Thank you for answering ,, I will move the discussion over to neils new thread ,, See you there Allan
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > Allan, there is thread that Neil has started... it's important... > starts with what " I " and we each might want, as in time vs work vs > remuneration, sees problems in that context that democracy as a system > has, and recalls the presence of "banksters" and oligarchs who might > certainly ( oxymoron ) thwart the kind of dispensation which will > allow all that we seek in economic terms, to serve in turn our need > for freedom and leisure ! > > First, as it is, we are not there at all... when our dream of a fair > life, with freedom and sufficiency, can be guaranteed for everyone. > > Not when we have just ousted Gaddafi, who'd stolen 143 tonnes of gold > ( approx US$ 8 billions ) with the connivance of this same world order > that prevails. > > Not when armies and militias are equipped to establish the " might is > right " rule in US, Turkey, Israel, LatAm, Africa, ME, Pak, Maoists in > India n Nepal, Sri Lanka, Burma, China, Philipines, NKorea... and a > whole host of motley warlords and rebels all over. > > Not when 1318 TNCs still control ownership over the wealth and means > that produce 80% of world's revenues and bankroll most of the > "might" ! > > Agreed a few societies can begin to take tentative steps... yet, even > in them, not everybody is on the same page, with the same degree of > evolution. The Scandinavians are much better placed but there too the > effects of globalisation and multi-culturalism is manifest, both for > the better, in fostering liberalism, and worse, in fracturing the > homogeneity and causing social fault lines. > > In conclusion, I do not find myself in a position to lay out > certainties... a whole picture with rules, institutions and processes, > clearly laid out across society, polity and economy, and a justice > system to keep it going. > > Now, this is not say that I do not have ideas of what a modern > Corporation should be like or what is the kind of Society I would > prefer to have. > > I Much complexity about us... as individuals, persons... has to be > sorted out in our spirit and our intellect, so as to be able to by- > pass the emotional relativism we claim as a matter of right, in our > needs and our value judgements, our willfulness, our motivations, our > sense and extent of ownership, etc... before we really can expect > simplicity in our deeds, speech, values, behaviour and way of life. > > The social, economic and political simplicity must seamlessly pervade > our personal lives, which in turn should be self - empowered enough to > deal with the complexities that arise through our sub-conscious, vital > and emotional content. These complexities, drives and should be > channeled into arts, meditation, literature, drama, celluloid, canvas, > music, crafts, even personal religious practices... but not find > expression in speech or behaviour transgressing our community > commitment to simplicity, fairness, honesty, freedom, non-violence, > human rights, compassion and kindness. > > It's a tall order... one I believe in, live with, and most of the time > act in accord, without having hope or expectation of any kind from > others or society about me. > > II We would always need human initiative... to create, improve, > form, lead, manage, organise, write, debate, think, suggest, > experiment... so, Capitalism would still be our best bet, under > regulation to check... miscarriage of justice, unjust treatment, > unfair practice or advantages, equal opportunity, transparency, human > rights, recognition and reward, etc. > > Profit is welcome... profiteering is not. Profit should take care of > reasonable expenses and remunerations, returns on risks and > initiatives, cost of capital, and the costs of remaining in business > in future incl R&D, creation of reserves, etc. > > III I would still go along with Democracy, not only for want of a > better system of governance but also for the promises its evolution > holds. All it needs are mechanisms and structures to feedback people's > will and participitation, not just from one election to another but on > monthly, fortnightly and daily basis. > > There should be a number of truly autonomous, empowered and competent > regulatory bodies to oversee the Govt / Executive, quite as the > Judiciary oversees the Legislature passing laws in accord with > provisions in the Constitution... Regulatory Bodies for Exchanges, > Insurance, Anti-Corrution, Citizen's Charter Of Services, Human > Rights, Food, Education, Sports, Media, Advertising, Consumer > Protection, Energy, Mining, Environment, Animal Rights, Water > Resources, Forests, Pollution, Companies & Corporations, etc. > > There should Promotion bodies as well, as institutional arms of the > govt. > > IV Corporations are unavoidable... but they ought to be more in the > nature of public trusts, as in they serve the people and their needs, > than private fiefs ! > > The rest will take care of itself... once its people interests and > will that comes centre-stage in govt, parliament, judiciary, corp, > police... that's all we want, in preparing for the day when people are > ready to form society in accord with their higher nature ! > > Sorry for the voluminous output. And Thanks for your patience. > > On Oct 24, 11:51 am, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > I actually understand