ashvin
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I’d like to spend some time today talking about what is arguably the most remarkable picture of Christ that we find in all of the Bible (and that’s saying something). This picture also happens to involve an episode of much consternation for both Christians and non-Christians. The former will usually read this chapter in Genesis and think, “wow… I don’t know how I would react if God ever asked me to do something like that…”. The latter will usually read it and think, “wow… that’s the last time I ever read the Old Testament or take the God of the Bible seriously!”
I’m sure you have already guessed that I’m talking about Genesis Chapter 22, when Abraham is given the ultimate test of faith – God asks him to provide his only son, Isaac, as a sacrificial burnt offering.
(more at link above)
lukitas post=5360 wrote: Nonetheless, science is a lot more reliable than history, or the news media. We cannot be sure that Catilina was the perverted bastard Cicero describes : the only witness was his biggest enemy, who was not beyond a spot of histrionics. We don’t know Caligula (or Nero) was as monstrous as described : the describers were political enemies.
We know even less about early christianity. Roman politics was written up by contemporaries, sometimes even protagonists. The closest we can get to Jesus is Three or four letters of St Paul’s, who never even met the man. Mark, Luke, Mathew and John were compiled later, and all of the holy scripture is rife with inclusions, alterations and what can only be described as fakes. St. Peter’s letters are all fakes, the man couldn’t write, and he couldn’t have been very good at Greek.
It would be a lot easier to reconstruct Mohammed’s true words than to do so for Jesus, at least the Qur’an was written down as Mohammed spoke (even though they rearranged his sayings in a rather silly way).
Even so, If you disregard all the ‘doubtful’ material in holy scripture, what remains is powerful and dangerous. What remains is a communist utopia with strong spiritual bent.These are all questions… not facts. They are questions that have been answered to the best abilities of experts in the field. There are obviously difficulties in ascertaining historical truths from human accounts, and history is never 100% certain, but that shouldn’t lead us to “give up” on history or accept the speculative claims of non-experts with an obvious bias or agenda. The only legitimate scholar I know of who comes close to endorsing your claims above is Bart Ehrman, and I can direct you to plenty of resources that undermine his arguments.
(but I’m not sure even he would claim that Paul never believed he met Jesus after the resurrection…)
From unregistered reader Luis Rivera:
“I am nowhere near your intellectual caliber, but I am another truth-searcher that, after a long and painful pilgrimage, was able to experience and conclude that Jesus is all He said He is. Oh, glorious day when my eyes were opened!
I find painfully ironic that some of the readers were quick to condemn you for agreeing with a “religion”, as if you had not used the capabilities of your mind to reach a reasonable conclusion. Instead of debating on the realm of ideas, they just take a dogmatic position to declare you “mad” or “confused”. Funny thing is that some of them think highly of Christ, but can’t swallow anybody taking His words at heart.
Jesus paints the most accurate picture of the evil inclinations we have in our hearts. Actually, that’s one of the things He came to save us from. Evil in the heart is the reason why these secular utopias never work.
I’ll keep this short, I just wanted to exhort you to continue growing in the Lord, and writing as He gives you wisdom and insight to do. Though many will probably sneer and oppose to what you say, others will hear and the Lord will open their hearts to understand and believe. I’ll pray for that. In the meantime, be a witness of the truth.”
lukitas post=5335 wrote: Why choose christianity?
If you want to put your faith in an omnipotent and omniscient God, why not go for Islam? They are after all, the only one of the great religions to have a (reasonably) active injunction against usury, the counting of interest.
You are smart, you must have done your homework, so you must know arguments against religions in particular and religion in general. Every one of them is tainted with blood and greed, but the only one to have sustained a nearly global commercial peace for more than a thousand years was Islam. Why choose the only religion that has never stopped proselytizing, never stopped missionary work, never stopped functioning in terms of growth and conquest? Forgive me for being presumptuous, but I really would like to know.lukitas,
I’m going to answer in general terms here, because I don’t want to make this a thread swamped with Christian apologetics.
Yes, there are many rational and logical reasons to choose one spiritual tradition over another. I believe in objective truth (mostly due to logic and experience), and the fact is that most major traditions make exclusive truth claims about fundamental aspects of reality. To me, that means most of them must be wrong when it comes to those fundamental descriptions. Islam says Jesus was a great human prophet, but not divine, while Christianity says Jesus was the Son of God, and equal to the Father in divine essence. Those are radically different conceptions of this critical historical figure.
What I’m interested in is the truth. I don’t care how much blood was spilled by this or that person practicing this or that religion, unless it is somehow relevant to figuring out the validity of the tradition’s truth claims (usually it isn’t relevant at all). As a poster said above, evil people will find all kinds of ways to do evil things, and that is in fact what Christian natural theology and Biblical revelation would predict. It also doesn’t matter how practically useful the religion in your daily life on Earth, or how good it makes you feel. A lot of false beliefs are practically useful and make us feel good, and I’m only interested in figuring out the truth.
If you want to get into specifics about the truth claims of other religions or worldviews, I would be happy to do that with you on PC or via private communication, if you like. There are a ton of resources out there that can help us determine which metaphysics, which philosophies, which histories, which experiences, etc. are rooted in more objective truth than others.
New post up about the atheistic worldview (summed up by Russel’s quote)…
Finding a Safe Habitation for the Soul
That Man is the product of causes that had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins — all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.
-Bertrand Russell, A Free Man’s Worship (1903)
Babble post=5301 wrote: Ashvin said I am more than willing to get into substantive debates there over spiritual issues… and smash the atheist worldview to pieces”
Ha, it is up to you sir to prove the existence of a god, not up to any atheist to prove there is not. The burden is on the believer and that task would prove impossible. All argument is just bullshit until you show that proof.A lot of the content I add to the video/audio sections of the website will be devoted to apologetics, and what I feel are the best arguments in favor of God’s existence and the truth of Biblical Christianity. I’m also in the process of getting a forum set up, so people can discuss these and other issues. For now, I would recommend you check out William Lane Craig’s lectures/debates about the existence of God (his approach is extremely logical and coherent) – https://www.apologetics315.com/search/label/William%20Lane%20Craig
New post up… https://picturingchrist.org/sabbath-testimonial-on-hangovers-and-blessings/
Sabbath Testimonial – On Hangovers and Blessings
Romans1 wrote: 11I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong— 12that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith. 13I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles.
