Now this is what I call a discussion, Vam and gruff! (BB47 and deripsni could both learn from you :-))
Maybe it's because the three of us have been around here for a while that I can really appreciate what both of you are saying, because I know something about the way the two of you think about a lot of things. Actually, I see you both arguing along similar lines; Vam has a professional background in systems analysis and quality management and has a lot of experience in the practical work of building, using and changing systems, while keeping his gaze frimly fixed on the goals (QM as it should be be, but, in my experience, so seldom is); gruff as someone who sees people/societies trying stuff, getting into messes, starting over and, somehow, sometimes, getting it a bit more right the next time (that old 51%/49% optimistic analogy that I often doubt but always admire). So ... I think I'll stay out of this for a while and hope you both carry on! Francis On 3 Aug., 17:47, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > No, no argument though I'm not adverse to a good one. Just two > different perspectives crossing each other's paths, each exploring the > other like two starships from different systems probing each other -- > or even like two dogs sniffing each other's behinds if you like. > Either is good. > > It seems then that if you're blaming the system you are asking the > system to be smarter, better, more perfect, then its creator and > that's a zero sum game at best -- at very best. To me it seems like > your asking the programmer to write a perfect program containing no > bugs. > > Now we can work at a system that might better control our larcenous > natures -- and in the short term this might be the best approach as I > am in favor of regulation in the marketplace (with the reservation > that it can't be too much regulation or the wrong kind which could > strangle the free-market aspect of it and be self-defeating.) -- but > in the long term it seems to me the only place to aim our efforts > regarding our larcenies and connivances is at the source -- ourselves > and the fears that cause us to continually outwit ourselves in the > chase to outwit each other. > > I like your talisman. The tears and suffering of the last man in line > fits very nicely with my perception of the universe. Oh, I did not > mean to imply you had a religion but it is very spiritual. Perhaps > mine is also but it's not a quality that I bother myself with. I > prefer to aim at what I perceive to be the supreme being in creation, > albeit in the becoming as we speak, us. There is no system but what > we create. We have passed out of the realm where the natural system > dominates and have created our own. We've been doing this for a very > short time in the cosmic scale of things but that's okay. Everything > has to begin somewhere sometime. > > I didn't mean to get carried away there, but to my perspective we are > central, core, to our own existence and can only look to ourselves for > solutions. There are no external systems, no external gods, no > external anything that we have not passed by long ago (on our own > scale of time, that is.). We're on our own out here on the edge of > this thing we call civilization. > > To this second we have not yet created the system that can contain > us. We'd rape socialism as well as we're raping capitalism and since > both are our own creations are we not in incest? In the meantime we > put up with our own larcenies and shenanigans and keep truckin' on. > But -- and I mean this in all humbleness and good spirit -- I think > your wanting to blame the system is denial. Whoops. Almost let that > slip over into argument. Sorry. > > At a bottom line this lantern is looking for the reason why a man with > millions wants billions and quite often is willing to cheat, steal, > lie and even kill to accomplish it. > > On Aug 3, 7:21 am, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Gruff, my " system " is not religion or whatever. It is more of the > > kind what lies between INPUT and OUTPUT, the software ( policies, > > values, checks, demand of action, etc.) and hardware ( people in a > > structured organisation and enabling equipments ). > > > I am speaking of details, both value directives and action processes. > > And, I am not fixated ( or limited ) to " free market." I want the > > mission statement and attention to goals and objectives derived from > > it. The vision has always been there. > > > My talisman is the same that Gandhi had : the tears and suffering of > > the last man in the queue. Whatever the philosophy, all wealth > > creation must pass that test. The results need to be delivered, and > > not endlessly looked forward to as you suggest. In fact, one can > > almost predict the next crisis with some accuracy, if the same system > > continues. > > > If you ask me, I prefer the socialist ideals but would adopt the > > moderated capitalist methods to achieve them. It is the ' hard ' > > segregations such as conservative and democrat, capitalist and > > socialist, that must give way to something more soft, more unified, > > more holistic, and more inclusive. > > > There is nothing here to argue about, Gruff ! We may have different > > values and life - view, focus and perspective. > > > On Aug 3, 6:32 pm, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The system is at fault? I can't buy that rationale for denial at > > > all. The system did not exist till people created it. We gave up the > > > natural system of living eons ago for the sometimes questionable path > > > of creating our own, but it is undeniable that we created any and all > > > of the systems we have had over our conscious history. So if the > > > system is what is causing our problems, then it has to come back home > > > to us since we created that system. > > > > A system that would or even could prevent human larcenies, connivances > > > and greed? I wonder what that might be, Vam? I don't mean to be > > > sarcastic but we have been trying for at least ten thousand years of > > > civilized history to figure out how to get people to behave and have > > > failed miserably. Our mightiest attempt was religion but it's clear > > > that has failed as gigantically and it's not even filling the churches > > > anymore. Then we tried law and punishment but that too has failed to > > > do any more than fill our prisons. Lesser attempts include > > > philosophy, psychology, psychiatry, and appealing to our own self- > > > interest and they too have all failed. > > > > Now I'm no expert on human behavior -- I don't even know how to > > > control my own the way I'd like -- but having almost seven decades > > > under my belt I think has given me some insight into at least my own > > > condition and might possibly lend to some greater insight into the > > > condition of our species by extrapolation. I don't want to bore > > > anyone because I've brought this issue up many times before and it > > > never seemed to impress, but to my perspective and understanding fear > > > is the root cause of human misbehavior. If we as a people, as a > > > society, could learn how to deal with our fears better, could learn > > > how to discern between real fear and those we create in our own hearts > > > and minds, > > > > Once we learn how to resolve our fears so they don't lead to larcenous > > > and destructive behavior the sooner we will be able to work > > > effectively and with a healthy self-interest the sooner we can make > > > this or any other system of government work the way we all know it can > > > work. > > > > On Aug 3, 2:13 am, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > " The system isn't at fault. People are. People use the system to > > > > work their connivances and larcenies. They'd use any system. ... > > > > will be successful. I'm certain of it." > > > > > Gruff, I find no realism in your optimism. It would be realistic only > > > > if you accepted that the system is at fault. That, people being what > > > > they are, we could have a better system, which will prevent their > > > > greed, connivances and larcenies. > > > > > It would be realistic only if you accepted that we now, after all that > > > > we have suffered for the greed and unhealthy motivations of the few, > > > > are not only capable of but are also interested in changing the system > > > > to something better, to one that prevents human greed, unhealthy > > > > manipulations, connivances and larcenies, and a reccurence of such > > > > failures we seen before. > > > > > With such learning from experience ploughed back to make for a more > > > > robust and fail - safe system, our optimism would seem more > > > > reasonable, hence realistic.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
