 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
This reply will have to be written in sections depending on the time I have available to write.
First, though, your reply was a nice bit of prose. I understood most of it first read.
I was telling, Kathy, my wife, that you and I are like Copernicus and Keppler. Both men were convinced that the sun and not the earth was the center of the universe. This was quite contrary to the popular opinion which believed that the earth was at the center of the universe. The geocentric (earth at center idea) was supported, encouraged and taught to the lay people by theologians such as John Calvin. Copernicus hypothesized that the planets orbited the sun in concentric circular orbits. Keppler, who lived a hundred years after Copernicus, had better optical technology for observations and so building upon Copernicus' work developed the elliptical orbit hypothesis.
Now in history one of these men turned out to be correct and the other merely close whereas in our discussions things are not so easily discerned as are the observable paths of planets in the sky. Not only that, the universe turned out to be much more vast than either man imagined. So I am not saying one of us is Copernicus and the other Keppler just in case you might infer such a thing. I do like the analogy, however. I think we can use these names as code handles. The next time we are together we can put the names on slips of paper, drop them into a hat and choose randomly. I think you make a better Copernicus though because besides being an astronomer he was also an economist. That is my weakness: economics. I am educating myself on this subject because I feel that some of your economic ideas are too (I want to say simple but that is not quite right) naive maybe from a mathematical standpoint.
Anyway, to continue...
I don't know about the angry stuff. I think that word needs some work to find the agreeable meaning between us, and it sounds like productive work to me, since we two may share the same meaning, and our meaning shared may not transfer well to anyone else.
I do not think of a mad dog as being angry, he is only mad. That is to say, his aggressiveness is more along the lines of innate behavioral tendencies and not a thought process. When I use the word angry I mean more along the lines of resentment as in your mirror example only much more visceral.
I keep bringing this up because it has been my experience that something done with anger as the underlying intent behind an action only brings a temporary end, if it brings an end at all, to whatever has caused the anger in the first place. Not to mention the myriad other negative side effects such as an inability to think clearly, elevated heart beat and the like.
I will take this opportunity to explain how I view morality and what I mean by intent. Any action, I do not care what it is, is not morally reviewable. There is no right or wrong action. So, for example, if I kill someone or some animal the killing is not subject to moral review. The intent, however, is. If I kill someone because doing so is the only alternative I have to prevent them from harming myself or another and I do so with a sense of compassion in my heart then my intent is honest. The action is creative. If I kill someone because I covet something they have then my intent is unkind and the action is destructive.
This analysis can be applied to every action, but intent is most often hard to measure and in the end only the individual truly knows what his intent is.
Keeping that in mind, I believe there are no such distinctions as good and evil, right and wrong. Men are not good or bad, they are destroyers or creators. I also believe both are necessary for our world to be properly balanced. They will both always be in existence unless a time should arrive that every living human being on the planet understands this balance. In the meantime, it is enough, that some of us understand this concept and use that understanding to alleviate as much of the suffering of others as one can. I am in the apprentice stage of this understanding.
I do not agree with the words you wrote about Marx, and the link to Stalin, there is no link, as far as I can tell, since Marx was an idea person, and his ideas were counterfeited, twisted, by Legal Criminals, Bankers, The Most Powerful Humans among us, and then those few powerful people created both Hitler and Stalin, FDR, all the Legal Crime Regimes, so as to destroy competition.
You don't agree!!!! That's good, because what you said here is what I meant. Ideas can be twisted around and misrepresented. But I do stand by the idea that thesis / antithesis / synthesis / is never ending except, as explained in my previous paragraph, until every human being understands this concept. In the meantime...
Now I have a question. Above you said, "so as to destroy competition" inferring, it seems to me, that competition is beneficial. Yet you also say somewhere else:
If we are all cooperators then it stands to reason that the rate of producing more out of less increases to an unknown never before known total production amount, which could easily be measured as Colonization of Mars by human beings.
A mixed message if ever i saw one. Which works, competition or cooperation?
As for that chip on your shoulder, I don't want to knock it off only cut it down to size, or do whatever it is they call it when they cut a diamond to make all those facets.
We did not, and that is the past.
Right you are!
So, how do we, as in the human species, get from here, less good, to there, more good? Choosing the lesser of two evils on command without question? Am I a broken record?
I would say, less destruction, to there, more creativity, but my answer would be the same: Do not quit.