14I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. 15That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome.
16I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,c just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
This article was simply meant as a plug for the new blog, not as an opportunity for me to defend my faith here. I have noticed a few people raised points of substantive criticism, and I encourage them to express that on PC. I am more than willing to get into substantive debates there over spiritual issues… and smash the atheist worldview to pieces :ohmy:
For those who raised no substance whatsoever, but just made wild accusations of Christianity being “magical”, “irrational”, or otherwise unworthy of even the slightest consideration, I would ask them to reflect on WHY they have such a knee-jerk response. I also encourage them to visit the site, check out the content, keep an open mind and then express their specific concerns. I am confident at least a few people will reconsider what they thought they knew about the Christianity and the Bible, just as I did. Its richness and depth is absolutely stunning when you actually consider it seriously.
My mind is not working any differently than it was a year ago before I came to faith. I still think rationally, logically, analytically and critically about everything, including Christianity and other religions. I spend a lot of time listening to the critics of Christianity to see what kind of substantive arguments they are making, and what kind of responses are available to them. I never hesitate to acknowledge that there are many difficult questions raised by Christianity, but I also never hesitate to try and answer them honestly.
To all those who expressed support, thank you and I hope we can continue discussing these vital issues over at PC. David Peter, I just started looking into Girard’s work, but here is a link to my latest post that focuses on his “scapegoat mechanism” – https://picturingchrist.org/the-devils-scapegoat/. I’d love to know what you think! And to those who expressed a greater affinity for Eastern spiritual traditions, I will probably spend a lot of time discussing that over at PC, so please feel free to drop by and join in.
Triv, that’s very well said – “they confuse the bad human examples with the real thing that says humans will always be bad examples”! The Bible itself is filled with examples about how hypocritical the “faithful” can be, but I guess a lot of people don’t really pick up on that… selective reading and all…
Spiral Insana, I see your frustration with my beliefs, I acknowledge your rejection and denouncement, but I am not going to “reconsider my stance”. If you want, you can make your arguments against the Abrahamic traditions on and then we can discuss them there… When I emailed Ilargi about posting this plug, I said this:
The only problem would be the fact that I am already associated with TAE, and people who are inherently antagonistic to Christianity might decide to take that out on TAE…
I truly hope that I am wrong about that. PC is not associated with TAE in any way, and obviously TAE is not a site about religion or spirituality, while PC is almost entirely about those things. There is really no need to conflate the two just because Ilargi and Nicole were kind enough to help me get the word out about my new blog.
rlmrdl
You quoted someone else, and attributed it to me erroneously, and then said that everything stated was a bunch of “psychobabble”, and that we need to get “back to the issues that this site deals with”.
Yes, you are exactly the problem. Re-think what you said and why you said it, please. Use a little more care and a little more logic.
Tao Jonesing post=5115 wrote: Simply BEING is not a belief system to be tolerated. The choice to be content with who you are and what you have (and have not) achieved is a personal one faced by every single person regardless of his or her belief system. No, this is not about belief systems or lifestyles, but about being human. Who am I- and who are you- to demand that others strive for something they don’t want or need? The fact of the matter is that those who call for the perfecting of humanity really want to make everybody else be more like them.
Who are parents to tell their grown children that their desire to live as drug addicts, cruising along from fix to fix to ease the pain of life and avoid the pain of stopping, is a bad one and that they need to change?
Who is a wife to tell a husband that his self-absorbed attitude and laser focus on moving up the career ladder are not healthy, even though it makes him feel “fulfilled”?
Who are me and you to tell friends, acquaintances and strangers any of these same things?
You can call it belief systems, lifestyles, or “being human”… whatever it is, we all need help from others to see its flaws and potentially change it, because everything about ‘being human’ in this world has fallen way too short of preserving humanity.
Adam Goodwin post=5095 wrote: OK, ladies and gents, since no one is really getting what I’m trying to say, I’ll go back to lurker mode. Just remember that you don’t even need to be in debt to have your government seize your property (eminent domain)–allowed through the War Measures Act in Canada and the National Defence Authorization Act in the US. So is it really worth it to ‘get out’ of debt? Will that really save your skin? Sounds naive to me.
It seems you are implying that, since the state will retain a lot of coercive power to confiscate property and generally oppress/enslave people, we shouldn’t worry about giving them additional reasons to do so. I agree with the former part of that, and covered it in my three-part series on “Our Depraved Future of Debt Slavery” (Stoneleigh also talks about it with regards to local food production in the “Storm Surge of Decentralization”).
Even with regards to debt, we see instances in which people have been erroneously saddled with debts they never took on or had already paid off (see “Revisiting the Physical Risks of Debt”). Yet, I’m not sure how we go from there to saying we may as well stop trying to get out of debt, or that we should even take on more debt.
Philosophically, I think many us agree on the severe shortcomings of coercive state structures, especially at large scales. Practically, we recognize the very real threats to us and everyone around us that come from giving the current structures reasons to drop the hammer down. I also agree with Dave that there is a very significant probability that coercive state authority will remain intact for quite a few years to come in the Western world, and will most likely grow even more oppressive over the next 5-10 years.
That being said, I have no problem with individual people deciding to take a stand for what they believe to be political and philosophical truths. And I have no problem with people trying to convince others that they should do the same. However, in this situation, I simply disagree that all people with debts have any sort of moral obligation to refuse paying off those debts, and sometimes it may even be the opposite case. I also disagree that it is better to become a “martyr” for that particular cause, which will prevent us from pursuing other causes and helping those around us.
And finally, I disagree that we should simply ignore the physical risks of debt because the state has other means of oppressing us. Right now, debt is the easiest and most effective way for private corporations in combination with the state to extract wealth from the masses and physically enslave them. That is why it is good general advice for those who have the means to pay off debt, or walk away from that debt (perhaps declare bankruptcy), to do so immediately. Obviously that will only be a small portion of debtors, which is also why our debts will ultimately be redeemed for us, one way or another.
Zarathustra, loving the analogy to “Crime and Punishment”. I do get the sense that many of us are longing for that kind of repentance for our past sins, even collective sins, and perhaps even many of those in the ruling elite class. Yet our worldly urge is to project that need onto others or justify our fundamentally unjustifiable transgressions as necessary deeds in the face of some vaguely defined threat or “evil”.
digging, I like this sentiment from Paul:
2Corinithians7 wrote: 8Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it. Though I did regret it—I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while— 9yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance. For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us. 10Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.
