Pyramid of capitalist system

[Corn]

Oh goodie, I see Corn has qualified himself to help out too. Wonder of wonders 'pop psychology is me'. This is an exciting development. Please pile on the links.

Don't even, not for a second, think any link would make any difference. You know "the truth", you are "light years ahead" of such a simpleton as I. What could I possibly link to that you don't already know or would simply discard as the wool being pulled over my eyes?

No, I think I'll pass.........I'm content to bring as much substance to this discussion as you have.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Corn

Well of course you can make all kinds of assumptions, jj, but from whence my ideas come I, in fact, know the truth. I would appreciate you showing me a couple or even a 'can' from which I speak. I would love to learn about anybody saying the same as me. Would you show me one please. I myself know nothing about this 'pop psychology' to which you refer that says the same thing as me and I await a reference or two with deep anticipation, you can be sure. And since you are so sure of yourself I know it will be an easy task.

Moonie is smart, he makes things go. We had better hide him from the Pakleds.

I know I'll never be discovered if you hide me where you hid them links. 😀

Edit: If the shoe were on the other foot, Corn, you'd be calling me a liar about now. 😀

 

[Corn]

Awww, damnit! I think I'm being played.

Evidently my compulsion to be right all the time (obviously an exercise of false pride/self-hate) cannot be stopped without medication. Somebody........anybody.......I need help......


Pop!

 

[LunarRay]

I'm bouncing from threads about caged chimps all a rage to cans and quests for the enlightened communist pyramid..
I could tell you the answer but, I'd be awash in a sea Socratian logic and develop a drowning flood of mirth.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Corn

Foolish me, I thought perhaps you had something other than ridicule and doublespeak up your sleeve. What is it that you hate about yourself so much that gives you the inclination to be so condescending?

I think I love you.

That sounds like a wedding proposal! jjones and corn sitting in a tree... 😉

 

[JellyBaby]

My fellow Americanskis I believe you could put any -ism at the top of that image, make a few small tweaks, and you'd have a carticature of the worst of said system.

Design a perfect system instead you say? Much harder to see....the Dark Side clouds everything...

 

[sandorski]

Unfettered Capitalism is just as corrupt as unfettered Communism. It's the fetters that determine the success or failure of an economic system.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: Corn
Awww, damnit! I think I'm being played.

Evidently my compulsion to be right all the time (obviously an exercise of false pride/self-hate) cannot be stopped without medication. Somebody........anybody.......I need help......


Pop!

ROFL 😀

Great link Corn, we'll get those meds for you, much cheaper down here in Mexico. 😉

As for you Moonie, I dislike playing games with you. I'll leave it at this and you can take responsibility or not. My original comment in this thread, which was made without derision towards anyone, was cut and pasted by you and then ridiculed. In response to your ridicule, I did put aside personal feelings and I asked a simple question. "And you have a better idea?" To this I was greeted with condescension in typical Moonbeam fashion. "Because one asks a question like you got something better, does not equate to a capacity for understand an answer." Poor me, viewed by Moonbeam as incapable of understanding an answer. Well Moonie, when you find yourself capable of giving an answer, an answer relevent to this world and not your fantasy world, let me know.

 

[Geekbabe]

Glad to see you all enjoyed my little offering 🙂

 

[Brie]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Unfettered Capitalism is just as corrupt as unfettered Communism. It's the fetters that determine the success or failure of an economic system.

Do you mean communism or socialism ... How can something be corrupt if it is unfettered? 😕

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Brie

Originally posted by: sandorski
Unfettered Capitalism is just as corrupt as unfettered Communism. It's the fetters that determine the success or failure of an economic system.

Do you mean communism or socialism ... How can something be corrupt if it is unfettered? 😕

I suppose if capitalism is unshackled it swings like a pendulum... it is designed to operate unfettered, I think. Socialism has to be controlled to work effectively as does Communism. I can't imagine either system unfettered and not resulting in Capitalism... eventually.. I see it as a sort of equilibrium that human nature seeks to find... a freedom to be and have... just seems natural to be that way and anything that is a force against that is the 'fetter' that keeps the endeavor from equilibrium... As I see it..

 

[sandorski]

The "fetters" are laws/regulations that seemingly contradict the economic policy in question. They take care of issues that the economic philosophy doesn't address or address poorly.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: sandorski
The "fetters" are laws/regulations that seemingly contradict the economic policy in question. They take care of issues that the economic philosophy doesn't address or address poorly.

