You're right and I appologize. I should know better but my juvenile obstinance got the better of me. I will hand the ball over to someone else for now.
On Aug 3, 12:23 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