Obviously, the concept of longing for and seeking repentance/atonement is found all throughout the Bible, as is the concept (and reality) of avoiding/rejecting those things and reaping the consequences. As for war, famine, disease, earthquakes and floods, we unfortunately get plenty of that too…
SteveB post=5075 wrote: [quote=ashvin post=5074]
What will I do as I encounter these (hypothetical) stressed people in the future? Judge them (because that’s what we do), question my thoughts, turn it around (“They shouldn’t be stressed.” Hmm. “I shouldn’t be stressed about them.” Yes, that’s better.), then be available to them in any way I can–and share The Work with them if they’d like to learn it. Kind of like the present. 🙂Maybe other readers will share an approach that they’ve found useful and effective in overcoming fears, sadness, anger, and other strong feelings (all of which I lived with for decades, sometimes to the point of behaving violently, even toward loved ones). If not that, maybe someone would be willing to fill out a JYN Worksheet (available on Katie’s site) to do The Work on “those people”, then share it here.
OK, I found the worksheet on her site. Let’s apply it our hypothetical situation about your book on the use of money, and then you can tell me where we would take it from there…
https://thework.com/downloads/worksheets/JudgeYourNeighbor_Worksheet.pdf
Think of a recurring stressful situation, a situation that is reliably stressful even though it may have happened only once and recurs only in your mind. Before answering each of the questions below, allow yourself to mentally revisit the time and place of the stressful occurrence.
1. In this situation, time, and location, who angers, confuses, or disappoints you, and why?
I am frustrated (emotion) with the critics (name) because they irrationally believe the use of money is always a good thing for society, and they ridicule anyone who says otherwise.
2. In this situation, how do you want them to change? What do you want them to do?
I want the critics (name) to understand that the use of money is really destructive to human society and will end up harming everyone, including the critics.
3. In this situation, what advice would you offer to them?
The critics (name) should think carefully and rationally about how the use of money in society leads to selfish and greedy behavior in all spheres of life, undermining all the virtues of humanity.
4. In order for you to be happy in this situation, what do you need them to think, say, feel, or do?
I need the critics to read my book carefully, think about the arguments rationally, engage in discussion about them and see how they really make sense, without resorting to hateful rhetoric against me.
5. What do you think of them in this situation? Make a list.
The critics are irrational, reactionary, hateful, biased and culturally indoctrinated to believe the use of money is always good.
6. What is it in or about this situation that you don’t ever want to experience again?
I don’t ever want to be ridiculed and despised by greedy people who can’t let go of their irrational attachment to money.
The Four Questions
– They irrationally believe the use of money is always a good thing for society, and they ridicule anyone who says otherwise.
1. Is it true? (Yes or no. If no, move to 3.) – Yes
2. Can you absolutely know that it’s true? (Yes or no.) – No (not really…)
3. How do you react, what happens, when you believe that thought?
– I feel frustrated, disappointed, dejected and sometimes angry.
4. Who would you be without the thought?
– I would feel less perturbed, more satisfied, more accepted and more happy (wouldn’t I still be the same person?).
The turnaround for statement 6:
– I am willing to be ridiculed and despised by the critics.
– I look forward to being ridiculed and despised by the critics.
Turn the thought around:
a) to the self. – I irrationally believe the use of money is always a good thing for society.
b) to the other. – I ridicule/despise the critics for believing the use of money is always a good thing for society (or for them not believing that?)
c) to the opposite. – The critics don’t believe the use of money is always a good thing and don’t ridicule/despise me for believing it isn’t.
Then find at least three specific, genuine examples of how each turnaround is true for you in this situation.
(not sure about this one)
Steve,
I think all that’s great and I’m happy to hear you are doing so well. Like I said before, I’m not here to judge anyone’s specific situation or tell them to stop doing something that helps them be a better person. I am just making a general point about a cultural mentality of avoiding the truth.
I know that you have made many arguments against the use of “money”, and now you say you are writing a book about it. You believe that money always leads to problems for others, correct? This is an objective assertion. Now I imagine that once you publish this book, you are going to catch A LOT of flack from others, especially in this culture. It may even get to the point in which you are insulted and ridiculed and hated. Perhaps you even lose a couple [materialistic] friends over it.
This is all hypothetical, of course – I’m not saying this will actually happen to you. But there are many of us who would feel a lot of uncertainty, anguish and emotional pain from such a course of events. Not everyone will be able to suppress those feelings, despite whatever self-help strategies they pursue. Some people may even conclude that writing this book must not be a good thing to do, because it makes them feel so uncomfortable in their lives and their relationships with others around them.
However, the point of my post is to tell those people that the truth (as they believe it) is more important than all of those worldly concerns. Anything that convinces them to forego the objective truth in order to gain personal comfort is leading them down a dangerous path, and not only them, but others around them as well. I look around me, and I see way too many people willing to do that, so that’s why I wrote the post. It may not apply to you, but I’m confident that it applies to many others.
davefairtex post=5070 wrote: I Likewise, I believe that useful philosophy is only integrated and “owned” by the practitioner through application in real world experiences. IOW I think enlightenment doesn’t come in a cave, it comes by utilizing your philosophy in your life. I believe cave-time is helpful to reflect on experiences, but real-life must be there as well to provide opportunity for use.
Yes, that’s very true. This is why I mentioned the connection between New Age philosophy and Hinduism/Buddhism. The latter are obviously spiritual philosophies that are truly meant to encompass your entire life, not just one aspect here or there, and so I imagine the same goes for NA spirituality. We should remember, though, that these philosophies are suggesting a basic truth about the fundamental nature of reality (in fact, they are “theories of everything”), which means we should never become comfortable with them without remaining critical of them. The moment we accept them because they simply make us feel good is the moment we have stopped caring about the truth, IMO, and the same goes for me and my beliefs.
Releasing attachments (at least for me) is about being able to let something go that is basically already going (or gone) without becoming emotionally crippled by that experience. Non-clinginess is another way of describing it. Yet another way, perhaps more practical, is a technique by which one uses a conscious effort to first notice, then examine, and then release the negative emotions that arise in life.
In some sense, we will eventually lose everything material currently in our lives. It only makes sense that we should expect this, intensely enjoy them while they are here, and once they leave, let them go.
Sounds simple but naturally, its not.
