The Future of Money: None

[Castout]

I know this will terrify people whose mindsets are so entrenched with the accumulation of possessions and money. I will be called names and derided as a fool and crazy. Just sharing a thought.

We are moving towards a moneyless society (Not digital money or a cashless society but no money at all). Money has been the primary problem for our species and in order to help free our society from a fear-based living, money has to go. A lot of people will fear and oppose this change though. The alternative to a moneyless society is a world rife with enslavement, discrimination, and persecution. Any authoritarian government is only a manifestation of the fear-based world we are co-creating that stems from an unequal and unfair distribution of money and thus, influence and power.

Don’t mistake this with a lazy unproductive society. On the contrary, in the absence of hoarding money, humanity can strive to pursue what really matters and to strive to live their lives to the fullest of their potential. If people could get anything they wanted, completely free, there would be no reason to hoard anything at all and to destroy the planet just to hoard money.

This is not extremism. This is not a crazy, unrealistic idea. This is no propaganda. If you think this through, it is very workable. We are responsible in co-creating our interactive movie in this life. If we put everything at monetary value then we will get a humanity enslaved to money. Capitalism doesn’t work. Less than 10 people own half of the world’s entire wealth. Around 200 people probably own as much as 75-80% if not more of the world’s entire wealth. This interactive movie, this dream is turning into a nightmare for too many monadic ‘consciousnesses’ by a world pandering to just so few people. Currently, we don’t get the best of things produced simply because they would be unaffordable for most people. By doing away with money altogether we can start producing what we can actually produce totally unrestricted by monetary constraints. We must do away with a fear-based living. A life based on the mindset of illusory scarcity. Deep sea mining would become possible if you took away cost. So would lunar and asteroid mining. Even mining other planets would become possible eventually giving us the means to harvest our sun’s energy. Many of these aren’t done simply because the costs would be prohibitive. There probably isn’t enough money in the entire world even to try to mine our moon on a massive scale. Thus, money impedes progress and raises inequality through a fear-based living creating a world rife with persecution, oppression, poverty, envy, and enslavement of humanity to money.

https://youtu.be/EyrB4MuMtY0

https://youtu.be/7CzeJF6eqrY

https://www.elephantjournal.com/2016/03/moneyless-society-is-not-a-myth-its-already-happening/

Imagine yourself growing up in a society where there is never any want or need or financial insecurity of any sort. You will be a very different person. You will be absolutely uninterested in conspicuous consumption. … You will probably be interested in things of a higher nature—the cultivation of the mind, education, love, art, and discovery. And so these people are very stoic in that sense, because they have no worldly interests that we today could relate to. … I usually say that they’re all aliens, in a way.

https://www.wired.com/2016/05/geeks-guide-star-trek-economics/

It’s one step at a time,
https://youtu.be/3xOK2aJ-0Js

[Castout]

Just as a background:
If you think logically, it becomes clear that banks are a means to facilitate a transfer of wealth by giving the advantage to the haves at the expense of the have-nots. This is so because there's almost nothing to gain by putting your money in the bank nowadays. What little interest banks give you, is further cut by fees. So, you give banks your money for essentially nothing. The banks in return loan the money at much higher interest rates to the haves since only the haves would have the collateral that exceeds their borrowing. So, the haves fueled by borrowed capital enrich themselves and the banks at your expense...Banks precipitate inequality and thus stagnate the economy in the long run (although banks do help economic growth in the short run). Only when the underprivileged are made to prosper that you can have a robust economy. But banks aren't loaning money to the poor. Today, those who manufacture are starting to run out of people who could afford their products. Essentially making themselves the buyers of their own products. This will become evidently clear when inequality is further raised to greater unprecedented levels. So, banks work to impoverish the average man and accelerate wealth gained by the rich. It is a means to transfer wealth.
Today, ONLY 6 richest men own as much as 50% of the rest of human population. Without banks, this would not have been possible. Certainly, you can see how this would impact politics everywhere, our global economy, and societies. Don't kid yourself. The divide is only going to get bigger.
Do you know HOW MUCH JUST 62 RICHEST MEN OWN compared to the rest of the world, TODAY? You would be outraged! Our politics, economies, and societies pandering to just 62 men...and we wonder why our democracies are failing us. We all have been made irrelevant, LOL.

[Von Due]

Something a friend of mine said in all seriousness a long time ago:

You can not do anything without money, it is simply impossible. With no money, humans will starve to death because even getting a fish to bite a hook costs money.

He meant every word. So, it seems to me, do most people. We simply are too deep into the belief that money is above humans, like a god money just _is_ and must be obeyed.