"There is no need of faith which is but an expectation of results. Here the action only counts. Whatever you do for the sake of truth will take you to the truth. Only be earnest and honest. The shape it takes hardly matters.... Doing nothing is as good. Mere longing undiluted by thought and action, pure, concentrated longing will take you speedily to your goal. It is the true motive that matters, not the manner"
That quote is by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
Most of the rest of your reply is further explanation, clarification, and a kind of informal history or timeline of how your view was advanced especially concerning your keystone: The constitution which allowed the "legal criminals" to operate. therefore I shall not quote it, but I will now put forth my hypothesis. I remind you that this is what I sense to be true. My research is only just beginning. What follows was written very hastily, I would not be offended if you find it difficult to read.
Back while modern humans were still hunter-gatherers we were nearly wiped out, reduced to a population with perhaps 10,000 breeding pairs by an ice age approximately 150,000 years ago. A total population of about 50,000.
The starting point?
This group disseminated along with their ideas, technology and religious beliefs.
The mythology of this era was female oriented. Mother goddess, Mother earth, the woman bears the child, matriliniality, somewhat like the Native North Americans culture encountered by the first settlers.
When agriculture was first developed, probably by the women because they were the gatherers and knew the plants, innately knew how to nurture, the female goddess dominated and the group, not the individual was paramount.
Mankind thrived, grew in population, migrated, expanded (all on foot mind you) and evolved into different races.
At some point, in one or more of these now dispersed groups the males begin to feel threatened for some reason. there is archeological evidence of much destruction of female based mythological figurines and the female based mythology is replaced by a male dominated mythology and a switch to patrilineage.
to accomplish this the children and younger people had to be re-educated to fear the female goddess. The first brain washing? Does anybody have a pristine brain?
Now we approach the time of the cradles fo civilization. rise and fall of Roman civilization and then the emergence of Feudal europe out of the crumbled roman empire.
At this time the world is divided into :
1. Americas of which our historical past, the occidental, was removed by an ocean. We know nothing of them really until the 15th century or so (maybe a little earlier like lief ericson etc.)
2. Europe (feudal system... (do you still have that game?))
3. The far east Japan China
4. The near east Arabia
I can't remember at the moment whether India belongs in 3 or 4 but I remember it being a "super power" at one time.
America is colonized by Europeans , mostly British but many other nationalities thrown in most trying to avoid all the goddamn religious persecution and wars they were constantly fighting. 13 colonies are established and they eventually collectively decide to overthrow their British rule ( they were mean to the Torries though) and are successful.
Now, what should they do? I believe they decided they needed a central government for fear that the colonies would revert to independent sovereign nations that would eventually be at odds or at war with one another. I believe they made the right choice and that without a central government the colonies would have quickly reverted to their european habits. The legal criminals, the anti-humanists did not creep in at this point.
I think early america was doing fine. Or as good as could be expected given our humanness.
Time, technology,religion,ideas all move forward.. sure shit happens here and there, some of it attrocious behavior but attributed to destructive humans, not a collective destructive government.
Now comes the depression and wwii
FDR has four terms in office. Why? Because the people are frightened. They want an end to the bloodshed caused by the conquests of Hitler and Stalin and Japan and the depression, etc. So they surrender much of their individual soverign rights through legislation. for expedience. What is that quote about using democracy to steer a ship? I can't remember right now. Churchill and England's people were doing the same thing. This is the atmosphere of Orwells 1984.
This is where your legal criminal, the anti humanist creeps in. I put the start at 1934 or so the year the sec was created headed by a Kennedy. It's a kind of luck thing. a primary learning secondary learning thing. anti humanists realize that fear led people to surrender sovereign rights through legislation and they have been using this tecnique since. Now they have all kind of technology and gadgets to aid them/
But why have they not already completed a full realization of their negative utopia. Is 80 years not enough time? Why not?
Because that constitution was clever enough that it has kept the anti humanists in check for now. They want nothing more than to burn that parchment like a war protester burns the flag.
Now with regards to "brain washing" even the legal criminals are not immune. The leaders of today are not he same leaders of the 1930's and 1940's. They can be behaviorally modified also and it is corporations that do this. And I think this has been happening since the middle ages with merchants and craft guilds learning to align with and manipulate nobles and lords. they use human greed to their advantage.
So corporations manipulate government which manipulates the masses who work for the corporations and depend on them for production and distribution.
It is not taxes to government that should be stopped but careful boycott and control of purchases of goods and services from corporations deemed anti-humanist.
Liberty day should be on election day when we restore sovereign rights through legislation.
And By the way, this means the fed is still bad.
Consider this a rough outline of where I stand. You will probably be tempted to bombard me with critics, but understand I have only begun to formalize this notion. I cannot defend it very well at this point in time.
I shall not quit.
Last edited on Thu Mar 28th, 2013 11:24 pm by