I see what you’re saying, but I think we should be careful when assuming what material relationships we are actually going to lose before we decide to preemptively detach from them emotionally. I can imagine many scenarios in which we retain those to a significant degree, and I can also imagine scenarios in which the benefits of retaining certain relationships now are worth the pain we suffer when they are lost.
Let’s take a person’s job, for ex. If that job is something you pour yourself into every day and something you believe truly makes you a better person in the context of others, then maybe you hang onto it even though you know there is a good chance it won’t last in the future. You will certainly suffer when the job is no longer there for you, but that may be a situation in which you are willing to suffer for what you believe to be a higher purpose or truth.
Hello digging,
The connection you make between the Revelation passage and oil is interesting, but I think that passage is clearly in the context of future events yet to take place. So we can’t really analogize it what has been happening with the extraction/consumption of oil in the past.
The Tower of Babel account is definitely relevant to what’s been happening, though. That was all about human beings building up large structures out of pride and greed, to create for themselves without God. The tower itself symbolizes the people trying to reach a Heavenly Utopia through their own works, abandoning any reliance on God’s faithfulness or grace. I think it’s safe to say that’s exactly what modern human societies have been trying to do, and many of them continue to have that mentality even after it has become painfully obvious that we are incapable of creating such a Utopia for ourselves.
The parallel you bring up between the pitch/tar in Babel and the use of fossil fuels today is very interesting. The latter has indeed been one of the primary mechanisms through which humanity has literally and metaphorically built up its “sky-scraping” structures throughout the world, reflecting a clear mentality of greed and hubris. I find there are many interesting “pictures” of future events found in the Old Testament, and this certainly seems to be one of them. You could call it God’s way of using history to be instructive and relevant to future generations about their own current situations.
SteveB post=5067 wrote: [quote=ashvin post=5064]If you make the threshold “absolutely”, you will necessarily end up abandoning the truth in order to purge your “bad thoughts”.
That’s not my experience. Has that been your experience?
Yes, because I believe in objective truths outside of myself. That is what my experience and intellect tells me. None of those objective realities can be established with certainty – not even in science, let alone finance, economics, ecology, history, etc. Yet that doesn’t mean they don’t exist, that they do not reflect reality, or that they are not very important to consider and investigate.SteveB post=5064 wrote: What is “mentality” if not thoughts?
Like I said, it is a relational quality. In fact, I don’t even think “persons” exist outside of a relationship with other persons. Your inner thoughts do not have any meaning by themselves. Depending on the contextual relation in which they occur, they could very good or very bad in terms of finding the truth. But your mentality is even broader than your thoughts – the former is your general approach to every situation with others in an objective environment. A mentality that causes you to be uncomfortable or to suffer is not necessarily a bad one.
For ex., we could have extreme situations in which people have a mentality of self-sacrifice in order to save others. That mentality will cause the selfless person to endure much emotional and physical pain, yet it is still an extremely valuable thing for humanity. They key is not what your mentality does for you, it is what your mentality does for your relationships with others. Your strategy may generally improve your relationship with others, but if it’s solely based on avoiding or eliminating your own emotional suffering, then you may end up in situations in which that strategy becomes counter-productive to helping others.
SteveB post=5064 wrote: How do you be “absolutely truthful with others” if you don’t know the truth? The Work helps me understand the truth for myself so I can be available for others, unconfused and truthful (as opposed to playing a role or acting as if I know the future.)
We do the best we can in the face of uncertainty. By no means do we give up on what we believe to be the truth just because we do not know it with certainty. Being “absolutely truthful” about your beliefs and your reasons for belief is different from absolutely knowing the truth. The former is a mentality in relationship to others, and that’s what I am concerned with here.
If you believe “the work” gives you the truth, then that’s fine. I encourage you to keep making arguments for it, and responding to arguments against it. That’s what we all should continue to do, and we should never be satisfied with everyone having their own personal truth independent of an objective truth.
SteveB post=5061 wrote: The second question is, “Can you absolutely know that it’s true?” It’s a yes or no question. There’s no “very likely to be true”. There’s only one truth: yours, and it’s none of my business. But I love you, and so I invite you to learn more about this, to really test it for yourself, so that you might be even more effective at what you intend, which seems in part to be to help others deal with their circumstances sanely.
If you stop with the first two questions you miss out on the discovery that thoughts–not circumstances/reality–are the source of suffering. You also miss out on the turnarounds that lead you to your own truth. One of the videos that demonstrates The Work more fully (and tear-inducing effectively) is the one on “Prejudice” here: https://www.thework.com/watch.php?cat=watch&yid=m8vLJazT08o.
Steve, I understand why you find value in Katie’s approach, but I think it’s wrong. The second question should not be “can you absolutely know if it’s true”, and it should not be a yes or no answer. That’s a cop out, IMO. There are very few things, if any, that we know “absolutely” to be true, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t likely to be true, or that there isn’t a lot of truth in them. If you make the threshold “absolutely”, you will necessarily end up abandoning the truth in order to purge your “bad thoughts”.
I also disagree that thoughts are inherently the source of suffering. It’s a combination of our prideful, egoistic, selfish mentality and the objective circumstances of the world that lead to suffering. So yes, many times we will find ourselves with counter-productive thoughts, but those are just the symptoms of a deeper cause – our underlying mentality in relationship to the objective circumstances around us. And I don’t believe it is even possible for us to eliminate that mentality – it can only be recognized and mitigated.
How do we mitigate it? Well, that’s the point of difference here. I believe that primarily comes from sticking to certain values/principles and being absolutely truthful with others, even when we don’t feel comfortable doing so. You and Katie seem to believe it comes from focusing inwards on our own thoughts and their effects on our own state of being. I believe that could ultimately end up exacerbating the problem rather than mitigating it.
Tao Jonesing post=5056 wrote: I guess where things break down for me is the assumption that everybody actually wants to meet his or her “maximum human potential.” I once was driven by the same assumption, but I came to realize that some people just want to BE. They are content in who they are and what they have. And that should be okay. It also should be okay to accept the fact that, at some point, not everybody actually has the same potential, and that some people have actually achieved their maximum potentials at a point that you find personally unacceptable for yourself.
Some people are sheep. Fewer people are wolves. Fewer still are shepherds. Each “species” of people has its own role and its own maximum potential.