Humans are not sophisticated but we are what we are, superstitious, simple minded and stubborn, come hell or high water. We also make the calls so I don't see the moneyless society happening before we are all gone.

[Castout]

Humans are not sophisticated but we are what we are, superstitious, simple minded and stubborn, come hell or high water. We also make the calls so I don't see the moneyless society happening before we are all gone.

True, we will all be dead before we see a moneyless society but assuming civilization continues, a moneyless society is simply the most logical solution to enable that leap of civilization advancement.

It's part of the natural evolution of living.

Chasing after money is unnatural and it inhibits humanity, stalling personal growth and creating all sort of ills in society and for the environment.

I know all too well that human beings are not sophisticated...Was almost killed for doing nothing wrong, defamed mentally ill, and subsequently persecuted for about 7 years. It was only due to the unhappiness and insecurity of some people in power. My past ordeal too stems from money. Dictators always hoard money in the conviction that it adds to their influence and power factor. Society seems to share the idea that more successful people can get away with crimes especially if they hold a high public office. At least in Southeast Asia.

This fear-based living is destroying human's natural evolution. Women now marry for money and bad leaders get elected and followed simply because they command or have the support of vast sum of money. Money becomes the goal unto itself. It has become a universal perversion.

When just a few hundreds of people command 80-95% of the world's entire wealth, where does that leave the rest? Enslaved to work for money that will never be enough until the day we die.

[Skybird]

Who does the dirty jobs that everybody hates, but that must be done?

How to decide ressource allocation if no economic standaridzation- by calculation ressources, time, cost-effect ratios in terms of money - is possible?

People act stupid, and selfish, not rational and altruistic. For thsi reason I already argue that most voters should be banned from a general right to vote. Voters must earn the right by contirbtuion, and must qualify by competence and knowledge, in an idela world. Why would I want to assume that if money must no more be earned, people would not live lazy and contra-productive? Heck, i even live like that myself since some years, since I can afford it!

Too much surreal idealism there, and no sense of realism.

Money is no god, I do not dance around it at all. But - it is a tool hat is indispensable in a complex world to make sure you can establish coplex prudction chains and have industrial mass-production in a scale capoable to fee and dress not just some hundreds, but severla billion people.

Just another one of these insance socialist follies that already were tried so iften, with brilliant ideas causing the starvation and dying of millions. Afterwards, the heaps of bodies mount high into the sky, and those who apllauded the dieas still will claim: it wa snot us, for they corruoted our brilliant conception, if only they wuld all have hinestly supported our vision, then it would have worked.

Two hundred years and over 150 million dead later, we really should know it better.

The world is no tiny, clean (and boring as hell) Star Trek city where you can lick food from the street, that clean it is. Its a dirty world, with chaotic events.

You want me to work, you pay me, give me a reward that is worth it for me. Just altruism and your idealistic vision is not worth it for me, so why should I work for just that?

And again, to not be misunderstood: money is a tool only, but an indispensable tool. The function it fulfills is what counts. You cannot replace it with nothing more than singing "Just do not be like you are, just be somebody different." That is not how the plebs works, that is not how humans are.

I recommend to read Gustave LeBon-The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, in which he concludes - correctly, I say - that crowds (societies) are not just a collection of individuals, but that crowds form their own super-individual dynamics. And these dynmics are what is against the idea of thinking that if you enobble the individuals you get a world of altruists that all are eager to come to each other's rescue.

And please, no talking now on that robots will take all the work. That is a.) in doubt for principle problems ith that idea, and b.) still would be decades and decades away.

And finally - and that may be the most important point in the long run - who says that a perfect world windeed would chnage people for th ebetter? I claim, and I man it serious: it would bring out the worst in man in unforseeable ammounts, right becasue he must not prove himself anymore and must not care anymore. Mill thught that pltical work would turn the plltical acting indivodual into a more responle, more ennobled being. When I see modern democracy at work, i see right the opposite being the rule today.

Money last but not least is an incentive, a convincing one. I claim yu need another incentive to repalc eit wiorth, if you take money out of this function. Not a sentimental, altruistic incentive, and certainly not pure force by a givenrment that tells people to work (that would be leader-related dictatorship again), but an incentive that respects and takes into account the nature of man as a a lfie form that fights to survive and that acts therefore necessarily egoist and selfish. You cannot get around that.

Money is a tool, not more, not less. But an indispensable one. I touched the econmic importanc eonly on the surface, but it should be obvious anyway. Try to run a mass-producing economy without such a tool. Communism and money-lessness only works in the sallest of smallest possible comunal contexts. And even then it tends to raise troubles sooner or later.

