 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
I could not get past this:
This corporation operates on the principles of capitalism which is to say it takes an initial capital to make more capital to make more capital etc. to increase it's surplus wealth and thereby increase the standard of living of its members. (believe it or not this includes the workforce)
Why does my belief have any place in this measure of reality? If it is true, it can be measured as true.
This is a measure:
You owe so get to work now.
You can make these claims, including a claim about how real something is even if I don't believe it, but measures are measures, so one measure (yours) can be measured against another measure (the official one) or another measure (mine).
Yours says that this corporation transfers power from the workers to the employers and back to the workers.
That is your measure.
The official measure is claiming that I owe at a minimum 148,155.00 Federal Reserve Notes.
I don't believe your claim and more than I believe the official claim made by the people who you say are this corporation.
I know that those criminals torture people with the surplus wealth I help create.
So now we have 3 measures in view.
Mike and his Legal Fiction claims
The Legal Fiction's official claims
Joe ready and willing to show Mike all the inculpatory evidence proving how evil those legal criminals are as they torture and murder people with the POWER they steal from their targets.
I can read the rest of your welcome response and I can thank you for adding your perspective to the Russian History and the Singularity Topics.
This is our fence.
I have been attempting, through a metaphysical discussion thread to get you to abandon your notion of duality to which you cling.
If I could recognize the person who you are targeting with these accusations then I could find that person and have a chat with that person. Where is this person who clings to a notion of duality?
What is a notion of duality?
"Life is good."
I can recognize that perception as being one of my perceptions so long as it is understood that the perception is relative not absolute. I've state as much, and I can repeat the perception from my own capacity to do so, and I may actually be able to communicate the perception intact to you, but that would be a future event that appears not to be the present case.
"No life is bad."
I think not.
If you think life is bad, then that is your perception, or a perception you are creating and then attaching to someone else, someone like me. Are you creating a perception and attaching your created perception to me, and the example is those four words?
"If the process of removing the "legal criminals" from their position of power results in the termination of their lives, is this then, bad? "
Relative to anyone abandoning crime as a means of survival and becoming either a recipient of voluntary charity or a productive person: yes, the answer is demonstrably yes, as far as my measure of reality I am capable of doing with my power of perception.
It is bad that criminals commit crime in proportion to the destruction of life, including their own.
"If you managed to successfully organize the people (the workforce) and end the funding of the executives, departments and managers of the corporation of America or England or any of the other developed nations and cause their fall, I believe your followers, clinging to the same paradigm of a dual-natured reality, would recreate the same tiered society only using a restructured form of management. I believe recorded history confirms this."
It appears as if you have created a fantasy concerning what I am, what I think, what I do, and what I see, and your fantasy is unrecognizable to me, so where did this fantasy erupt into being?
If the form of government returns to a Free Market one, then there will be forces at work that work to increase the quality of government and lower the cost of government and that can be demonstrated as to how that does work when it works that way, where it worked that way, and all that can have nothing whatsoever to do with me, since it has worked without any input from me, because it worked before I was born into the perception that I currently exist as being me.
Your Legal Fiction and my fabricated "dual-natured reality", to me, are complete fabrications of your imagination, having nothing to do with the criminals running Legal Crime, those most powerful among us, whoever they are, or me in any way I can measure at the moment. It is as if you are watching a movie, or reading a book, or writing a story, and you tell me the title of the movie, or the book, or the story, and I say how nice, but what does that have to do with me?
I have been attempting to have you realize that the "legal criminals" are also humans being humans and as such they are acting in what they believe creates a society that is "good".
Examples of one may help, and then I can know that one case.
I can offer examples of those most evil of the legal criminals, what they do, why they do it, in their own words, and their version of "good" is human, because they are flesh and blood, but their version of good is inhuman if English has any capacity to convey accurate meaning.
You pick one of the good guys, please, and I'll know what you are talking about, and it will no longer be a mystery or fantasy.
I'll pick one of the Legal Criminals.
You will be on your side of the fence.
I'll be showing you what exists, and know that I want to fence myself out of it entirely.
I feel that if you could understand this you would be able to let go of your ego and think like a "legal criminal" and that if you did you would realize that the easiest way, the way that requires the least amount of energy to maintain order, is to make the workforce happy. For instance, wars do not make for a happy work force. They do not torture for the fun and profit of it. In fact, even amongst the members of the executive offices of the corporation there is serious disagreement whether or not torture leads to the prevention of war or a happy work force.