Why should that be okay? It might be okay with them, but it doesn’t have to be okay with me. This is what I’m talking about when I say “tolerance” for other people’s beliefs or lifestyles is overrated. We can explain to others why we think they need to reconsider those things without being rude or hateful. Many people will react negatively when confronted in such a personal way, at least initially, but that’s really the only way to get the truth out. We can’t find the truth if our beliefs are never challenged boldly, and others can’t find the truth if we don’t challenge their beliefs boldly.
As far as “potential” goes, I agree not everyone has the same potential, and that’s fine. I never judge anyone else’s beliefs or behavior by what I find suitable for myself. We all have different circumstances and gifts and strengths/weaknesses, and therefore our approaches to the cause of truth will necessarily vary. And obviously I would like to persuade others of my beliefs, as they would of me, but it’s the mentality they use when approaching these issues that I’m most concerned with here. Everyone is capable of being honest, rational, logical and critical while also being respectful, so that’s what I expect from myself and from others.
davefairtex post=5058 wrote: So in your list of complacent people, you forgot to include the evangelicals, many of whom believe in an actual Rapture where the true believers are taken from the earth away to heaven (how’s that for a literal Deux Ex Machina) while the unbelievers remain in the hell on earth the Apocalypse has wrought. Presumably, the Rapture folks simply have to (sit on their asses) and believe, and they will be the only ones rescued from the world’s predicament. No need to stop global warming, or worry about peak oil. None of it will matter, because they won’t even be here! The Left Behind books sold – what was it, 60 million copies? I’d say Rapture evangelicals far outnumber the New Age folks, and have a consequently larger impact on US domestic politics.
Yes, that kind of eschatological certainty is unfortunate, and as a Christian, I don’t hesitate to voice my concern if/when I hear people saying that kind of stuff. If you are a Christian, there is absolutely no good reason to abandon your responsibilities to others or to the Earth in general, and especially not the cause for truth.
I also want to be clear that I don’t think all people who believe or practice “New Age” traditions fall into the category of those I was referencing in the post. It is really a HUGE field of society, encompassing corporate strategy, holistic medicine, yoga/meditation, certain educational strategies, entertainment (movies, tv, etc.), art, self-help, etc. It’s hard to find a sphere of life in which some new age traditions haven’t crept into. So I wouldn’t say irresponsible/escapist evangelicals even come close to outnumbering people who identify with the New Age.
And there’s nothing inherently wrong or escapist with practicing some of those things in isolation… but when people turn it into the primary focus of their lives, in which they become addicted to making themselves “feel good” or “enlightened” and avoiding uncomfortable truths or situations, then I think we have a big problem.
Of course I’m one of those New Age people, at least to a degree, so I’m biased. We’re going to be here dealing with reality for the duration, while the Rapturites feel they have a get-out-of-jail-free card.
From what I understand, attachment to people and things causes suffering when those people and things are lost. As you can release your attachments (not an easy job), the suffering from loss diminishes. We will have loss of standard of living, in all likelihood. Yet if we can release our attachment to those things, objective reality is unchanged, we remain on the earth un-rescued from our predicament, but the emotional impact of reality upon us IS changed.
The idea that we need to abandon relationships or attachments with either people or things in order to “avoid loss” or emotional hardship doesn’t sit well with me. I think there are certainly times in which we must make those tough decisions, but they should be based on what we think is right, first and foremost. What we think helps others around us the most, and what helps us become better stewards for others. If improving your emotional state helps you do that, then sure you can seek ways of helping you do that. But if those methods start becoming a way of making yourself feel good for the sake of feeling good, or at the expense of what you believe to be the truth, then you must really stop and think about what is truly the most important for humanity.
If we weren’t so motivated by marketing to find self-worth in the buying of things (most of which we don’t use, and much of which is funded by debt) we could likely be just as objectively happy and perhaps even more so with a lot less. And when things went away (the house, the car, the job, etc) our identity would be unaffected.
And if its going to happen anyway…
No doubt about that… material attachments will not get you far in helping anyone, including yourself. However, we shouldn’t think that “marketing to find self-worth” only encompasses traditional advertising of products. I find plenty of that happening in the self-help areas of the new age as well, among other areas.
Steve,
First, let me say I’m not trying to specifically judge anyone else’s situation here. If someone truly feels like they need to make sacrifices, then they know I’m talking to (with) them. If not, then I’m not.
But I am saying that it’s not good to focus on yourself and leave everyone else alone. That kind of “tolerance” is way too overrated. We show respect for others by speaking what we believe to be the truth to them, and though it may lead to much short-term discomfort and anguish, I believe it is ultimately for the better. That doesn’t mean we can’t have different perspectives on the truth – just that we present our perspectives honestly and boldly.
You also seem to be assuming that avoidance of “suffering” should be our end goal, namely emotional suffering. My argument is that we should embrace a life of doubts, fears, anguish, uncertainty, etc., even the possibility of physical suffering, if we believe it to be endured in the name of truth. That is what humanity needs more than anything else right now – the cold, hard truth. And if everyone sits back, shuts up and focuses on their own comfort or well-being, we will never even have a chance of getting to that.
I’m pointing to it as a possible means of addressing what you’re lamenting. When they begin (continue?) to fear the future and act on that fear (as opposed to the knowledge of their situation–there’s a difference), how (again, not ‘what’, but ‘how’) do you suggest we help them?
Well, perhaps I would keep Katie’s first two questions and leave out the other two. If it’s true or very likely to be true, then you confront it without dismissing it. Any fear you feel must be addressed without abandoning the truth. If the fear persists, so be it… maybe it will motivate them to open up doors to even higher truths.
Puff post=5048 wrote: I’m a strong believer in attraction. If you worry and fear the future, those outcomes you focus on will come true for you and vice versa.
I dunno bout this attraction stuff… but I agree it can become very counter-productive to worry and fear all the time. Yet, again, I would say that the truth takes precedence. And if you confront it honestly and boldly, you may just find that your fears of the world melt away. Focusing on your own “state of being” is no doubt a good thing for the purposes of truth, but so is focusing on the state of other people, and the state of the world in general.
SteveB post=5046 wrote: “It is only when we confront the umcomfortable truths of our situation in this world that we will be able to become the best we can possibly be.”
The truth isn’t uncomfortable–in my experience it’s the only thing that IS comfortable.
