internally, organization becomes increasingly simpler, with simpler forms or impressions. externally, organization becomes increasingly more complex with more comprehensive forms and expressions. When internal and external are truly one...the flow.
On Dec 9, 6:26 am, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > True. One fundamental is : enough among us need to be capable of > better decision - making on moment - to - moment basis, day after day, > wherever we are, however placed and situated. > > Demonstrable Eligibility : To be doing the least harm to himself, his > family, his society ; capability to add significantly through > practise of one profession or another is preferred. > > Strong Ineligibility : Excessive subscription to nationality, race, > religion, caste or creed, lineage or clique, or to any one way of > life, culture or thought, to the exclusion of others. > > Organisation : Oneself. > > Which is where I see we might be failing, severely. Proof : we have > so much unclear, incompetence, and so much * to criticise ! * > > Much is happening, I guess. There are organisations galore, but no > organisation can make us take better decisions. For many of us, by > choice, there are no real organisations to look up to. > > On Dec 9, 2:42 pm, fran the man <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Theoretically, it's all so easy, isn't it? I have no doubt that our > > present global productivity and resources are sufficient to supply > > even our oversized population with secure subsistence; as Neil defines > > it, "enough to eat, shelter, warmth, collectivity, > > education, health care, honest policing and legal protection." The > > current contrast between useless superfluity and want is often > > obscene.http://www.manetti.it/web/eng/edible/bin/ > > > The problem is getting from here to there. > > > Francis > > > On 9 Dez., 09:46, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the concept of karma is > > > not valid. Otherwise all those people would already have > > > metamorphosised into cockroaches. Or perhaps they have, on the > > > inside ... not Gabby, but from a Guardian blog. > > > I have seen a lot of material over the years on getting rid of > > > poverty. 'Critical Perspectives in Accounting' has produced a few, > > > including a penny on income tax as enough (a Foucauldian perspective). > > > There is a critical side to this kind of dream and I wouldn't engage > > > with it to knock the dream. The first horrible fact is that > > > interventions have produced a great many more people in poverty simply > > > through the use of medicine, decent water supply (not always so > > > decent) and improved agriculture. It would have been more sensible to > > > cap the population back in the 1950s. We haven't grasped this nettle > > > even now. > > > Our general notion of improving matters is more of the same through > > > consuming capitalism - this means our thinking is that of idiots. > > > I like the idea of enough to eat, shelter, warmth, collectivity, > > > education, health care, honest policing and legal protection - and > > > that these should come 'free'. They should be free in the sense of us > > > contributing what we can to all this as a 'responsibility' (all of us, > > > with no exceptions - this raising problems with disability, but not > > > insurmountable ones). Freeriding should not be possible either by > > > scrotes or through wealth. This should be national (international) > > > service - something we all do (do, not just pay for). > > > What we do that is more than this should not wreck the world. > > > > Even at this stage there are many objections that can be raised. What > > > would motivation be in such a society, what grim bureaucracies might > > > make things worse, what sadness might we cause for those wanting > > > massive numbers of children and so on? Would we crush the very > > > creativity we need or create more space for it? I'd want to limit any > > > earnings or establish a potlach to allow personal kudos in > > > accumulation, but one that comes to a collective end. Would this > > > destroy the world because bweankers (this sort of describes bean > > > counting and the onamism of bankers) could not be bothered to do > > > anything without motivational bonuses? > > > > On 9 Dec, 07:57, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > This is the position we need to be working from Orn. I was at a > > > > session for self-employed people yesterday and BS aside you could feel > > > > that people present wanted to contribute not just scrabble for cash. > > > > Yet sadly this was what the session was about. My own desire not to > > > > work for anyone else is driven by a desire not to be part of quite > > > > dreadful conditions in employment that deny my integrity (flawed as I > > > > accept it is) and almost any chance to be human. I sort of want > > > > something a bit like the 'free table' of Plato or Aristotle, though am > > > > nauseated by any thought of a slavery base for this. I like Kibbutz > > > > ideas. There are deeper, wider issues though. > > > > I feel privileged when you bring matters such as this to our table > > > > mate. And when Chris brings reminders that there is an industry of > > > > such. By the time I've done my thinking on the ideal, I recognise > > > > there is much organisation to be done and that we do not reach an > > > > ideal. Sooner or later issues like population control enter and one > > > > realises the ideal brings practical responsibilities. This should not > > > > stop us. > > > > > On 8 Dec, 14:18, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > A very interesting view: > > > > > > ... > > > > > MUHAMMAD YUNUS: I believe that, totally, poverty is not part of human > > > > > being, that is my first premise, so if it not part of human being the > > > > > real human being will emerge some day, it is the stupidity of human > > > > > being that created poverty, so stupidity can not go on, the real > > > > > creativity of human being will take over the stupidity and it will > > > > > completely eliminate it and this is the century when it will happen. > > > > > And it can be done, it's not a, a kind of a pipe dream or some > > > > > fantastic thing, it's possible because it's us who make the difference > > > > > and if we can create the structures to do that; people will raise > > > > > themselves out of poverty, just like that. Human beings created to do > > > > > much bigger things than struggle with food and clothes and some tiny > > > > > little thing. These are matters of past, these are pre-historic thing. > > > > > Real history will begin when there are no such things. > > > > > ... > > > > > > The entire interview is > > > > > at:http://www.abc.net.au/tv/elders/transcripts/s2757468.htm-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.