[Skybird]

P.S.

What I would agree on, however, is that today's papermoney is no real money, but is a selfdeception that most people do not understand, and a fraud by the ruling elite. The distortions and rifts it causes in the economc base structure, reach deeper and deeper, and there will be no escape from the devastating consequences in the end. whenever that will be.

What I mean is: we already live in a money-free world, if "money" shoukd be a word of real value, should be a real money indeed. Obviously, this has not enobled mankind, nor has it freed society from greed, need, and the effort by many to form monopolies of their own. One has evaded into surrogate values instead - material assets and knowledge monopolies, and left the crowd to its illusions.

Imagining a world without something that serves in the role of money - that is like demanding not to eat food anymore, but to simply stop feeling hungry.

[Castout]

I see that the roots of money are very deeply entrenched that people lose their objectivity and critical thinking when it comes to discussing that money is holding us back. That it is obsolete.

People are encouraged to be bad and not to prove himself in a money-based world.

Naturally, human beings are inclined to do good. It is fear that makes them do otherwise. Fear begets insecurity which begets hate, hate begets violence which begets violence and more fear.

This is why so few people reach Maslow's transcendence level. In corporations, the highest attainment of mankind isn't even acknowledged.

To realize that the highest attainment of mankind has NO place in a society speaks volumes on just how perverse our society has become.

[Von Due]

I wouldn't say humans are more inclined to do good. Stability, status quo, certainty, predictability, I would say, are more fundamental keywords, even if this stability, status quo and predictability means our own downfall.

As for "us" in my first post, I don't mean you and me but the species as a whole, humanity in its entirety. What I was saying was, the moneyless global society will never ever happen again. It was moneyless but that's more than at least 6000 years ago, before the first city states, probably much longer. That humans can be bothered to work for no money, the first few 100,000s of years before Ur and Babylon tell us loud and clear. They worked for the stability, certainty, survival and passing of genes. It's only when we attempt to apply our modern rules to the ancient game that we get absurdities.

[Skybird]

I hinted at the technical function that money has. Just demonising it on grounds of troubled emotions, or declaring people as psychologically inhibited, will not get you around certain factual needs and tehcnical chgallenges in the real world that you cannot avoid. Its not as if money has been "invented" by man just for fun or boredom. Mone yis neither a tool of evil wickedness, nor is it just a creation of random chance. From science, technology, physics, biology, we learn that function dictates form. Have a form that fails, and the fuction cannot be met.

You can leave it to just imagining you were not hungry, but nevertheless: you still need to eat at times. If you don't, you starve - even when you hold out and still imagine that you are not hungry and that eating is not necessary.

Its currently en vogue a bit to declare money obsolete since there are so many debts and some states already have started to collapse under their economic mismanagement in the past decades. The debts should be made disappearing by declaring money as obsolete. Others try to fight the debts by wanting to force people to chnage the format of money from paper snippets they cna carry out of reahc by the ECB and the government, to a digital format that makes it impossible to evade plundering and stealing by the state (not even mentioning the lacking security against ordinary hacking criminals). Lst century they waged war on a gold-standard for money, to weasel around state spendings that could not be paid for (Vietnam). Now they wage war against the result fo that: the "paper-standard".

There are so many insane follies en vogue today. Genderism. Cultural non-identity. Unlimited relativism. Money-lessness. To me it all shows how far beyond our cultural climax we already are.

The real problem with money and the need to earn it is that we still stick to a model of sopciety wherte earning money is a must in order tomake your living, but many jobs get lost to automatization or shifti89ng them to other contionents, so that there are lesser opportunities for the crowd to earn money with jobs of lower qualification. That we import migrants as crazy currently, also has a problem, a dimension that maybe is more relevant than the strawman argument that demographic developments and shrinkign, overaging societies must be compensated for (if jobs get lost, we maybe should expect to be better off in the future if less people actually need to to look for job). That has somethign to do with the fact that there is far more state bonds, than there are stock holdings. And somebody must buy these ever inflating ammounts of worthless state bonds, else they canot maintain the illusion of that states mantain their spending on sustainbable levels. And so people get imported additonally to serve as biond-buyers, if not as "investors" :D then at least as insurred emplyes whose pensions and insurrance secfurities to dominant lewvels base of fonds that are forced by the state cartel to base on buiynf state bonds.

As I said earlier, our money system is totally corrupted and rotten. That does not mean that the function of money is not necessary. It only means that we have abused it. The status quo is no argument against the token named "money", it only is an argument against the crowd allowing political elites to abuse the system and make their living and fame by damaging the system of money, since decades. Which, in the end and if ulook close enough at it, is an argument against today'S understanding of state - and democracy - itself. Individualism and collectivism are antagonists, and their conflicting natures do not get settled by reason and rational argment, but simply by raw force and its implementation according to the law of the strongest.