I recommend The Work of Byron Katie to everyone. While it might seem like just another New Age pitch along the lines that Ash describes above, I’ve found it to be the only thing that helped me find the clarity to live without worry while I prepare for a future very (but not totally) different from our past, and therefore to do so more effectively, for myself, my family, and community.
I found this quote on her website:
“I discovered that when I believed my thoughts, I suffered, but that when I didn’t believe them, I didn’t suffer, and that this is true for every human being. Freedom is as simple as that. I found that suffering is optional. I found a joy within me that has never disappeared, not for a single moment. That joy is in everyone, always.” — Byron Katie
And if that is really the mentality she advocates, then yeah, it’s definitely what I was talking about in the post. Don’t believe your thoughts? I can understand being critical of your thoughts if they are planted by a deceptive source, such as cultural conditioning, or if they are speculative thoughts not based on any investigation/research, but NOT because they make you uncomfortable or even if they make you suffer in some way. If that’s the price of truth, then we should pay it.
Perhaps she believes that many of our “thoughts” symbolize attachment to the self, but I think we need to ask ourselves why we feel the need to ever detach from the self? Because it makes you feel good or like a different person? Not everything that makes you feel like that is desirable or leading you to the truth (for ex., many drugs). And, also, if you experience joy every moment of your life, or you believe that everyone can experience joy every moment of their lives, then I’d say you are most definitely avoiding the truth.
‘We need to become the best we can possibly be.’ Is that true?
Sure, why not? I really believe it’s possible if we are willing to confront the truth. We may end up being surprised by what our “best” really looks like, but that’s fine… at least we know its our best.
rlmrdl post=5042 wrote: In another place I read a suggestion that the emotional and psychological condition of calm and peacefulness that surrounds many deaths, the feeling that we are going to something better, that we are about to meet long-lost loved ones etc is a survival mechanism that enables the dying not to attract predators with their screaming in fear and so endanger the whole community.
I wonder if something like this is part of why we are seeing so much apparent complacency. A preparation for death. Because when this thing comes down, there will be plenty of that. Perhaps, at some subconscious level, we do understand, but most of us accept the impossibility of fixing the predicament and are preparing to give up.
Perhaps, but the people I come across are clinging to their daily lives like its the only thing that matters anymore. Even people who claim to believe in an afterlife of some sort don’t really seem to place any importance on it. That could partly be because they realize things aren’t too good, but they don’t know how to respond and find comfort in daily routine. It could also be because they have convinced themselves of some vague way in which everything will be righted within their lifetimes or at least those of future generations. Or it could be because they have simply “given up”, and want to enjoy the fleeting moments before they pass.
Whatever the reason, I think people are mainly looking for an easy way out. They may be highly critical of the world they are accustomed to, but they ultimately don’t want to give it up, because that can be such a lonely feeling sometimes. It can also make you a social pariah at the drop of a dime. And that’s why I say confronting the truth will be “uncomfortable” for most people, to say the least. You can maybe get away with a few radical opinions here or there, but once you harp on them too much or expose your entire worldview, people will literally hate you for it. We don’t like to be hated by others, but I believe that it doesn’t really come down to what we want at the end of the day. It’s the truth that counts.
Brian post=4971 wrote: As someone who had hoped to retire in 10-15 years, and on the New York Public Employees pension fund, I have never really expected that it still will be there then, or that Social Security will be there, either. However, reading this (https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/global-extinction-within-one-human.html), I have to say, what difference does any of this make?
The abstract on that article seems scary enough, but I have no idea what to make of all the technical data analysis. Anyone here well-versed in this kind of stuff?
Malcolm Light wrote: Abstract
Although the sudden high rate Arctic methane increase at Svalbard in late 2010 data set applies to only a short time interval, similar sudden methane concentration peaks also occur at Barrow point and the effects of a major methane build-up has been observed using all the major scientific observation systems. Giant fountains/torches/plumes of methane entering the atmosphere up to 1 km across have been seen on the East Siberian Shelf. This methane eruption data is so consistent and aerially extensive that when combined with methane gas warming potentials, Permian extinction event temperatures and methane lifetime data it paints a frightening picture of the beginning of the now uncontrollable global warming induced destabilization of the subsea Arctic methane hydrates on the shelf and slope which started in late 2010. This process of methane release will accelerate exponentially, release huge quantities of methane into the atmosphere and lead to the demise of all life on earth before the middle of this century.
VST,
If you want to know what I prefer or what I think would be ideal, then there is no sense in talking about inheritance taxes or global wealth. The current world system is terminally broken and leading us to extremely destructive conditions. As long as we continue making policies at such large scales, it is inevitable that those policies will benefit a few elites at the expense of the masses, no matter what they are. Taxation rates, financial reform, stimulus plans, climate change legislation… it doesn’t matter. They will all fail to achieve their alleged goals, as history has proven to us over and over again.
After awhile, there will be no inheritance to tax for most people and no meaningful wealth to distribute or redistribute. That is the very nature of a materialist system – it grows and grows until it consumes itself, perhaps destroying other life-supporting systems in the process. Nothing short of a complete 180 degree reversal of our current priorities, i.e. economic growth and self-centered existence, will change that. If you were looking for my economic philosophy, or whether I lean towards capitalism/socialism, then there you have it – I lean towards something much more radical than either of them.
davefairtex post=4933 wrote: ash –
Bottom line: we can watch money flows. And since money flow is THE mechanism by which a confidence break is transmitted to the financial system, watching where money goes and in what quantity is effectively a measurement of what is happening to confidence.
So what was the market telling us about general confidence in Fall 2011 when they were plummeting, and Italian bond yields breached 7%, from the perspective of someone back then? Obviously every large market move reflects something about investor confidence (assuming its not totally engineered up or down), but what does that tell us about anything else? What kind of move is necessary before you feel that confidence has “broken” or is dangerously close to breaking? What kind of % drop in equities would it take now for the Fed to immediately intervene with QE?
I have no problem looking at market movements and assessing how they may influence central authorities in the future, but I never use them to inform the fundamental picture of what’s happening. By the time the market tells me that confidence has reached some kind of breaking point, it will be much too late for that information to be of any value. I don’t think anyone can really assign probabilities to such an occurrence before the fact. We can only know how great the impact would be and how likely it is within long time frames. In the short-term, capital flows can go any number of ways without really telling us anything about how much confidence will be left next week or next month.
davefairtex post=4912 wrote: But regardless of my opinion, the market will let us know when it starts to sniff out policy failure, but we only benefit if we are paying attention. Pressure will start to build, and it will show up in money flows. And that’s why its important to watch. Not as a predictor, but an indicator – a thermometer of sorts, at least for the known knowns.
