Disjointed ramblings of a mind at the end of its tether

by **TroubleFunk** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:10 am

In other words, to keep it even shorter: why do you espouse capitalism at all?

by **sceneshifter** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:10 pm

Ethics is all wrong I think it is true, JerkyLeBoeuf, that everything is permitted BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT there are still consequences - you can still bump up against reality [I believe the true meaning of god is reality - god is just a personification of reality or existence or life, like Santa Claus is a personification of Christmas cheer - but many humans [who are more identical to chimps than horses to zebras and dolphins to porpoises] take the personification as literal truth] I think the true ethics is the study of consequences and the avoidance or minimisation of pain [by pain, i mean: all bad experiences] Somehow humans have got a muckedup non-sane confused meaningless nonsense idea of ethics Ethics as 'being good', ie, obeying certain precepts handed down in tradition - ie, mindlessly obeying traditional precepts Mindlessness is the essence of non-ethical behaviour Obedience is turning off your mind and letting yourself be guided by other minds - which is ethical suicide Life is pursuit of your happiness - True ethics is pursuing your happiness - and you cant do that without a mind of your own, and without using it free of mindlessly accepted customary ideas Being good should mean maximising good experiences and minimising bad experiences, but somehow it has got this other, non-sense meaning The traditional concepts are polluted with all sorts of corruptions - Precepts that have originated not in good sense, or in the best sense we have, but in less than the best sense we can have - For example, homosexuality was not a sin until the church in the 13thC realised that it could make a lot of money by upgrading sins from venial to mortal and charging for the indulgences for sins - up till then, homosexuality had been a minor sin of unchastity for monks - on a par with monks having hetero sex - people did not distinguish homosexuality as anything special any more than we distinguish same-hair-colour sex - [that homosexuality is refered to in the bible is untrue] - see 'christanity, social tolerance and homosexuality by John Boswell of Harvard] It is part of ethics to judge the traditional precepts and find their good sense if any - to weed through them to find the sound advice regarding consequences. Homosexuality, witiches, masturbation and many other things forbidden by the traditional precepts are harmless, have no bad consequences - except persecution by the mindless followers of the trad precepts - often people looking for any excuse to beat someone up [to relieve their frustrations, many of which originate in pay-theft] Ethics is the continual asking oneself: Is this maximising my pleasure, my happiness, my wellbeing, my safety? - And that is the true meaning of conscience - Using one's 'knowledge' of reality to avoid bad consequences - But we are polluted with this non-sense 'meaning' of conscience - Which false meaning we sense is false and wrong, because we dont want to hear anything about 'conscience' - We are quite right in our sense that we dont want to hear anything about a 'conscience' that is non-sense [Even the bible agrees with this idea of god, for god names himself as I AM - And god's name is not like Michael or Fred, just pulled from a hat for a label, but a de*****ion, a describing - ie god = existence = reality = life = everything = the infinite = energy+matter = creativity+createdness. Most religion is false, worshipping something other than existence/reality/everything, which is of course the only thing worth worshipping. [Worship is truely worthship, ie, esteeming, heeding, paying attention to.] The reverence for or 'fear' of god which is the beginning of wisdom is in truth the respect for reality, the mindfulness and science [con-science] of consequences.] The false notion of ethics and conscience, which is dominant in society, is responsible for our divorce from pursuit of happiness, our weakness in studying consequences. So we overlook the connection between overpay/underpay and violence - Although overpay/underpay and violence have been increasing together for 1000s of years. Although the Middle East with the most extreme overpay/underpay has highest violence and Scandinavia has low overpay/underpay and low violence. We don't know the value of justice, of non-overpay/underpay. We dont know that in allowing unlimited fortunes for limited work, we are causing the escalation of war and weaponry to extinction. As soon as we know the cause of the escalation of war and weaponry to extinction, we will stop it. Just like, as soon as hedgehogs get the idea of traffic, hedgehog pedestrian fatalities will decline and cease. We know that we would be p****d off if we were put on a 100th of our income, but we dont know that 90% people are p****d off by being on between a 10th and a 1000th of their fairpay [what they contribute to world wealth by their work]. When every family, working average hard, earns US$75,000 a year, and 90% of families are on between US$7,500 and US$75 a year - and working longer