I'm off to bed (3 a.m. here). Just been going over delta and gamma hedging and discounted cash flow in asset valuation so my head hurts.
I agree much clarification and expansion is needed Orn. I'm pretty convinced what we need to do has been mystified (delta, gamma and DCF and the rest of financial economics won't help us - all invisible cloth in the end). My guess is we have been made to believe we can't sort things out and need accountants rather than developing our own accounts. Getting into a spirit of unity and feeling less fear is the key. I can remember Francis talking of some kind of 'religion' we could reasonably believe in. The forces against this are enormous. On 19 Oct, 01:20, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > (quick comentary on Neil's points:) > > 1. How much work do we really need to do to support decent living > standards now? > > Well, to come to an agreement here, I would suggest that we will need > to discuss the notion of ‘decent living standards’ and in a non- > provincial way too. Even though in the global minority, I would > present indoor plumbing. Or at the very least, well treated outhouses. > Of course, food availability and assurance of its purity would be > included as I see it. The amount of work necessary would seem to > differ dependent upon the prevailing economic ideology and political > reality. While I have glimpses, I have no clear view how one would do > away with such relative issues. My guess is that communal living would > come close to answering much of this. > > 2. How could we sensibly reduce the global population? > > Too bad there is the qualifier, ‘sensibly’ included here. However, > perhaps the Chinese methodology was more effective than either ‘Just > say no.’. This would require some sort of buy-in by humanity. > > 3. What do we need to work on to make communities sustainable and > resilient? > > The primary thing I see is clarity of view, ontological included. > While a rainbow of personalities will be present and central, a > recognition of innate realities seems to be necessary for both > adjectives. > > 4. What big science should we be doing and why? > > The ‘why’ is seldom known until after the fact, no? Regardless, some > agreement on intentionality and areas of study does seem to be > required. I would add to any attempts at shoulding and whying, one > must ask what are the unexpected (and undesirable) results of such > sciences. > > 5. How do we grasp equality whilst recognising people aren't the > same? > > Methods already exist. > > 6. How do we motivate and record work as credit to a citizen? > > I’m not sure the range of your rhetorical argument here Neil. My guess > though would again be that such recognitions would have to be > acknowledged as being innate…and not just by the few. > > 7. What range of earnings should we allow? > > If I am clear about your first question, the answer would be quite > close by. > > 8. How do we create a knowledge base with open, free access? > > The framework of a formal one is in place, the net. However, if you > are talking of something more metaphysical, more contemplation and > ‘work’ would be needed. > > 9. How do we form democratic armed services and police? > > So, the assumption is that current national boundaries are a given and > required. I’m not so sure that is a go. > > 10.How do we break up professional restrictive practices? > > Expansion of the Q is required first. > > 11. How do we form a new politics of countervailing institutions > working for the people and much more answerable to the people? > > One way would be for the people to feel less fear and in the spirit of > Patrick Henry know the spirit and unity of us all. > > “It goes on. The key thing to me is none of the above, but trying to > do something already collective, based in all of our ideas.” - Neil > > Sorry, I don’t grok “already collective” etc. So, since nothing above > is ‘key’ and I don’t grasp your suggested way of going, further and > clearer interaction would be needed, no? : -) > > On Oct 18, 4:39 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > My main concern is that we should be trying to establish what is basic > > to us. I'd go for something around: > > > 1. How much work do we really need to do to support decent living > > standards now? > > 2. How could we sensibly reduce the global population? > > 3. What do we need to work on to make communities sustainable and > > resilient? > > 4. What big science should we be doing and why? > > 5. How do we grasp equality whilst recognising people aren't the same? > > 6. How do we motivate and record work as credit to a citizen? > > 7. What range of earnings should we allow? > > 8. How do we create a knowledge base with open, free access? > > 9. How do we form democratic armed services and police? > > 10.How do we break up professional restrictive practices? > > 11. How do we form a new politics of countervailing institutions > > working for the people and much more answerable to the people? > > > It goes on. The key thing to me is none of the above, but trying to > > do something already collective, based in all of our ideas. > > On 18 Oct, 23:11, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Often posts suggesting a better way of thinking, living, being etc. is > > > not only possible but is necessary show up here. Being immersed in > > > idealism myself, I thought a thread where we could ‘work’, in the > > > sense of finding agreement, might be at best helpful - at worst, > > > informative. > > > > To that end, and with the hope of not getting too bogged down in > > > argumentation, what primary points do we agree upon? The details, > > > wherein lie both devils and dragons, can be addressed once the basic > > > structure is codified. > > > > Areas I suggest include: > > > > 1. The right to life. (even though at some point overpopulation will > > > have to be addressed.) > > > 2. Liberty. Where does one place limits here, if at all? > > > 3. Health. How do we as a people help to assure less suffering when > > > it > > > comes to our bodies and even our emotions and mind? > > > 4. Justice. How is this determined? > > > > This is only a suggested start. For me, I do not embrace the ‘eye for > > > an eye’ mentality and find other ‘solutions’ to crime etc. can be > > > found. So, regardless of human passions, life itself is sacred. > > > > As to liberty, this too can be a large topic, however, servitude not > > > self imposed seems to be unacceptable to me. What do you think? > > > > Health is a big topic today. Leaving aside the details again, at least > > > for a while, what specific areas can we agree upon, at least as far as > > > an ethos is concerned? Is it not preferable for us all to have access > > > to quality healthcare? > > > > Justice. Something that brings all sorts of beliefs. Often I bring up > > > the term universality, a concept I learned from Chomsky. In many ways, > > > it is nothing new and is about identical with things like the Golden > > > Rule and other well known admonitions and ideals. > > > > Again, I hope for finding a point of unity (agreement), the basics > > > without which any sort of unified action by humanity seems impossible > > > save through the use of force, the other option. > > > > As an analogy, I doubt that today’s cell phone would have come into > > > existence, at least not nearly as soon, without the vision of what was > > > found in Dick Tracy and/or Buck Rogers. What is your vision, the > > > basics?- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
