Nslavu
Posts: 342
Joined: 2/1/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DMFParadox
Not evenly. Some states, levels of penitentiary, even parole officers do a better job than others. What happens is that some dude gets it into his head to do better for some group of people, does a kickass job, then other people go around wondering "But why do convicts get better treatment than *I* do?" Well, dude or dudette, it's cause you're motherfucking boring. Bitch some more, or do something about your situation. Be that guy who takes on a job and kicks its ass.
What does this have to do with providing more opportunities to the incarcerated than those outside? 'Be that guy who takes on that job' works only if that job is there. If it's not, some are going to kick some old lady, steal her money... I don't think there's any need to produce unemployment figures, even if they're fudged by make work programs.
I understand what you're saying, shut up, get off your ass and get at er .... then we're back to people being wired differently, subject to different economic conditions and their ability to have 'getting off their ass' mean something in an environmemt where there are no places looking for such people.
quote:
I understand the scenario. What it does though is come from deficit posture.
Ok... like I said, this is difficult to explain. But you raise a good point. It is a deficit posture... and that's the basic premise of economics. If demand did not outstrip supply in some way, somewhere, then no 'momentum' would exist in any economy. The question is really where does demand stem from? And if it didn't exist in its current form, what form would it assume? Your premise is that the 'nobles' are gaming the system to create demand. As a system.
My premise is that we have been trained, psychologically to think there are hierarchies and as such a need for classes etc. I personally don't tie it into demand. However, removing demand from any system would be difficult and as such I don't see the nobles gaming it, just taking advantage of it to maintain classes. They can't use demand to provide you with more wealth and not also create more wealth for themselves or the hierarchy crumbles.
quote:
But have you considered that it's the demand that's gaming the 'nobles'? A pre-existing condition of humanity that will always separate and concentrate wealth, regardless of what notions about wealth the prevailing culture provides?
Yes, and I said so above. There's a big difference between being in the game and knowing the game. Have you considered that demand needn't favor anyone or any group unfairly?
quote:
Further, that this condition is no quirk of psychology, but addresses an emergent property of society, any society, be it ants or groundhogs, or men?
And last, that once such wealth is concentrated, it tends to disrupt and create instability in the person/group that possesses it, unless it is reinvested into the larger society? Again, this isn't about impressions.This is about what happens regardless of what you call 'wealth' and what system distributes it. It's inevitable.
Like a heartbeat. Collect, reinvest. Collect, distribute. Ba-thump.
I hear ya. What you apparently think is ok, is when the reinvestment is disproportionately enjoyed by those already wealthy. We're still talking about the present system which though there are functions (supply and demand for one) that couldn't be changed in it, there are certainly changes that would more fairly level the differences that nobles tell you should be there. We could go back to your 'brain using a lot energy' analogy. Fine, the brain needs more because it genuinely needs more, not because someone arbitrarily or deceitfully 'said' it needs more and by virtue of teaching/training or psychological manipulation you go along with the lie.
quote:
Furthermore, you've got two more growth factors to consider.
The first is that the sets are requiring resource not just to survive, but to increase. There's your eugenics right there, but it's not as simple as 'We want strong smart people to survive.' It's more like, you're taking the risk of granting blood vessels to cancer. Even if the cancer is like, really heartwarming and cute. Like tribbles. If this goes too far, everyone dies, including the tribbles.
The second is this: your 'why convicts and not us??' question... using the cancer analogy again, if other hungry cells who can self-adapt see all this blood the, hm. Instead of cancer, call it 'scar tissue'. If normal, healthy cells are seeing what the scar tissue is getting; they might ask themselves "If I was scar tissue, would I get more blood too?"
Well I reiterate, there is a huge difference between legitimately needing that blood in your analogy, for the good of the entire economy and accepting that the noble/(cancer) needs it just because someone tells you so. Its like that cancer cell calling for blood and you provide it just because it says gimme gimme. If you're aware that you don't need to accommodate based on illusion, then you're far better off cutting off their supply.