and harder than average. Did you ever wonder how the slaveowners in the south could not 'see' the slaves, could not see the danger of oppressing so many? Do you know how hard the whites in South Africa had to work to contain the anger of the people they were plundering? But we have been hitherto diverted from pursuit of happiness by false ethics and false, silly idea of god. The golden rule - Hit someone and you are very likely to get hit back - is simple good sense. But it has been thrown out along with false ethics and false god. We dont hit people in the street, because in this situation we understand the golden rule. But when the hurting others is global, we allow ourselves to make the mistake of thinking we get away with it. And then we wonder why people hate us, and throw airplanes at our buildings. The plundering of america will not stop until america has been plundered. America will not stop plundering the world until the world has been plundered. Or until people see sense, and give up plunder as a good means to happiness. Give up theft, give up injustice, give up overpay/underpay, and let everyone enjoy, let hurting people decline. The golden rule is the essence of realism, is the cornerstone of the science of consequences. Conscience is con-science. Con is 'together, with', as in the word contrast. Conscience is the science or knowledge of everything all-in together - the knowledge of reality, of consequences The concept of discipline has been perverted - discipline is learning about consequences [disciple means learner, student] - false discipline is getting punished, not by reality, but by a person, by an artifical punishment [In fact, when a person punishes artificially, they are saying [obviously unaware] that reality will not punish you, so I must: they are saying that the deed is not in fact, in reality, as bad as they are making it - which obviously sends a bad message.] Selfishness has been condemned by false ethics - PURSUIT OF YOUR HAPPINESS IS THE WHOLE OF ETHICS, THE WHOLE OF DUTY - With the immediate recognition that hurting others is hurting yourself in the long run [or short run] - Even Jesus agrees: He says: Love others as much as you love yourself. That is, love and care for yourself much, and love and care for others as much [it is in your interests to do so]. So people who sacrifice themselves for the good of others are wrong. You cannot teach love and care by not caring for yourself. Hence, for example, nuns and priests so starved for love they turn towards children for it. REALITY WILL NOT BE DENIED. NOT LOVING YOURSELF IS LACK OF REVERENCE OR RESPECT FOR REALITY. The true concept of humility has been lost: humility is bowing your head to reality. [Pride is knocking your head against reality without reality penetrating your head. Pride is thinking you can prescribe reality, or ignore reality. Pride [the devil] is not being thirsty for better insight into reality.] So you see that 'Conscience', 'ethics', 'reverence' for 'god', 'discipline', 'humility', truely understood, are the same thing: Pursuit of your happiness by learning about consequences. The leader of the thugs was wrong in thinking that living by the garrotte was not dying by the garrotte. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Steal and be stolen from: The plunderers, the conquerors are the first target for being plundered and conquered. Every empire has plundered and been plundered. The lives of conquerors are eaten alive by security costs. America has been devoured by the Mafia. Everyone wants to eat the topdog. If it were true, if it were reality that you could hurt others without possibility or likelihood or almost certainty of bad consequences to yourself, then true ethics would say that it is harmless to hurt others, and that therefore it not wrong to hurt others. But this is not true, so true ethics says: dont hurt others - Only because it is hurting you. But because of false ethics, we are participating in a system that hurts others enormously by enormous theft of earnings [90% of people getting between a 10th and 1000th of what they earn; the 1% overpaid getting over 90% of world income] without understanding we are hurting ourselves enormously thereby. We humans do not know the cause of terrorism. Why are there no Swedish terrorists? Why are there Middle East terrorists? Middle East countries have 10-20% 'absolute' poverty - 10-20% of people getting less than 100th of what they earn. Fantastically overpaid oilrich shieks. The Swedes were praised for having grasped that YOU CANNOT ENJOY YOURSELF UNLESS ALL ENJOY - which is the golden rule You are you, you are about you, and you are supposed to be for you. If you are not for you, who will be? No one else has anything like as good information about yourself than you. Letting someone else drive your car - from their car - is of course great folly. Letting someone else decide your actions, drive your self from their self, is great folly. [eG, Jim Jones, Hitler, church.] Which hasn't stopped most people from believing in following the mob, who are following the traditional precepts, which are polluted by the limitation of general human intelligence and by the corruption generated by overpower, caused by unlimited fortunes, unlimited tyrannical overpower. At Nuremburg, the Americans