If we take 2008 as a model, a switch didn’t just flip one day and bad stuff happened. Pressure built slowly over the months, then more rapidly, until finally confidence snapped and a massive run on money market accounts happened. Astute observers were watching this pressure build by watching market prices and how they changed in reaction to events.
Of course predicting when confidence snaps is impossible. Yet we can tell if pressure is increasing or decreasing, and hypothesize that if pressure is decreasing, the chance of a massive loss of confidence is less likely to occur.
My feeling is as long as we don’t get hit by a real black swan (a geological event, for instance), I think the market will perform well as a near term pressure gauge.
I’m still very skeptical of this assertion. I think it’s easy to look at market movements after the fact (i.e. after some real news/events have happened) and read into them some predictive value that otherwise wasn’t there. Now that we know there is some discussion of Germany allowing the ECB a longer leash, we look at the market ramp in certain credit/equities and assume that we could have deduced the reason. And maybe sometimes we do deduce the reason in advance, but I’d call it more luck than deductive skill.
Now what happens if the “new” ECB developments turn out to be non-developments after all, as it seems is already starting to become apparent. Then all of that pressure that we previously thought had been relieved or at least subsided, due to the short-term market movements, comes rushing back in as if it had always been there… which should probably tell us that it had, in fact, always been there, and we were merely deceived by the market. OTOH, if the ECB were to officially act in a new capacity, then we will no doubt see pressures subside in the Eurozone for some time. I’d rather pay attention to the likelihood of that, and I think short-term market movements tell us very little, if anything, about that.
Using your analogy to Noah and the ark, I’d say we need to have a degree of faith in our fundamental base of knowledge. In his case, it was God’s specific revelation to him – he knew that Flood was coming even though the sky was clear and sunny for 120 years. In our case, it is our theoretical underpinnings, observable events, some hard data and our logical/analytic capabilities. I think it’s sometimes wise to limit the sources we use because they may give us confidence in evidence/data that extremely speculative, just like Noah had to focus on God rather than his own eyes. IMO, short-term market movements are largely irrelevant or, sometimes, designed to deceive… and we can’t even tell the difference between the two.
davefairtex post=4909 wrote: Ash, I think its good you’re keeping your finger on the pulse of the market while at the same time looking at the fundamental situation. Eventually the market will have to go along with the fundamentals, but its good to recognize when they diverge, and furthermore, acknowledge that they CAN diverge for longer than many of the players in those markets can remain solvent.
Dave, Ilargi wrote the article.
But I wouldn’t call what he wrote “keeping a finger on the pulse of the market” aside from some early references to highs in Western markets. Personally, I think the fundamental situation is much more important than the pulse of the market, perhaps infinitely more important. The pulse is just that – a short-term indicator of [monetary] circulation and life, but tells you nothing about the terminal disease and nasty symptoms lying underneath.
The market CAN diverge from the fundamentals for significant periods of time, quite possibly wiping out many short-term investors one way or the other, but the real question is whether we can predict those divergences in any meaningful way, or whether the risk is simply too great at all times. I believe the latter is true. Like you imply, we live in an era of “black swans”. For now, these events are based around the complexities of our debt-based economies.
We may not know exactly what they will be or exactly when they will occur, but we know they will occur and they will shake the foundations of the global economy.
Golden Oxen post=4897 wrote: Hi Ashvin, If China does truly implode it would no doubt cause a total and horrific collapse in all commodity prices, including oil.
At first blush that would appear to be extremely negative for world wide economies and stock markets. Having second thoughts about that however as I ponder what a sharp drop in oil prices as well as the other commodities and it’s resultant deflationary impact would have on the Western economies. Could it possibly be construed as bullish for them as it takes the strain off the western consumer and simultaneously allows the Fed and ECB to crank up the stimulus much more than is now possible?
Hey GO,
The problem (from the system’s status quo perspective) would be the massive losses that result to investors, banks and businesses, which would also lead to massive layoffs and increased debt burdens for those who still owe money, which are a lot of people. Any marginal gains the consumer gets from lower prices would be greatly offset by the loss of income and debt servicing costs.
You could be right, though, that it provides the opportunity for central authorities to step in with more stimulus, and, THEORETICALLY, they could even direct much of that to the people. As Dr. Keen would suggest, they could do a QE for the people that allows debtors to pay down their debts and also gives a windfall to those who don’t owe anything. However, it’s much more likely they fall back on bailing out the big boys and salvaging what they can of the status quo.
Meanwhile, they can also use the renewed crisis as an opportunity to expand the police state, justify new war efforts, override state/national sovereignty and generally take control of the world-system. It’s unclear to me how much resistance will be put up by the masses during these times of extreme uncertainty. TPTB will certainly have to throw them a few bones in order to convince them that this is all necessary for the “greater good”.
Gravity post=4863 wrote: Interpreting this guarantee clause poses an interesting problem,
but it is stupifiying that the vital conception of a republican form
cannot be readily defined within constitutional parameters,
any applicable definition must be directly evident from the document itself.Not that I’m aware of. Then again, not many concepts or powers are “directly evident from the document itself”. Take Congress’ power to “regulate interstate commerce”, for ex. There is really no further explanation of what that entails, and it has therefore become so broad as to encompass just about any economic activity. Federal courts can really interpret these vague clauses as broadly or as narrowly as they want, depending on what corporate or political interests are in play for any given set of facts. Precedents can be amassed to support those interpretations, and, if there is little preceding judicial support, the judges can rely on some other ad hoc reasoning to ignore/overturn prior precedent.
jal post=4828 wrote: Hummmm!
[strike]A new tool bar[/strike]!!!( it seems to work.)
Isn’t great to have the web to share what is happening.
Profiles and avatars are now functional as well.
Triv,
What you are saying is true – the language and words we use are very important to the underlying mentality we have.
I kinda take back what I just said, though. Treating people equal to yourself is, of course, a great and admirable mentality to have. But, IMO, there is nothing wrong with being selfless to the point of valuing the interest of others more than the interest of oneself in certain situations. A prominent example would obviously be those who have sacrificed their lives for the lives of other people or in the name of higher virtues. Selflessness also implies a sense of trust to me, i.e trusting in higher values/principles to the point of unconditionally surrendering yourself to them. In some ways, it is recognizing that you do not truly belong to yourself, but someone or something else.