Would you be meaning ... a law to legalize private ownership of industry in a communistic state? Or is that too general and large?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: sandorski
The "fetters" are laws/regulations that seemingly contradict the economic policy in question. They take care of issues that the economic philosophy doesn't address or address poorly.

Would you be meaning ... a law to legalize private ownership of industry in a communistic state? Or is that too general and large?

Could be, but yes, that kind of thing.

 

[Moonbeam]

jj: As for you Moonie, I dislike playing games with you. I'll leave it at this and you can take responsibility or not. My original comment in this thread, which was made without derision toward anyone, was cut and pasted by you and then ridiculed. In response to your ridicule, I did put aside personal feelings and I asked a simple question. "And you have a better idea?" To this I was greeted with condescension in typical Moonbeam fashion. "Because one asks a question like you got something better, does not equate to a capacity for understand an answer." Poor me, viewed by Moonbeam as incapable of understanding an answer. Well Moonie, when you find yourself capable of giving an answer, an answer relevent to this world and not your fantasy world, let me know.
-------------------------

Hehe, jj, I'm sorry you don't like to play games. But if you'll permit me to be a bit condescending and examine various potential meanings this could have, I'd be grateful indeed. I hope you can see these potential interpretations yourself, if not about you, than more generally when such remarks are made in other cases:

It could be that the person is really trying to reduce something he's beginning to see is serious back to something he can dismiss, a game. In other words what is happening may not be a game at all but incipient self reflection. It may also be that the person feels he is losing the game and wants out now. In either case the underlying trigger of response is the surfacing of ones own bad feelings and into which one has no intention to look. (I tried to find this point on Corn's pop site but all I saw was an ad for some nutty 'psychometer of truth', you know, the ones I'm always trying to make my fortune with here. I mean you laughed and praised the site as if it represented me, right? I'll refer to that joke a bit more later.)

So you're going to leave it at that and I can or won't take responsibility. Hehe, leaving things as that is the height of irresponsibility, no. You have to nurture and care for your responsibilities and beliefs, no?, responsibly, of course.
Your original response was made without derision, yes, I never said it was. So when you say I reacted with ridicule, you should be able to see several things. I either did or I didn't. You, therefore, were intentionally insulted or you weren't. If you were, as you say you maintained your cool for a while, and if not you felt you were being ridiculed because you have a self you don't see as self that is ridiculing you. In pop psychology, which I know you think is bunk, this is called the inner critic, or committee that sits on your shoulder and judges what you do. I say it's your pre-existing self hate projected on to me. They pop people avoid them self hate thingis like the plague. Like the rest of us, they don't want to know it's true. 😀

Yup so you were cool and asked me if I have a better idea. Here's the crux of my case:
jj: Capitalism addresses the basic nature of man better than any other system and at least it's not a farce of ideals.

The unexamined assumptions are:
1. That you know the basic nature of man

2. That capitalism is addressing that issue

3. That the addressing is better than any other system

4. That you are aware of every other system

5. That capitalism is not a farce of ideals

6. That you are a good judge of what is a farce

7. That you can tell what are ideals

Hehe, some might consider the parading of such a string as perhaps a bit presumptive and maybe even a little condescending. But me, I see it as pretty typical.

My view from pop psy 1:

1. The the knowledge of the nature of man is reserved for those who know themselves. Such people are extremely rare and almost always invisible. You have to be awake to know who is awake.

2,3,4. Capitalism addresses men who are ignorant of who they are and how they respond mechanically in that ignorance. This bundle of mechanically I call the false self, the self we become when who we really are gets put down. It's our programming and includes such things as capitalism is best.

5. Capitalism is ultimately only an ideal overlain on a false reality. Because of the universality of the false reality, it works.

6. Those of the farce cannot see the farce.

7. Ideals are that which threaten to expose the farce as a farce. The programming was laid down with pain and can't be removed except by reliving that pain. Shun ideals like the plague. They can bring pain. Of course the rub is that they also bring truth.

So there is the answers to your questions; do you agree? Or was I right, that just because you seek understanding doesn't mean you are prepared to understand the truth.

The mistake. of course, you made, was to think I was talking to you. We all personalize the universal condition of our sleep. Everybody gets pissed off when there slumber is disturbed. It looks just like condescension and ridicule. But it's just the facts Mam. How you react to them has been understood for thousands of years. Like you said, you can try to deal with them or not. It's up to you.

My better idea would be to know yourself before you settle on a system for humanity. He who knows himself may not actually even need one, yes?

The Kingdom of Heaven is within you.

What are its rules?