were shocked by the Nazi war crims' excuse that they were just following orders, and yet the Americans, like everyone else, believe and practise and teach obedience as a virtue. Confused ideas kill. OBEDIENCE IS THE ONLY SIN. [And disobedience is just obedience with a minus sign.] True morality is stretching every brain cell and nerve and muscle in the pursuit of one's happiness. Troubledfunk's question about my using fonts and colours fits in here. I use them in an experiment to find a more readable type, a more pleasant type to read. I think the maroon bold italic helvetica is the best I have found so far. Tell me it is hard to read and I will stop using it. I think the comformist typeface is ugly and less pleasant. Some people think that if everyone conforms, everything will be well. But that assumes that the conformist approach is correct. And that is not necessarily true. The whole of false morality is based on the people who think they cannot be wrong, who are sure that everyone should obey them. Hitler, Mussolini, the slaveowners of the american south, St Dominic. Slavery is still a very popular technique for happiness, although it has never produced the goods, the happiness. Slavery is just theft of labour. Theft is still almost universally popular as a means to happiness, although it has dragged us to the brink of extinction. Justice is still a very unpopular method for happiness, although it produces the goods. Grab-all-you-can, everything-I-grab-is-mine is the universally approved custom. Take-out-of-the-pool-of-goods-and-services-created-by-work-no-more-and-no-less-than-you-put-in-so-that-no-one-is-underpaid-and-p****d-off-and-violent [and no one is overpaid and overpowerful and above the law and violent] is unheard-of in the conformist 'morality'. If people were intelligent, the customary ethics would be right. But it is still true that we get closest to truth [closest to happiness] when we are continually exploring with our minds for better ways, better beliefs, better understanding. Even words from a fool can instruct and give a useful clue. You just have to see how much more unhappy people are [100 or a 1000 times unhappier] than the other animals to realise that the conformist way is GROSSLY flawed. 99% of people would be fiscally happier with equal hourly payrate! [Everyone, including housewives and tertiary students, would be on US$15 an hour, doubling every 12 years. Every family in the world working average hard would be on US$75,000 a year.] 90% of people would be fiscally 10 to a 1000 times happier and less p****d off, less inclined to terrorism and mafiaism! 100% of people would be released from the certainty of extinction in the near future! [We can't get closer and closer to extinction without hitting it sooner or later. We can't keep winding up the inequity and violence forever. Extinction has to be 'near' if we already have 60 times the necessary bombs to 'achieve' it.] The 1% overpaid would be released from the nightmare of slaving to hold on to the overpay, and inevitably losing it sooner or later. The overpaid [individuals and nations] would be released from the nightmare of being unable to get more than slight benefit from the overpay, because all or most desires are satisfied by fairpay, and overpay can therefore add little to happiness, but add much to unhappiness, from the underpaid/robbed being after it all the time, till they get it. These are obviously MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR benefits. EVERYONE wins bigbigbigbigbig. [Since everyone wins bigbigbigbigbig, we can get unanimity in pursuing it, if we can get everyone to think for 5 minutes.] But people's minds are so sunk in the mud of mindless faith in the customs, that they cannot see even the shouting blaring obvious. Poor, poor, poor, poor, poor things. Like the sorcerer's apprentice, intelligent enough to get into heaps of trouble and not intelligent enough to get out. Through no fault of their own - just been given inferior brains [5 brains each: reptile, mammal, right and left hemispheres and cortex - a very thin, rational cortex - We can become sane only by very very UNACCUSTOMED thinking - Throwing the cortex into overdrive for five minutes and reflecting on the above soberly seriously sincerely should do it.] It is obvious to all that if you posit a community in which everyone works equally and yet pay is extremely wide, that that will not be good for anyone, will be bad for everyone. It will be troubletroubletrouble. Well, in the real world, everyone works, broadly speaking. [And I am not talking about paying people for not working. In fact I am talking about STOPPING paying people for not working, for the overpaid are being paid for not working, on top of their fairpay for their work. Being paid up to a hyper-ridiculous MILLION TIMES what they contribute to social wealth by their work. Which overpay of one person reduces over a million people to the most extreme slavery - and p****d-off-ness. Overpay up to a million times average hourly pay for just 6000 people would take all the income off everyone in the world. And we are within 10% of that. Look around at all the silly people.] IMO IMO IMO If there seems to be any nonsense in this, inquire. I can straighten it out, I feel confident. And it is important. Rather.

