I think I'd do go back in terms of 'beginning'. If we want unity, then we have to accept some painful messages. The first is that we live in fear of creating enemies. This means that we 'beggar our neighbours'. Soon we have foreign policies that do just this and also require us to stay ahead in the race. There is no point in proceeding without recognising that we can't just accept reaching a point where this kind of 'dirty world' argument wins because we haven't dealt with it. The first text I'm aware of on this comes from Plato, but I suspect earlier origins. Religion becomes a 'handy' means of social control along with myths of origination, superiority and the rest. This means we can assume no boundaries - we can't leave some crackpots alone to work on doomsday weapons and so on - there has to be international policing. I'd also say, that because a small number of idiots with guns can dominate very large territory, we have to accept a role for armed services and policing.
I'm not going to go on just now. This debate is forever old. Plato, Aristotle, Moore, Margaret Lucas Cavendish, Hobbes and many others have left some good and some useless pedantry and rationalisation. I don't recommend the books as good reading to say the least, but we should be able to recognise others and try not to re-invent too many wheels. I believe a major problem in this area is that people don't 'want' to join in. And that one needs an attitude of 'repeated beginnings' to understand what the issues are. If this unity is there, then powerful forces have been suppressing it. On 19 Oct, 11:57, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > Ohh you are a brave one OM. > > What can this group who's concepts of politics, and faith or lack of > are many abd veried agree on. > Umm well lets give you my insight and we'll see whathappens. > > 1. The right to life. (even though at some point overpopulation > will > have to be addressed.) > > What does this mean? The right to live how you choose? Then yes we > should each be able to do tis within the scope of the law of course. > > 2. Liberty. Where does one place limits here, if at all? > > Agian as with the right to life within the scope of the law. Should we > endevour though to make those laws undermining liberty viod? Some yes > and some no. For example it does seem silly to me to not make all > recreational drugs legal. > > 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? > > We must help those in our societies that need help, so a more than > decent helath care system that costs little to the pacient is a must. > > 4. Justice. How is this determined? > > Makeing restitution for wrongs done, I would say. > > On 19 Oct, 03:36, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > “…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 > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