 

[JellyBaby]

The Kingdom of Heaven is within you.

What are its rules?

By even asking that question we're forced to draw from the tree of knowledge for an answer and not the tree of life. An economic system such as capitalism must be defined by the tree of knowledge because it defines structures, parameters, modes and the like. Thus an economic system system completely based on the tree of life isn't possible.

However one can draw on the tree of life to help shape capitalism. Could this be that "third way" you sometimes refer to? I know the New Democrats have a somewhat formalized Third Way but I'm not informed about it.

A means of production, exchange and support relying solely on our understanding of self, of other, of truth, of virtue.....my mind stops working at this point. The right and the left cross-mojinate. The only thing that pops out is this: we first need to acheive near-unlimited sources of energy production. Weird eh? With those sources it ought to be easier to replace greed with contentment among other benefits. Cold fusion coulda been all that.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

The Kingdom of Heaven is within you.

What are its rules?

By even asking that question we're forced to draw from the tree of knowledge for an answer and not the tree of life. An economic system such as capitalism must be defined by the tree of knowledge because it defines structures, parameters, modes and the like. Thus an economic system system completely based on the tree of life isn't possible.

However one can draw on the tree of life to help shape capitalism. Could this be that "third way" you sometimes refer to? I know the New Democrats have a somewhat formalized Third Way but I'm not informed about it.

A means of production, exchange and support relying solely on our understanding of self, of other, of truth, of virtue.....my mind stops working at this point. The right and the left cross-mojinate. The only thing that pops out is this: we first need to acheive near-unlimited sources of energy production. Weird eh? With those sources it ought to be easier to replace greed with contentment among other benefits. Cold fusion coulda been all that.

Well this is certainly an interesting and challenging post, one couched in as imaginative a way as one could ask, one perhaps too imaginative for my poor sensibilities to properly interpret, but I'll try according to what your thoughts trigger in me.

I would translate terms like the tree of knowledge and the tree of life as perhaps the analysis of phenomenon, a human faculty arising out of duality created by language, as opposed to the state of being from which it arose, our original state of consciousness as human animals prior to the arising of language and it's capacity to define. This is also our childhood state so in each of us there is a taste of the Garden of Eden, and plenty of indications of a place to which the mystics, the enlightened, return. Now if that makes any sense and has any appeal, then yes, without language and division, one can't separate oneself from phenomenon and describe what is happening as separate from the self. But is separate self consciousness what is real or is it a lower unselfrealized state:

Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith?

And seek not ye what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind.

For all these things do the nations of the world seek after: and your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things.

But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you.
---------
Ah me, where is he who can trust. So yes this can be part of what I mean by a third way, the ending of duality in the consciousness of now. But there are many levels of paradox that the knowledge of good and evil creates. language separates us from the now. Thought is always dead and of the past. Time does not exist, many areas in which a third way applies. Probably a big one is that good and evil do not exist. How much of life is bound by that illusion?

Yeah so where your mind stops working mine does too. Only the knowers know. But the near limitless resource of which you speak may in fact be simply be Love.

 

[AvesPKS]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Better implies a capacity for judgment. Judgment requires impartiality. Impartiality is the condition of freedom from preconceptions. Preconceptions are determinations that everything has already been judged. Because one asks a question like you got something better, does not equate to a capacity for understand an answer.

Judgement does not require impartiality, as one can never be truly impartial.

 

[Zebo]

Socialism is the only answer. We all practice it at home...even in a social group, work enviroment, or cliche we hang around we are inclined to practice it ...I never understood why it won't work nationaly. Life is so easy why do we complicate it with cash, payments, accountants, banks, security, armoured trucks, spending bills etc etc etc..Dream on?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: AvesPKS

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Better implies a capacity for judgment. Judgment requires impartiality. Impartiality is the condition of freedom from preconceptions. Preconceptions are determinations that everything has already been judged. Because one asks a question like you got something better, does not equate to a capacity for understand an answer.

Judgment does not require impartiality, as one can never be truly impartial.

Since that is your judgment you could obviously be quite wrong.

==========
To be unbiased is to not be motivated by factors which are unconscious. So he who is conscious, who has overcome the fear of his past, is not motivated by feelings he's afraid to face. This is what I mean. If you want to say that man is aware of only a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum and does not perceive true reality as it really is, fine, but who cares. I don't see Z-rays. Oh well. The rose in my garden is good enough for me.