Now there you would have a point worth to go after, where you would have my support. But being against money? That is like wanting to end wars by being against knives.

P.S. For a brief overview on how money came into the world, why it is needed, what it does and why they try to de3stroy good money, there still is this marvellous and brief introduction by M. Rothbard: What has government done to our money, that explains the historic origin and the modern times in a fashion easy to understand, and brief. It can be legally downloaded for free here: L-I-N-K (https://mises.org/system/tdf/What%20Has%20Government%20Done%20to%20Our%20Money_ 3.pdf?file=1&type=document)

Should be mandatory read in schools' higher classes.

[Castout]

@Skybird: I'm not demonizing any opinion. Just speaking my mind.

@ Von Due: Yeah I know you didn't mean you and me. If you read developmental psychology you will understand human nature. We are inclined to do good and to reciprocate good with good.

I tend to think moneyless society is the future.

[Skybird]

@Skybird: I'm not demonizing any opinion. Just speaking my mind.


You said: "I see that the roots of money are very deeply entrenched that people lose their objectivity and critical thinking when it comes to discussing that money is holding us back."

I replied: "Just demonising it on grounds of troubled emotions, or declaring people as psychologically inhibited, will not get you around certain factual needs and technical chgallenges in the real world that you cannot avoid."


Naturally, human beings are inclined to do good.
Says who...?

It starts with changing standards that decidce what is seen to be good and bad. It ends with the fact that you are heading for a frontal head-on crash with empiry over your claim. Imagine you were talking to some IS dude.

A Buddhist would say the one thing all people have in common is that we all try to gain what makes us happy or gives us satisfaction of any kind, and that we want to avoid aversive stimuli.

A dentist drilling my tooth's hole, is an aversive stimuli.

The boy whose family always fought for survival, may find happiness in collecting ever more gold and wealth and even betray others for that, and steal and plunder.

Where is your goodness now? Your evil? You have to look deeper, beyond the shallow surface of what is just terminology.

Buddha also was asked how many people in his opinion spend their lives in a valuable fashion. He picked some dirt from under one of his fingernails and said: "compared to all dirt on all beaches of the world, not more than this."

Man is an animal that has an inbuild feature called instinct/drive for survival. This can - and often does - lead man to act egopist and selfishly. THAT is natural, and part of human nature. The discussion amongst philosphers whether or not even altruism in itself is a form of egoism, is old and does not really seem to lead anywhere. Being altruistic, may give you rewards that are egoistic in themselves. What means that for the altruism in the beginning? Can altruism even exist?

Most people do what serves their interests best. That simple and obvious it is. If they only would follow the golden rule, already very much would be won.

[Castout]

You said: "I see that the roots of money are very deeply entrenched that people lose their objectivity and critical thinking when it comes to discussing that money is holding us back."

I replied: "Just demonising it on grounds of troubled emotions, or declaring people as psychologically inhibited, will not get you around certain factual needs and technical chgallenges in the real world that you cannot avoid."

Says who...?

It starts with changing standards that decidce what is seen to be good and bad. It ends with the fact that you are heading for a frontal head-on crash with empiry over your claim. Imagine you were talking to some IS dude.

A Buddhist would say the one thing all people have in common is that we all try to gain what makes us happy or gives us satisfaction of any kind, and that we want to avoid aversive stimuli.

A dentist drilling my tooth's hole, is an aversive stimuli.

The boy whose family always fought for survival, may find happiness in collecting ever gold and wealth and even betray others for that.

Where is your goodnessnow? Your evil? You have to look deeper, beyond the shallow service of what is just terminology.

Buddha also was asked how many people in his opinion spend their lives in a valuable fashion. He picked some dirt from under one of his fingernails and said: "compared to all dirt on all beaches of the world, not more than this."

Man is an animal that has an inbuild feature called instinct/drive for survival. This can - and often does - lead man to act egopist and selfishly. THAT is natural, and part of human nature. The discussion amongst philosphers whether or not even altruism in itself is a form of egoism, is old and does not really seem to lead anywhere.

Most people do what serves their interests best. That simple and obvious it is. If they only would follow the golden rule, already very much would be won.

Man is infinite consciousness manifested as flesh and blood. The nature of man is divinity. The natural mode of being is non-duality.

I will say no more.