I know there are times in which such a mentality can be abused by the wicked against the unwary, such as in counterfeit cults, but that doesn’t make the genuine model of selflessness any less genuine. If you still feel that is a bad thing, I wouldn’t mind hearing why.
TheTrivium4TW post=4811 wrote:
IMHO, a paradigm of equality is where it is at longer term.Hey Triv,
I agree, one should not diminish oneself. The Golden Rule counts as “selfless” in my book.
ZuluBuddha post=4778 wrote: Ashvin, I would be very curious as to your metaphysical views if you ever care to share. Cheers – Alexander
Nothing fancy… just plain old Judeo-Christian metaphysics.
I won’t get into any discussions/debates about that here, though.
Alexander,
Your response was more than adequate… it was excellent. We probably don’t agree on the specifics of the metaphysics involved and its implications, but your framework is obviously a lot more nuanced and comprehensive than I first thought.
I look forward to reading more of your thoughts!
Alexander,
Great post. As someone who thinks about these systemic developments in very similar ways, I would like to present a brief critique. I agree completely with everything you said in the first part (before the picture), i.e.
Yet why is this idea of reframing the narrative so important? I would argue that if we do not demythologize our history we will be incapable of demythologizing ourselves, and if our understanding of our lineage is mythic then our relationship to our own times is equally so
I also agree with many of the points you make in your historical description, but I can’t help but think you are also trying to take a bunch of complicated human psychology, social relationships and developments over time, and distill out a historic mythology of your own – one rooted in a very naturalist philosophy of fractal systems evolution. Indeed, you start with the very beginning of the Universe and work your way to present day.
Like I said, I do the same thing in my thoughts and writing quite often. But, when we do that, it also feels that we are artificially simplifying or trivializing historical events (and, by implication, potential current and future outcomes) for the sake of maintaining our general systems philosophy. For example, here are some of your statements that I am uneasy with:
“What we can see in evolution is that that the organism’s most capable of harnessing available energy are the most fit.”
…
“Simply put, the human mind represents the sum logic of evolution, for the purpose of harnessing available energy, in a singular organism. Instead of adapting physiologically it adapts behaviourally, furthering the geometric growth in complexity.”
…
“Christianity went from being a cult of ostensibly 12 families to the dominant religion of the empire in less than 400 years. No small feat in a world where the fastest form of travel was the Trireme. This is often described as one of the “miracles” of Christianity and I am sure there would be those that would be quite displeased to hear me say it would be more appropriately called natural selection.”
…
“As more people were saved by Christian charity they adopted what was a more functional model of social organization in terms of survival.
Of course this all came with cosmological justification that was transmitted with the behaviour. In this way Christianity was able to grow geometrically in the empire and undercut and supplant the social order despite powerful attempts to stop the process. Adaptation and evolution by any other name.”
…
Around the same time wealth from the New World began to pour into Europe, largely through the Spanish conquest of the Americas. One could also argue that the age of discovery was fueled by geography. With Portugal and Spain on the periphery of the major Italian economic centers and with dense populations prohibiting expansion to the east they were directed towards oceanic exploration and expansion in the west to fuel their economies.
…
Thus nations on the periphery of the old medieval order – the Church of Rome -, became both more economically powerful and independent. It was this combination of economic transformation, infused with humanist values of the Renaissance spreading north, that helped spark the reformation.
Economic independence provided the insulation necessary for a new conception of human relationship to take root and challenge the authority of Rome.
I say I am “uneasy” with these and other similar statements because, while they are accurate in many ways, they seem to form an evolutionary systems mythology that excludes many other aspects of humanity and human civilization. Every idea, every social transformation, every cultural development, every technological feat, etc. is explained solely in terms of this nearly inevitable evolutionary framework. Are we really so sure that is how reality works?
It is clear, for example, that your framework totally leaves out any role for human spirituality and metaphysics, which, in the case of the the last 1700 years of the Western world, is represented by Christianity. But the same could be said for any time period and geography in which any type of religion/spirituality existed in the last 10,000 years. If the “natural evolution” of Universal and human history is not really so strictly “natural”, then our picture of the past, present and future significantly changes.
If “demythologizing” means stripping out the value of every mythical conception produced by humanity, then we may be going way overboard in our efforts to produce a consistent and coherent theory of history. Again, that’s not to say your framework would completely fall apart, but it would be simplifying the situation to a level that may lead us to miss key evidence and draw erroneous conclusions.
MattBuchanan wrote: That is a radical idea, so radical it is almost certainly a political nonstarter.
Funny how people define “radical”…
I’d say a “radical” idea would be for the politicians and government officials to force the major banks into bankruptcy, prosecute high-level executives and clawback all salaries/bonuses above a very minimal amount, and systemically restructure the system with new regulations against leveraged speculation as a well as a dismantling of the entire federal reserve system.
But THEY tell me that forcing the banks to simply disclose their assets/liabilities to the politicians and the public, in the midst of the greatest debt crisis known to humankind, after trillions in taxpayer bailouts/subsidies, continued systemic risk and countless criminal conspiracies, is “radical”…
Agtefc post=4733 wrote: It is difficult to call a human cull a solution, but it is the highest quality solution available. Both necessary and sufficient.
Necessary for what? If we can only achieve sustainable human societies by murdering billions of people, then sustainability isn’t a goal worth reaching. Billions of people may die based on our current trajectory, but it should by no means be a policy goal. If you mean it is necessary to “save the planet”, then I disagree. It is very unlikely that life on Earth will disappear due to human actions, especially if many humans naturally die in the process of systemic crises. IMO, anyone who advocates for systematic depopulation policies has a sinister agenda or hasn’t used their brains enough to think through the implications (most of which are ethical/moral, and infinitely more important than the material).
Gravity post=4699 wrote: [quote=ashvin post=4657]
And with ideal taxation mechanisms under a representative government, wouldn’t any form of private profitability, even when derived from completely selfish motives, be sufficiently redistributed towards a common good, if the fiscal motives of elective systems, political parties, were sufficiently altruistic between economic classes and at intergenerational scales?Does that sound like something that could happen? Maybe there’s a reason why it is impossible… the motives define the results.
