“…My guess is we have been made to believe we can't sort things out and need accountants rather than developing our own accounts…” – Archy
Sadly, this appears to be the actual case. Those who wish to make a living based on their being in charge of revelation and passing collection plates do have a vested interest in maintaining their mystique of Grand Poobah of all group trances and memes On Oct 18, 7:08 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
