfiling prophecy. Therefore I think you should change your attitude. Otherwise I would say that it is your attitude which is directly the problem. In my utopia there will be a place for pessimists. They will be the sacrifice.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by subversion It depends on what you define as bad. The law of positivity says it is best for humans to define human nature as good, than to define it as bad. The reason is that what we define will be a self fulfiling prophecy. Therefore I think you should change your attitude. Otherwise I would say that it is your attitude which is directly the problem. In my utopia there will be a place for pessimists. They will be the sacrifice.

Utopia is the ideal of idealism, and it is therefore a falsity of a falsity. I don't mean we should be negative or pessimists, but that we should be realist and impresionists. From the first, we see that utopia is not possible: for the hapiness of individuals can be contradictory or even self-contradictory, and you would need infinite worlds for a utiopia. From the second, we see that even though the world is positive to our personal happiness and satisfaction, this doesn't mean our impresion of it will be the same. This what politics is about, as Badiou says, "Politics exists when there are unexpected incidents, if not, there is pure State" and we know that for a Utopia to be possible there must be something more to state, even something more than party-state duality: there is the need for a movement.

[mkirkpatrick]

If you found an intellectual with a modicum of humilty.then they would most likely accept capitalism,it just seems that with the big intellect,also goes the big head,and they think that they know a better way,well they would,dont you think!Show me the Truly humble Itellectual and I will show you a capitalist?



kind regards michael/

[Guille]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick If you found an intellectual with a modicum of humilty.then they would most likely accept capitalism,it just seems that with the big intellect,also goes the big head,and they think that they know a better way,well they would,dont you think!Show me the Truly humble Itellectual and I will show you a capitalist?

Most people think that you and believe intellectuals are simply people that believe to be smarter than god (even though it doesn't exist). You believe that intellectuals do what they do for their own good, for their own happiness and satisfaction, not for the rest of the people. For this you blame them, for thinking in themselves before. Maybe only Voltaire is the only one that thought before in others, for he said "Even if your opinion were that people shouldn't have the right to have an opinion and speak it up, and I disagree absolutelly, I would give my life so that you can have this opinion and speak it up." That's honesty. And anyway, nobody is to blame intellectuals. Even though it's true they migh to do their work for their own satisfaction and any other egocentric reason, at least the produc,t what they do, is for the rest. What Socrates did was for the Greeks, for humanity, and maybe he did use his mental power to convince homosexual youngsters to come out, and also he might have told people not to kill their sheep as sacrifices for the gods. If you think these two things are wrong, you really need a re-conceptualization of the world. Still, he was killed for those two things. And yet, we don't kill today people like Philip Morris who has a bigger economy than New Zeland, nor do we putin jail someone like G.E. Bush. I don't want to get into politics or present practical problems, but what I mean by this is that there is nothing to blame an intellectual. Unless of course you find blamefull that they co-operate and contribute to the progress of humanity, whether they are artists, philosophers or scientists.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by subversion It depends on what you define as bad. The law of positivity says it is best for humans to define human nature as good, than to define it as bad. The reason is that what we define will be a self fulfiling prophecy. Therefore I think you should change your attitude. Otherwise I would say that it is your attitude which is directly the problem. In my utopia there will be a place for pessimists. They will be the sacrifice.

Paradoxes unto themselves are self-fulfilling. My attitude has nothing to do with truth, nor does anyones! Truth is truth, good or bad, period. Pessimists and optomists will always exist, but truth must win the battle for true sustainable survival. This requires seeing the facts, not the feelings. The feelings are inconsequential to the facts, and always will be. The highest understanding of the facts, produces the greatest respect fur human essence's survival, and proper sustainability.

Lloyd

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>> Utopia is the ideal of idealism, and it is therefore a falsity of a falsity. I don't mean we should be negative or pessimists, but that we should be realist and impresionists. From the first, we see that utopia is not possible: for the hapiness of individuals can be contradictory or even self-contradictory, and you would need infinite worlds for a utiopia. From the second, we see that even though the world is positive to our personal happiness and satisfaction, this doesn't mean our impresion of it will be the same. This what politics is about, as Badiou says, "Politics exists when there are unexpected incidents, if not, there is pure State" and we know that for a Utopia to be possible there must be something more to state, even something more than party-state duality: there is the need for a movement.