what you are saying Vam,, I do not think it is > > forcing ones will on another,, Just to the contrary,, it is looking at > > ideas to build a better society, hopefully you will add you thoughts and > > ideas,, looking at what is wrong and not just saying this is bad , this > is > > bad condemning everything,, not this is bad but what is more important > is > > we look at how to improve all of society taking the best of eastern and > > western ideas.. > > > > I do not think India run by a few individuals using corporations is what > > you want.. or is it? > > > > Unfortunately the world is becoming more dependent on the rest of > society. > > The questions come down to what we see as good in our way of life > (western) > > and hopefully what you see as good in your way of life (eastern) but that > > takes your input in all areas philosophical, financial, and in > economics, > > which includes health care, how to deal with natural disasters, > > Today unfortunately what happens in your home also effects me here in > > Holland , Neil in England and Molly in the States , just to name a few.. > > > > The question is two part.. 1; How do we create a better society 2: how do > > we prevent corporations from dominating the world society. > > > > But if you do not add you insights on just how you see the world > government > > should be.. How can your ideas be included if you do not add them? > > > > Not that any of us have the power to change the world, there are some of > us > > who qualify as "grouchy old men" me included.. But , I repeat But maybe > > someone will read what we have to say that can improve the world and > > society. > > > > Vam your ideas on what corporations,and government should be like is > > extremely important,, at least to me. > > > > The question is how do we improve all of society and is is it possible to > > keep the individuality and best of each society. > > Allan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 7:30 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I share your enthusiasm Gabby. All very well Vam - yet the language > > > around us is so deceptive we have to do something new with it so as > > > not to be suckered by fine words from the weasel. > > > > > On Oct 24, 5:35 am, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > From Brihadaranyaka Upanishad ( one of the oldest ) : > > > > > > "Verily, not for the sake of the husband, my dear, is the husband > > > > loved, but he is loved for the sake of the self which, in its true > > > > nature, is one with the Supreme Self. > > > > > > "Verily, not for the sake of the wife, my dear, is the wife loved, > but > > > > she is loved for the sake of the self. > > > > > > "Verily, not for the sake of the sons, my dear, are the sons loved, > > > > hut they are loved for the sake of the self. > > > > > > "Verily, not for the sake of wealth, my dear, is wealth loved, but it > > > > is loved for the sake of the self. > > > > > > "Verily, not for the sake of the brahmin, my dear, is the brahmin > > > > loved, but he is loved for the sake of the self. > > > > > > "Verily, not for the sake of the kshatriya, my dear, is the kshatriya > > > > loved, but he is loved for the sake of the self. > > > > > > "Verily, not for the sake of the worlds, my dear, are the worlds > > > > loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self. > > > > > > "Verily, not for the sake of the gods, my dear, are the gods loved, > > > > but they are loved for the sake of the self. > > > > > > "Verily, not for the sake of the beings, my dear, are the beings > > > > loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self. > > > > > > Verily, not for the sake of the All, my dear, is the All loved, but > it > > > > is loved for the sake of the self. > > > > > > "Verily, my dear Maitreyi, it is the Self that should be realized— > > > > should be heard of, reflected on, and meditated upon. > > > > > > By the realization of the Self, my dear—through hearing, reflection, > > > > and meditation—all this is known. > > > > > > On Oct 23, 11:55 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > To feel concern for others or love , is a human feeling and a > person > > > > > tries to better the lot of the less fortunate. There is nothing > > > > > Eastern or Western about this , but it is only a humane sentiment > and > > > > > is common to all societies. If I make the lives of a few others > happy > > > > > I feel happy about it , but that doesn't mean that my behavior is > > > > > self-centered , rather it would be so if I acted for my personal > > > > > well-being at the expense of others. > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Vam <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > I do not understand much that has been said here... really. > > > > > > > > What I can make out is this talk of doing something "for others." > > > This > > > > > > is shit. You don't do anything for others, because you can't. > You can > > > > > > only do something for yourself. Now, if you believe that owning > half > > > > > > the world or a huge mansion, or a carpeting that takes you 3" > into > > > the > > > > > > ground is what you want to do for yourself... then that's what > you'll > > > > > > do ! > > > > > > > > The entire suggestion of doing something for others rests on the > > > > > > premise that that's what makes me happy. If it doesn't, then one > > > > > > wouldn't do it. And, even if one does because one is forced to > do, it > > > > > > wouldn't make one happy. Which doesn't help the person... in his > > > > > > becoming happy ! > > > > > > > > That's the Eastern thing... I help others because I want to help > > > > > > myself... because that's the only way I can help myself ! > > > > > > > > On Oct 23, 4:48 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> Somewhat related: > > > > > > > >> "42 > > > > > > > >> Note how perverse is the attitude of the weak toward their > > > > > >> benefactors. They feel generosity as oppression; they want to > > > > > >> retaliate. They say to their benefactors: ' May the day come > when > > > you > > > > > >> shall be weak and we will send bundles to America.' > > > > > > > >> You do not win the weak by sharing your wealth with them; it > will > > > but > > > > > >> infect them with greed and resentment. You can win the weak > only by > > > > > >> sharing your pride, hope or hatred with them." > > > > > > > >> from "The Passionate State of Mind" By Eric Hoffer > > > > > > > >> On Oct 22, 8:42 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >> > One could hold Marx accountable for the horrors of the Soviet > > > Union > > > > > >> > and China under Mao. Not his economic analysis but some of > > > > > >> > revolutionary urging - though surely countless abuses by the > > > "noble > > > > > >> > class" are worse. I did some shameful stuff handling > informants > > > in > > > > > >> > our stupid war in Northern Ireland, excusing it at the time > under > > > a > > > > > >> > greater good I now know false. We ran an even bloodier war in > > > > > >> > Indonesia (28,000 dead) most in the UK were not aware of at > the > > > time > > > > > >> > and many don't know about now (though it's no longer secret). > > > > > > > >> > I've been led to believe we can't really discuss much on > society > > > > > >> > unless we address the realities of world power and its links > to > > > the > > > > > >> > money system the rich dominate. Otherwise one more or less > cops > > > out > > > > > >> > and makes a living. Teaching has led me to realise how scant > my > > > own > > > > > >> > knowledge is, but also the lack of interest most people have > in > > > > > >> > learning more than what gets them by. > > > > > > > >> > We now have the technology to show how many things link up and > > > that > > > > > >> > the "riches" developed in a shadow banking system that is > bigger > > > than > > > > > >> > the real economy several times over are fictitious and merely > suck > > > > > >> > value out of toil - and the same technology could also > regulate > > > the > > > > > >> > economy through 'transparent money' - instead it's used for > the > > > > > >> > opposite purpose and also supports the military complex. > This is > > > > > >> > obvious but people still don't get it. > > > > > > > >> > On Oct 22, 7:47 pm, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > Life is always full of cause and effects. Everyone is > > > accountable for the > > > > > >> > > effects caused by their actions,, even if you claim to have > no > > > choice.... > > > > > >> > > Allan > > > > > > > >> > > On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 7:48 PM, archytas < > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > People 'escape' responsibility in fictitious ways all the > > > time RP - > > > > > >> > > > though I agree that inevitably one can't. I'm always > > > saddened by > > > > > >> > > > those who stress we should have communism or capitalism > and > > > can't see > > > > > >> > > > there is some kind of loop. They want to reduce > everything > > > to a kind > > > > > >> > > > of baby-talk more appropriate to sport locker rooms than > > > responsible > > > > > >> > > > dialogue. The escape from responsibility is into > world-views > > > that > > > > > >> > > > exclude the other and especially consequences for others. > > > > > > > >> > > > On Oct 22, 6:26 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > To be held accountable for one's actions , doesn't it > look > > > scary when > > > > > >> > > > > you know you couldn't have done otherwise given your > > > personality at > > > > > >> > > > > the given time and the circumstances. Yet we cannot > escape > > > > > >> > > > > responsibility ! > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:41 PM, archytas < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > I like the theme RP - but what of being 'bound' by > > > genetics/evolution/ > > > > > >> > > > > > environment - which gives some clues on how to escape > > > through > > > > > >> > > > > > knowledge? > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Oct 13, 4:30 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > >> It is God who binds you and not you yourself , and so > > > you are > > > > > >> > > > > >> accountable to yourself and society , but not to > God. In > > > this world > > > > > >> > > > > >> you are doing everything freely , but in God's > presence > > > you are just a > > > > > >> > > > > >> puppet. If I am bound to err , it doesn't absolve me > of > > > the action as > > > > > >> > > > > >> it has been done by me , and if you hurt me , again > you > > > are > > > > > >> > > > > >> accountable for it as it is done by you. It is only > in > > > God's presence > > > > > >> > > > > >> that you are innocent as you are a puppet in his > hand , > > > > ... > > > > read more » -- ( ) |_D Allan Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