For me, your cancer cell analogy equates to nobles milking the system so much that other parts of the body suffer, because what they 'demand' isn't fair distribution based on need, it's distribution based on lying about one's need. It's even a glorified we're better than you lie of need.
quote:
In other words 'greed' and 'excess' are unavoidable. The idea is to point the bait for it in a direction that contributes to growth, instead of shining a spotlight on scar tissue and saying 'Be like THIS and you'll get time, attention and $$$!'
Systemic. I won't argue the way things are; but they aren't the way it has to be.
quote:
Presenting a situation where there just isn't enough to go around, I think is contrary to our reality. There is enough here, enough money, enough food, enough resources. It's just grossly disproportioned.
Like I said, it's not just where the money is that matters. It's what people value it for. How it affects their thinking.
Our 'thinking' process again is systemic by and large unless one stands outside it, sees it for what it is and thinks differently.
quote:
'Grossly disproportioned' is only gross and disproportioned if it's causing paralysis; the actual amounts are irrelevant. Money is an idea. We all know it's an idea. It is an illusion, but a necessary one. Just like words aren't actually what they represent, and you can make a word mean anything; so too with money.
Totally agree. Problem: (and I think this is true) is that you're not seeing the paralysis in the system (or discounting it to favor your point?) .. and or those who are paralyzed. In fact my impression is that you think those who are paralyzed by it should just get off their ass and somehow produce work/income out of thin air.
quote:
But as to distribution. It's not as simple as saying 'Teach everybody how to work together and be fair!" You have to ask these questions... why do people want to work together? When do they not work together, communicate, cooperate? What happens if they need to change their 'job' to address the needs of two different outside groups... which do they choose to change for? Or do they choose either? Why? What motivates the change? Are they even capable of it, or would it take too long to re-train in time to be useful? If so, what do you do then?
A very good question or rather volley of questions. Since 'my' proposals/ideas are not even close to implementation I could not begin to surmise many answers; but, I would also ask what answers exist to those questions within the present system that you defend as viable and the 'only' one possible. I would submit that those answers are not working in favor of the entire economy. Governments have tried make work programs, employment figure fudging bs, they've rolled out stimulus creating further debt and further gaps between the haves and have nots. Wasteful, unproductive crap that truly is a cancer.
quote:
You also have to investigate the idea of uniqueness. What makes something unique? What is the worth of uniqueness? What is the buying pattern of people who choose to spend time, resources, and money to acquire it?
Hint: you can't say it's worthless. People try all the time, but other people give them the lie. All the time.
True.
quote:
What's the worth of a Mona Lisa? It's just some plant fibers with plant oil slopped onto it, after all. Why is it worth putting in a vault, spending so much time securing it?
Ya, I understand what you're getting at here. This is actually something I would want to consider in light of any new system. There's an endemic human "I want that more than you do" that exists in the present society and system. I'm not sure that it would in any other system much less anything I am proposing; but I would have to give this some more thought.
quote:
When you understand all these question... you find out. It is not as simple as 'nobles are lying to keep themselves in power.' The power eats its own tail, can you see that? There is no real-world circumstance under which an illuminati could actually maintain itself, 1984-style, because the meaning of power and wealth itself changes as it's moved around.
Well, no actually I don't find that out at all.
quote:
'You just lost the GAME' does not apply to 99% of humanity, with some secret puppet masters being exempt; it applies to 100%. If you grok that reference. Equally true is that everybody won the game. Universal fairness is... meaningless, under those circumstances.
True. In then end there is balance, it is more a question of how it's being balanced.
quote:
So you've been studying memetics. Good for you. Have you learned the 'quantum' theory of memetics yet? How ideas can work as a wavelength and a 'particulate' at the same time, in different contexts?