 

[AvesPKS]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: AvesPKS

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Better implies a capacity for judgment. Judgment requires impartiality. Impartiality is the condition of freedom from preconceptions. Preconceptions are determinations that everything has already been judged. Because one asks a question like you got something better, does not equate to a capacity for understand an answer.

Judgment does not require impartiality, as one can never be truly impartial.

Since that is your judgment you could obviously be quite wrong.

==========
To be unbiased is to not be motivated by factors which are unconscious. So he who is conscious, who has overcome the fear of his past, is not motivated by feelings he's afraid to face. This is what I mean. If you want to say that man is aware of only a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum and does not perceive true reality as it really is, fine, but who cares. I don't see Z-rays. Oh well. The rose in my garden is good enough for me.

Okay, my key statement there was that judgement does not require impartiality. In your response you admitted that I made a judgement; you did not qualify your statement as to whether the judgement was to be good or poor, and so judgement does not require impartiality.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: AvesPKS

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: AvesPKS

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Better implies a capacity for judgment. Judgment requires impartiality. Impartiality is the condition of freedom from preconceptions. Preconceptions are determinations that everything has already been judged. Because one asks a question like you got something better, does not equate to a capacity for understand an answer.

Judgment does not require impartiality, as one can never be truly impartial.

Since that is your judgment you could obviously be quite wrong.

==========
To be unbiased is to not be motivated by factors which are unconscious. So he who is conscious, who has overcome the fear of his past, is not motivated by feelings he's afraid to face. This is what I mean. If you want to say that man is aware of only a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum and does not perceive true reality as it really is, fine, but who cares. I don't see Z-rays. Oh well. The rose in my garden is good enough for me.

Well true but in my original statement I was speaking of judgment as a requirement to understand 'better' so I was speaking of judgment as discrimination rather than judgment as judgmental ism.

Okay, my key statement there was that judgement does not require impartiality. In your response you admitted that I made a judgement; you did not qualify your statement as to whether the judgement was to be good or poor, and so judgement does not require impartiality.

 

[AvesPKS]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: AvesPKS

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: AvesPKS

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Better implies a capacity for judgment. Judgment requires impartiality. Impartiality is the condition of freedom from preconceptions. Preconceptions are determinations that everything has already been judged. Because one asks a question like you got something better, does not equate to a capacity for understand an answer.

Judgment does not require impartiality, as one can never be truly impartial.

Since that is your judgment you could obviously be quite wrong.

==========
To be unbiased is to not be motivated by factors which are unconscious. So he who is conscious, who has overcome the fear of his past, is not motivated by feelings he's afraid to face. This is what I mean. If you want to say that man is aware of only a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum and does not perceive true reality as it really is, fine, but who cares. I don't see Z-rays. Oh well. The rose in my garden is good enough for me.

Well true but in my original statement I was speaking of judgment as a requirement to understand 'better' so I was speaking of judgment as discrimination rather than judgment as judgmental ism.

Okay, my key statement there was that judgement does not require impartiality. In your response you admitted that I made a judgement; you did not qualify your statement as to whether the judgement was to be good or poor, and so judgement does not require impartiality.

Okay, but unless I'm just failing to understand you, in neither case does judgement require impartiality. I may be a person of discriminating taste among crabs; however, due to the fact that I grew up on the Bay, I will always be partial to blue crabs. This does not preclude my judging that blue crabs are best...again, unless I am just failing to understand you, which is entirely possible.

 

[LunarRay]

Judgment does not require impartiality...?

I think this is true. How can something require an impossibility and itself exist... given it is impossible to be impartial and not be dead given the human context. Judgment requires some standard to judge against. I assume that 'standard' measures perfection of some sort. The standard does not mean that some thing cannot exceed the standard just that it is a possible but somewhat less than perfect perfect. So now we have a judgment based on a standard that seeks to measure some occurrence. The judgment will by definition not be impartial so it is subjective. The occurrence may have been an imperfect perfect but judged to be a more imperfect perfect or less imperfect perfect than it actually was or spot on. So now we have something (judgment) that has a value to some and not the same to any. It is unique. Judgment is unique and therefore a truth to one and not any one else... truth is universal ... a fact... therefore judgment cannot exist either because it is not an universal truth just an imperfect partial truth. Neither Judgment nor impartiality fully exist... they are illusions..

 

[digitalsm]

If you dont like capitalism, give up everything it has done for you , leave the country and go to a place thats communist or socialist. Heck Im sure you could find someone to pay for your move and take those belongings off your hands, so as long as you promise never to come back.

Of all the people that dislike capitalism, I sure dont see many giving back everything capitalism has given them.