Meh! compo culture, I'd do away with that if I could.
On 19 Oct, 16:31, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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,
>
> ...
>
> read more »- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