Studying yes. Anyone who proposes 'quantum theory' to me is a knucklehead trying to keep his gods in the equation. Bolstering the religious part of the noble lie. Not to be misunderstood here, my thoughts about 'god' and it's definition are quite different from most. (in my experience) and even with that I don't see 'god' as being in some vacuum outside it all. Not possible, since infinite is IN, all inclusive, there can't be anything, god or otherwise outside of infinity or it implodes, explodes whatever. In any event I think quantum is the attempted explanation of santa claus, the easter bunny. I have no trouble with wavelength and or particles but I think the Schroedinger's cat treatment of them is unnecessary illusion, like believing in magic.
I've also studied time/space and space/time as it relates to consciousness, which I think is more likely what these god infected quantum theorists are missing. Admittedly I'm no system educated scientist but if I look at things the way they do, I'm just following their path. bwah... which doesn't mean I don't consider what they put out either as fact or theory... I just think most of it is bunk.
quote:
Here's the thing... minds are not a level surface as an environment. There's motherfucking geography, which can make totally unfair ideas seem fair, and fair ideas seem unfair.
Hell, you can make a fair idea that looks unfair change to something that's unfair by making it look fair. For certain values of 'fair' and 'unfair'.
True, no discounts here.
quote:
Self-selection is just about the only way that things will ever get done in a situation like that. Any 'noble lie' would get fuckin' eaten alive by its own real-world practice, unless it produced an environment that was better for the majority of its participants' growth. Which in the case of capitalism, as a 'noble lie', would make it the truth, since it essentially is self-selection.
'Self' as in individual, or 'self' as in collective consciousness? The first 'self' isn't necessarily aware, in fact from what I can tell, is by and large unaware and just following the program, not that there's anything wrong with that.
quote:
Kind of a lie->accepted as truth ->creates its own truth scenario, assuming that it was a lie to begin with, which it wasn't. And any system where self-selection is restrained, will eventually be overrun by one that doesn't restrain it. Or it will be eaten from the inside out.
And that's capitalism. Welcome to the motherfuckin' new world; it's the same as the old one... but unlike what you're saying, it's the current definitions that were always correct. Not the old 'noble' ones. That was the lie. Those nobles were always capitalists, they just didn't know it. Hardly any of them from like 300 years ago have kids that are in the upper echelons of current world power, too. How did that happen, if they've been working the system for their own benefit this whole time? Did they try but just suck at it?
Dude, you're finally bringing the hell fire! All that bravado wasn't! However, no matter how often you claim the nobles no longer exist as an entity, the evidence of the legacy of the noble lie does. We can stop calling it a lie if you like. I'm not stuck on it being characterized as being a bad thing as lies are generally thought of. Just a sign post on the path that we collectively chose to go down.
quote:
but equal opportunity. Schooling man. Who can or can't afford it is problematic. I think we can agree if the foundation that supports your structure is not available to some, then the 'some' to whom it is unaffordable loses, actually becoming a burden, rather than a contribution, so society loses.
Actually, I think this is exactly where we disagree.
The 'some' don't lose anymore than the schooled kids win. And no, society as a whole does not necessarily lose for the existence of have-nots.
Making something universally available changes its value. Downwards. And it has very unsettling effects on an 'ecosystem'.
Yes we do disagree. Do we have to agree? Therein lies certain ending. So, have you considered that your scenario is failure because ALL universal things are available. On the other hand it is also success, so we are again back at distribution and or access.
quote:
Here's a good example of a 'schooling' in nature. Think of schooling as fertilizer for growing minds. Then. Compare, for example, fertilizer. Nitrogen drawn from the air, mixed with other plant-healthy stuff and put into the ground to make plants grow better. It's a win-win for all, right? Except that now, nitrogen runoff is killing the fishing industry. And the oceans, incidentally. Also, swamps.
And the bugs that are happiest about the extra nitrogen are really nasty bitches. Oops.