Examples, please.
You find one.
I'll find one.
You will be speaking about the good guy, if you find one, and that will be what you re speaking about on your side of the fence.
Do you really believe that I can't find bad ones in very powerful places, doing very evil things, for their fun, and for their profit?
I could offer many examples, but for brevity I will not at this time do so.
I will get the ball rolling, here on my side of the fence, where your vision appears to be blurred as to what is over here on my side of the fence.
I will start with 2 early cases.
A.
The Dirty Compromise and all who were involved in that invention, production, and maintenance. The most obvious legal criminal (based upon information available to me) is Alexander Hamilton.
B.
The Whiskey Rebellion and all who were involved in that invention, production, and execution. The most obvious legal criminals (based upon information available to me) is Alexander Hamilton and George Washington.
C.
Alien and Sedition Acts and all who were involved in their invention, production, and maintenance. The most obvious legal criminal (based upon information available to me) is John Adams.
These A,B,C, goes on and on, and D goes off the charts.
D.
The Waco torture and mass murder made legal case and all who were involved in that invention, production, and execution. The most obvious legal criminal (based upon information available to me) is the Serial Killer named Clinton.
Waco will suffice to illustrate the point as it defines the true measure of legal crime as well as any other case within my field of vision on this side of the fence.
I believe a long term solution to this problem is a shift in the current paradigm of human awareness of thinking in terms of duality, but this will take a long time. I am especially, just now, realizing how long of a time it will take based on the difficulty I or Jee-Host are having on convincing you that perception is not self-evident.
It seems to me that I can perceive, so your claims prove the point, so your claims are false, even as you make them.
I do not say that you can perceive. How would I know? I can't, can I? I am not saying that you can experience self-evident perception.
If that is what you perceive.
I can perceive a claim made by you, apparently, that you can't convince me that perception is not self-evident; meanwhile my perception of your claim is perception of your claim.
Perception is, and perhaps your claims are not anything at all, but I still perceive them, so your claims, therefore, of me not perceiving, if that is your claim, is false.
I perceive.
Whatever you seek to gain in this "convincing" will only prove the point.
I perceive.
So on your side of the fence you perceive company in your perception of Sergey having a similar perception as yours, and you two are failing to "convince" me of something you perceive, and that is that I am wrong?
I do not perceive?
I am wrong about perceiving that I perceive?
That is what is happening on your side of the fence?
That has nothing to do with me on my side of the fence, since I still perceive.
Self evident perception, right there, in perception of light, in perception of a constant ringing in one side of my perceptive capacity.
They say that tinnitus is the sound of silence, and sometimes it sounds like hell reaching for me.
Self-evident perception can get ugly. On your side of the fence, I suppose, and I'm not saying that I perceive that my supposition is true, or self-evident, or absolutely factual, but my guess is that on your side of the fence there is this perception that perception can end.
I do not think that perception can end, not for sure, not a self-evident fact, so I don't go there, if you can. I don't. I mean to say that I don't invest in a belief that perception can end, since all I know so far is that perception exists, because it exists now.
"The short term solution, the way to stem the tide of government control, is most certainly an economic one."
Based upon the information I perceive, this information that may, or may not, be originating from another perceptive being, a possible perceptive being called Mike, based upon that information, from that possible source, I can't make anything out of that sentence, since it is meaningless to me.
The use of the word "government" appears to be pointing to good human beings who are doing good thing with their corporation, and I think that is nice, and nothing to worry about, and so there is not problem there that is of any concern to me.
Let them solve their company problems as they see fit.
"So I am willing to set aside, for the time being, the metaphysical discussion for that of economics. "
Currently there are people in the State of Utah who have already begun the process of inventing, creating, and maintaining their own Legal Money, and if that example is not Crushed, or "Incorporated" into the Single Legal Money Monopoly Power, then other people in other States will follow suit, and those actions by those people in those States could pull the plug on World War III, and a new age of Free Market government can begin, and the practice of investing in Legal Crime can pass into human history like burning witches.
Exactly like burning witches.
I sure hope this clears some things up.
What I find reinforced often is the concept of avoiding the temptation to assume that someone else has any capacity to know how I perceive life, because I am so often wrong.
So, now, about this Joe's law...
If you can make a fence around it, please do, it is demonstrable in many ways, by many accurate measures.
Have at it - please.