I've swung towards it in recent years. Can't get anyone to do what they should without the threat of making them pay!
Orn - given our penchant for disliking mainstream media - and for another thread - it does seem we ought to be able to detail what it is we don't like about it, and what might be done. I'd see this as teleologically (no Chaz, no pain?) linked to unity too. I'll just give an example here, and start a thread to invite comment. We have a post strike coming this week - news coverage is pisspoor, with union leaders being told they are putting the Royal Mail at risk (as though they wouldn't know this). Gawpy reporting like this needs to be stopped, but how? The anti-unity bullet would work, but I take it we are non-violent? On 19 Oct, 16:58, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