The above is the deffinition of naieve utipianism. I am not about naieve utopianism of individuals, as this would be impossible as you have mentioned. When I use the term, I am simply referring to realist utopias, which are no more than major improvements to existing global legal, political, and economic systems - the real world. The other side of the coin you have mentioned is consciousness raising. The East has tried this for thousands of years of total failure. Their best advocates say they have achieved 1% to 2% at best, toward any true improvement, on the road to enlightenment. So, I easily abandon the path of emotions, for logic, thank you.

And, logically, scientific utopian systems building, first with our ideation, then with knowledge sharing, and finally implementation in the real world, is the only recourse left to a humanity, rapidly using the false logic of emotion, to burry the world, in such useless rhetoric, sophism, and solopsism. Please, try to see that all the avenues of realist, idealist thinking have not been emptied of chances for major improvements. It only takes a large enough ideation to see a true future universal justice, we all can attain. Open your minds, away from the academic foolishness of closed mindedness and exclusion, and toward that of true self-insight of better possible worlds. Deep self-ideation can see the world I speak of. It's not just a dream, it's a true possible reality. Laws can be evolved to true universal justice - period.

Lloyd

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick If you found an intellectual with a modicum of humilty.then they would most likely accept capitalism,it just seems that with the big intellect,also goes the big head,and they think that they know a better way,well they would,dont you think!Show me the Truly humble Itellectual and I will show you a capitalist? kind regards michael/

When ego and soul balance, we have a proper personality, sometimes good, sometimes bad. Sometimes arrogant, sometimes humble. Just the way it is.

Lloyd

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by baudrunner Does equilibria not fuel itself? Does not history unfold as it should, given what influences have wrought the trend that determines the end? (poetry there) Have not the lessons of history been learned? Equilibria is applied in every practical sense today by the powers that be. In order for the world order to manifest it must have a proper balance between social stability and greed. Greed is represented by organized labor, and ultimately by the corruption that rules it. Good balance there. A true Utopia could not exist because there would be no balance. Corruption and evil are integral components of a balanced world order. They are manifestations of the evolved hierarchy of the food chain, in a civilised sense.

The true equilibrium of supply and demand would be; The equilibrium of supply and demand, in competition with its truly balanced self, i.e., competition self-reflected into its true self. We, at present, only have dis-equilibriated supply and demand, globally. Supply and demand need be newly legally arranged in competition with itself, inside each country's domain. In other words, we need put money in competition with money, not the present system of currency in competition with currency[external money competition]. When money competes on an internal level playing field of equilibriated legal competition, it will have the power to balance greed, in an entirely new dynamic. This is not a new system, it's been partially suggested since the Greeks[external exchange clearing vs. the newer internal exchange clearing and triple entry banking]. It's just nobody has fought hard enough to implement it, except Keynes and Einzig, but they lost the battles in the forties. We need take up where John Maynard Keynes and Dr. Paul Einzig left off. Paul Davidson, Jane DaRista and Robert Skidelsky are also fighting hard for Keynes' system to be expanded and implemented. I think that without a true economic and mathematical philosophical understanding, most all philosophical discussion ends being moot. We need larger centropic integrations of inter-disciplinary studies, to really and truly see the real world, for what it realistically is. We need a further centropic integration of the world's megalomaniacs, in all fields of study.

The world is a gambling casino,
Designed and sanctioned by god.
The money is the mind of the spirit.
The bankers are the dealers,
And we are the hands, playing the cards of greed.

regards,
Lloyd

[baudrunner]

Keynesian economics is and will continue to be the current trend in a successful capitalist nation. Spend, spend, spend until the workers are tied to the yoke of debt and until government spending has succeeded in making the nation the hegemonistic power that it is today. When you're number one, nobody will argue with you. Get yourself heavily into debt and feel obligated to contribute to the repayment scheme for the sake of continuity and to just have a life. It's only money, and all it takes is a piece of legislation to write off and forgive all debt if it were deemed appropriate to do so because it's all just a game. Really, it's only money. It's really all just about supremacy. The biggest debtor wins. No-one says it always has to stay the same because anything can and does happen, because...