You think people, minds, are on a different level than that,
I think they are if that mind is aware, yes. Surprised? When that mind is unaware, your scenario fits like a glove. AND in the end, all things balance in their own way. Entropy may look like chaos, but it is ordered and predictable. The problem, which really isn't a problem is our ability to focus on every element of the dispersal and their ramifications. Then we collect data and formulate a response which in turn kicks off another entropic moment. Even if you do nothing you can't avoid the entropy. Either you get it or it gets you. I am not saying we are mentally capable as we are now. We do this anyway, kick off entropic moments regardless of our awarness of both past and future consequences as a whole. We can only be aware of what we're focusing on which as I have said a number of times is critical to critical thinking. How much room you provide for awareness is directly relative to how well your scenario performs.
quote:
The 'burden' of the have nots must be measured against the burden they'd have if they were all haves. The floor drops out from underfoot, in ways that are indirect and hard to explain, but very real. Don't get me wrong, poverty sucks, and ignorance sucks too. What I'm saying is that if you mandate that all must not be poor, then it's like you're trying to pull yourself off the ground by pulling on your pants really hard. All you get is a wedgie.
A pendulum theory? I can't disagree with the premise. Energy is polar (kinetically -neg to pos and back again). It becomes a matter of the amount of sway one thinks there needs to be. You think there should be a large disparity using haves and have-nots, I think a smaller disparity suffices.
quote:
This too is true for 'ignorance'. The have-nots of the information set. As a matter of fact, that arena is so fundamentally linked to the reasons for inequalities in distribution that you could say it's where it all starts. And where the 'noble lie' (again, calling it a noble lie is bullshit) of capitalism is most important; believing that self-selection is the fundamental driving force, makes it that much more true.
Well I don't think we have a common definition of self here. I see two possible, it appears you see one. Consider that (your use of 'self') points directly at individuality in awareness and such negates the noble lie by default. Awareness is key, whether you think it (noble lies) bullshit or not, these little markers (lies = truths) placed in memory, memetically drive 'self' within the collective. Many are caught in the flow and that makes it a collective. I could agree with what you're saying as it pertains to collective movement. I think self selection as you appear to define self, only makes it true if you're following the collective direction. "much more true", <this space reserved for gaffaw emote> Surely you mean truer truth. 
quote:
Self-selection is, again, the only real answer. Don't campaign to change the world; find a piece of it and make it better within the system, and be prepared for this to make someone else's situation a bit more uncomfortable. Especially if they end up owing you money. And if you end up with enough power and wealth to change the system as a whole, be careful of the runoff... or you'll end up like Russia, or worse, China. (have you seen some of the factory cities they guys have? It's fucking horrifying. But then, some parts of china are fucking outstandingly awesome, too. Welcome to communism... Looks a whole lot like poorly executed capitalism to me. Probably because of the "Socialist Lie.")
Already there if you missed my previous posts. What I can do as an individual is likely more than you suggest but meh ... I'm just the court jester here playing my role a the guttersnipe see it and quite happy to do so I might add.
The important thing in what you're saying is that, it is as individually improbable to balance as it is globally in your scenario. You've made several global notes, points well made here. So, let me add one. In Canada, capitalism is the main force as it is in many places. I think you'll like this because of the implications of health care in the US. Our med system is socialism to the fucking core. It fucks the whole works in Canada. You can't call yourself capitalist and then regulate how much a doctor makes, how much a nurse makes, how much the fucking government pays based on how much the taxpayer will accept being taxed. The affect this has anyone involved in our socialist med system, within a capitalist system is painful, extremely painful. Doctors, nurses, and hospitals are marginalized, patients are marginalized because essentially their identity is now a number. Imported costs rise outside our borders, population increases, on and on.The psychological displacement of person to person treatment is all but lost. I could go on about the number of fucking wrenches there are in this but I think my point is made?
So taking my example and your suggestions and examples. it seems to me to be a practice in futility. Until the dominant system changes, anyone placing "social med" or any other 'system' within a capitalist environment will fail. And seriously I'm no negative Norm. The evidence is overwhelming. In the end it's going to come in the wash as one or the other, you see. Problem here is that they are both tired and worn out systems.
_____________________________
I used to love anal until I ran into people who's heads I had to remove first.
|
RE: Critical Thinkers vs Drones - 
Profile
That deserves as least one motey guy. Whats your opposite? 
Amusing. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread