I'd licence all recreational drugs Lee - that way the sucker-punters could sue the legal companies supplying them and take a burden off the NHS.
On 19 Oct, 14:17, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
