I am starting to think that a lot of what we are saying to each other is getting garbled through semantic interpretation, by both parties. But I will try to address each of these: “The two are not necessarily synonymous, as I’ve pointed out. It’s not the ownership you object to, it’s the various values of same.” Yes, I am objecting to a value set and promoting an alternative value set. However, they do come as a set – that is evident when applying systems thinking, a discipline that can be used in any branch of natural or social science. It is the acknowledgement that everything is interconnected and that isolating one thing at a time and just altering it alone will not sustainably manifest – the other feedback variables will give rise to the same if they are not altered as well. Granted, I realize that if enough of a particular set of values were changed, the threshold would be crossed such that the NEW set would become self perpetuating – well that is what we are working on here. An RBE can become self-perpetuating, but not until enough people have chosen enough of the new set of values. So while I agree to some extent that it will end up happening – namely when the threshold is crossed – I don’t necessarily agree that threshold has been reached yet. I have gotten overconfident numerous times about the proportion of people waking up – the internet has the dual ability to allow us to communicate with billions and also create a false sense of proportion, because there might be tens of thousands of us talking and that seems like a lot, but in a world of 7 billion it is a drop in the sea. So the main points here are that it’s a set of values, I understand ownership is only one of them, but an RBE does have other value shifts as components - this is the one I have targeted for the time being; and further that until a threshold proportion is reached, it will take activism – see the social diffusion model. “The wanting of objects runs afoul of no natural law. Ownership is not the cause of all the negatives you lay at it’s feet.” I don’t claim that wanting objects is against a natural law. In fact, running afoul of a natural law is not really possible, and that’s the point. We can run afoul of our own well-being, though. So the misattribution of human belief as being indicative of a natural law, devoid of empirical observability, is the actual underlying cause – dogma. The very definition of that word is to hold a belief despite limitless evidence to the contrary. So I’m sure you know about the groups professing ownership as a natural law, I’m pretty sure that we discussed on one of their groups the first time. Well THAT is what I am countering. So we could say there is an underlying cause to believing that ownership is natural law, and that is obviously a bigger problem, but when I go talk about dogma people just think of religion, which is just another facet of dogma but not at all the only one. People can be dogmatic about political ideologies, philosophies, economic systems, and more. There are even people who can be dogmatic about scientific theories, and honestly that is the opposite of being scientific. So what I do is demonstrate through example. Ownership as a belief and a sentimental personal value are not really causes, but the idea that it’s equivalent to natural law and thus bears as much clout as natural law, I’m sorry but it’s just not true. If you can steal, you can violate ownership. Can you violate gravity? Can you violate the laws that demand you must eat or die? If you can break it, it’s not a natural law but a man-made rule. And inherent in man-made rules, creatures of thought, is infinite subjectivity and complication. How many pages of legislature do we have just at the federal level? Does any of that amount to anything real? It’s nonsense – the physical manifestation of our collective mental disorder. And it all starts with the first substantiation of a belief as self-validating, with an endless snowball to ensue thereafter, until it finally blows up – build, rise, plateau, descend, revolt, over and over. And again we claim if we just start with dogma then somehow that will lead to a different scenario. “I understand your frustration at the human race’s obvious “flaws”, but, from another perspective, we’re perfect human beings as we are.” On this, the RBE design is about acknowledging, precisely, that our behaviors, beliefs, and opinions will always be different from each other and subjective; thus delegating social management and labor to technology, so that we are free to be humans. All of us have vast capabilities for creation, exploration, expression, invention, and so on – but how many people, proportionately, get to realize that potential? In the case that it’s no longer necessary, that is absolutely a tragedy, for all of the people who didn’t get to realize their potential and all the people who would have experienced the fruits of their potential, whether they be art, music, technology, books, or whatever. So the short reply would be, I am not frustrated with our “flaws,” I am raising awareness that the social structure we are maintaining inherently holds all of us back, even the richest and wealthiest. “Philosophical “correctness” presumes purpose.” I am advocating the scientific method as a tool for the human species to discover natural law and apply that knowledge to solve problems rather than just label them as “good” or “bad.” It’s really much simpler than it sounds, with our piles of subjective beliefs making things look more complicated than the really are (or rather, inventing complication in the face of observable and real complication, which is a phenomenon that has always fascinated me, please don’t construe that I consider that a fault ^_^). I would say philosophy is a great example of how we can invent a whole new world with our suppositions, beliefs, opinions, and scenarios. My considerations are more of how we are not even applying the knowledge that has been empirically observed to date, much less attempting to move into metaphysical concepts that philosophy seeks to address. The purpose of “being” is really inherent within existence; I’m not sure why philosophy is necessary for social management (although I do appreciate it just as I appreciate art, music, and so on). So if we limit being to “surviving,” we would also be ignoring extensive scientific evidence that shows people must be constantly growing and achieving (driven by very healthy desire) or their mental health will suffer and yes diseases like Alzheimer’s become much more likely to manifest. Seeing other people become ill and die, well that causes depression and sadness because we are empathic – bound biologically to live both as individuals and a species. “Why can’t we solve the problems pro-actively instead of labeling human desire “wrong” or “incorrect?” Well I did just say in the previous post and in this one that I have no problem with human desire, so I will glaze over that here. I would say that the “dire predictions” are hypotheticals – what I am saying is “If we do X again, then Y is going to happen again.” I am merely pointing out that doing the same thing will have the same result. And why do I point that out? So that we don’t do X again. Let’s try something new. And what’s more, I’m actually offering a very comprehensive alternative, so I’m not just complaining and making negative predictions. I’m pointing out a cause and effect, then offering an alternative strategy based on extensive scientific evidence. That is what an engineer would do if a test rocket crashed and we still needed a rocket. You don’t just build it exactly the same and expect the rocket to magically work this time. Not only do you change it, you do so after using the scientific method to determine the causes of the crash and then again to design those causes out of the rocket. So in sum, I do want to solve problems pro-actively, but you can’t solve them by using the same methods that led to the problem in the first place. “What if I build a rocking chair? What if I build it to my specifications, desires-out of the wood I love-and someone thinks, since I don’t own it, they can help themselves to this very special-some might say perfect-rocking chair? What “correct” philosophical view resolves this situation?” I want to start here by saying that philosophy does not solve problems. If anything, it is the art of creating problems. I have no problem with that – it makes for awesome conversation and some of my favorite readings and writings have been philosophical of nature. If I want to solve a problem, I have to use tools to stop it from happening. So the present-day idea is to address that problem with philosophy. And what is our answer? Tell them, “no, that’s wrong!” or punish them if they do it, and then there will be deterrence. So let me ask you this, have we stopped theft in this manner? Last time I checked the prison system is not only grossly overpopulated, it’s growing. Obviously nothing is getting solved. A car was broken into a couple weeks back with my stuff in it. That is quite widely known to be illegal in the U.S. – it happened anyway. And this society is premised on the ownership belief. So how is your hypothetical a refutation? What we can do is reduce the probability to as close to zero as possible, and that is done through the scientific method – not philosophy. We can make possessions so abundant that no mentally healthy person would steal; we can design the etiologies of mental illness out of the environment; we can make technology where you could easily share the design specs with anyone at your will; we can design locking mechanisms on your home such that no one could get the chair without breaking in; and so on to make it nearly impossible. No, it’s not a guarantee that your chair could not get taken, but it’d be significantly more effective than attempting to enforce invented rules.
Posted on: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 19:39:36 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015