by **sceneshifter** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:59 am

Thank you, Troubledfunk, for the questions. I will make this as simple as it is, but not simpler. Why have money at all? Why espouse capitalism? Well, the first question is a bit surprising. But, on second thought, perhaps I see what you are getting at, or where you are coming from. You think I am talking about paying everyone, working or not. I am not. We started specialising in workjobs 1000s of years ago for the benefit of efficiency. And that then required exchange of goods. And money is a convenient [portable, nonperishable, divisible] artificial exchange item which facilitates exchange. So far, so good. But pooling all products of work, so that all our specialist products can be distributed, created the possibility of some taking out more than they put in. Which has happened. And how. Money is useful to measure work. You work, get paid money to represent your work [that is, your creation of wealth in the forms of goods and services] and you spend the money to buy the mix of goods you want. It is important, for this scheme to work, that money accurately represent the work you do, so we all get no more and no less out of the pool of wealth than we put in. I guess this answers your first question. If we all get out of the pool of goods and services something like what we all put in, result good. Otherwise bad. We have the most extreme unfairness of pay. Imagine a pool a metre deep. Imagine a tremendous jolt sideways throws the water against one end of the pool and hence throws it up in the air to a height of 1000 kilometres, a million metres. Obviously there will not be much water left in the pool, and what little there is will be skewed to one end. That is a picture of hourly payrates. Fairpay would be approximately one metre deep pool for all, equal hourly payrate, room for everyone to swim. Everyone works, everyone gets paid, everyone gets a fairshare of goods out. We have pay from 1000 kilometres to one millimetre. 90% getting between 10 centimetres and one millimetre. This means enormous violence, enormous attack and defense costs [in lives, money, energy and time]. And the violence is escalative, like a vendetta. Money has this unfortunate side-effect of drifting ceaselessly and automatically from earners to nonearners. Everyone knows the rich get richer and richer and the poor work harder and harder. And this has been going on growing for 1000s of years. And violence, war and weaponry have been growing for 1000s of years. This is the lesson of history we have not learned. this is the lesson between us and happiness. Capitalism is fine, except for this one side-effect. Cure that, and capitalism is well. Communism may have been a dream of justice, but in practice it meant the taking of everything off everyone and giving all wealth and power to Stalin, etc. The most extreme injustice, and therefore the most extreme fascism and sadism and violence and leader paranoia. Massive destruction of happiness for overpaid and underpaid and everyone caught between. And capitalism has moved to within 10% of this total injustice and violence, with overpay 1000 kilometres in the air and 50 million people starving to death a year, and most people scratching for a living [and scratching others' faces in the process]. The rich rob the poor and the poor rob each other. And the rich rob the rich and the poor rob the rich too [at revolution time]. If the underpaid or robbed had not been trying to rob the overpaid, there would have been no need for a KGB. Or a CIA. Take a community where everyone works and everyone gets fairpaid, and change that to extreme overpay and underpay, and you have ever-escalating trouble. Simple. Everyone knows that. So let's change it back, by limitation of individual fortunes to the most an individual can earn in a lifetime - around US$2 million [minus the minimum lifetime's spending]. How dumb are we to live with pay from a million times to 1000th of the average? Very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very dumb. Very masochistic, if we knew what we are doing. As simply stupid as increasing the blood supply to the brain a million times at the expense of the rest of the body. Result: death. It is natural, seeing the crimes and failures and miseries of capitalism, to think that capitalism is bad. But it is the fault of overpay/underpay. Overpay/underpay is the culprit. Wherever there is huge overpay/underpay, there is pain. Communism, the Middle East, the late stages of every empire, Europe post Versailles Treaty, 19thC low wages policy. Wherever there is smaller overpay/underpay, there is peace. Scandinavia, Japan, New Zealand, early American capitalism, the early stages of every empire, Europe post Marshall plan, Henry Ford policy of high wages. The workers are the market. Increase the money supply by 1% and give it directly to the most underpaid, and you will pour water on the fires of anger and robbedness. The inflation effect may also reduce the overpower [tyranny] of the overpaid. The most underpaid are certainly working hardest, or unemployed through no fault of their own. The money will water the economy where it is most thirsty. The money will refresh every level of society as the money works its way up through society, under the unavoidable influence of drift of wealth from poor to rich. There is a huge harvest of happiness [for ALL] to be had from limiting fortunes, gradually bringing them down towards the earned level. Not only peace, but capital formation and income growth are directly proportional to egalitarianism/justice/nontheft. Is anyone interested? Is the news travelling like wildfire? No. How annoyed would you be to be reduced to 100th of your income? Multiply by 5 billion. That is how much violence will disappear from the world with fairpay. Everyone is intelligent enough to understand that. The more you plunder, the more attractive you are to plunderers. Everyone can understand that. We have absolute faith that if everyone is free to plunder without limit, we will have maximum happiness. That any limitation of fortunes would be a reduction of happiness. The absolute proof of our absolute wrongness is coming soon to a planet very near and dear to you. We have very low faith in any novel ideas. But when your intelligence is limited, your ideas are sometimes wrong, and novel ideas are sometimes not. But the only way to be sure is to think. And no one wants to do that. Thinking is the hardest work in the world. Better to have a lemming faith and a lemming fate. We have no future. We must create one, by digesting the blindingly obvious, the humiliatingly simple.

by **TroubleFunk** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 2:33 am

Thanks for your answer. I will consider it. I suspect, on first read, that we are in disagreement, but that may just have to be alright with me!

by **sceneshifter** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:53 am

You could just add AAAAAAAA or DDDDDDDD [agree/disagree] to each sentence - that would save you time - you could then put it back on in the smallest font

Disjointed ramblings of a mind at the end of its tether

Re: I feel your pain

Ethics is all wrong

Why money? Why capitalism?

Re: Why money? Why capitalism?

Re: Why money? Why capitalism?

Who is online