Man is inclined to do good as testified by our babies who exhibit natural inclination for collaboration and sharing without being taught anything. If men were inclined to do evil then our laws and constitutions would reflect that. Everyone finds murder unacceptable. Everyone finds rape unacceptable. Everyone finds lying unacceptable. We have evolved to do good and to be good simply because we are social creatures. A selfish man has no place in a natural society. A natural society takes care of its weak and impoverished.

Evil is not a terminology. It is a philosophy of life that puts the self over all other things. It's a philosophy of the fearful.

[Skybird]

Man is infinite consciousness manifested as flesh and blood. The nature of man is divinity. The natural mode of being is non-duality.
Every political election tells me the opposite. ;)

You can want to adress pragmatic reality by metaphysics, if you want. Maybe that is even noble to want, or not, I don't know.

But I live in this world laid out before my eyes, and just wishing does not get anyone anywhere in it. The acchieved completion of the deed is what counts. And thus, a strong sense for realism is of the essence, as is practical knowlege and competent skill.

BTW, I once was engaged for many years in social projects, in counseling and treatment, and teaching meditation, and I did it for free. I worked as a free teacher, as family counselor in unregular church community work (Yes, i know the irony: atheist me, and the church. Call it pragmatism from both sides), I even helped pout in tgraumata treatment for people from the Balkan war. But then somethign happened that changed my attitude on free aid. I realised that people took it for granted that a.) they got these "services", and b.) that they got them for free. They thought they had a natural claim for it, and their claims grew. Tjheir dependency, so they often thought, gave them claim, gave the rights over me and others. Their needs - are our commands...? That I took queer, especially when it were people from Germany, having lived in quite stable, secure and reasonably comfortable situations, materially.

Short time later I cancelled my last such personal engagement, and since then insist on getting paid for any work or help I should do for somebody not being a friend or family member. There aint no such thing as a free lunch, my friend. You want something of value from me? You give me something of equal value for me in return, or have soembody else paying me. Reciprocity. Can be linked direcly, or indirectly - but free lunches I do no longer provide. Stuff must cost. Services must cost. If somebody wants me to aid somebody else who cannot afford it - let the first somebody pay me then.

I do not need the money, I could afford to pick up these social and wellfare activities again and do them unpaid. But I do not want. Not wanting is possible.

[Castout]

Every political election tells me the opposite. ;)

Yeah, agree.

It's just one big shame. God decides to sleep and have a dream and while dreaming He's forced to toil for much of the rest of his dream for money. The purpose of dreaming in the first place, to experience being is thus lost to making money. Humanity has created a somewhat nightmarish dream for God unless God dreams of becoming a human billionaire.

Perhaps God has a better dreaming in ET intelligent life and some of the unseen.

Perhaps this rather bad dreaming of becoming man ought to be ended sooner than later so God won't have worse dreams.

[Skybird]

Dreams are created by the brain dreaming. Don't hold the dream responsible for the brain's nature in the first.

The Bible says that man is made in God's image. What does this tell us about this God then, if we are made by his image? And how could this God then dare to punish us for wrongs he has built into us?


:O:

How the deitie'S nighmarish dream may end? Google for "big rip". To me the most likely of the three cosmological scenarios debated. And the most poetic one (but maybe I am just queer).

[Nippelspanner]

Too much surreal idealism there, and no sense of realism.

This, exactly.

I see that the roots of money are very deeply entrenched that people lose their objectivity and critical thinking when it comes to discussing that money is holding us back. That it is obsolete.

People are encouraged to be bad and not to prove himself in a money-based world.

Naturally, human beings are inclined to do good.
Haha, no...

Skybird is right, surreal idealism describes what you said perfectly.

I hinted at the technical function that money has. Just demonising it on grounds of troubled emotions, or declaring people as psychologically inhibited, will not get you around certain factual needs and tehcnical chgallenges in the real world that you cannot avoid.
Well said!

[Jimbuna]

Any future changes will be a long way off should they ever even come about, so in the meantime I'm happy with what money I have and will continue to enjoy until my dying day.

Selfish rant over.

[Sailor Steve]

I know this will terrify people whose mindsets are so entrenched with the accumulation of possessions and money. I will be called names and derided as a fool and crazy. Just sharing a thought.

This is an interesting topic, and I'm glad to see it. I'm curious, though, as to why you chose to start it with an argumentative and defensive attitude. Claiming that you will be called names and derided seems to me to be begging for a fight. That said...


Money has been the primary problem for our species and in order to help free our society from a fear-based living, money has to go.
Is it the primary problem? Does it have to go? I don't have an answer to that, but the first question that comes to my mind is "How?" How did money come about in the first place? Skybird's link offers a good explanation. It seems to me that we have money as a common means of exchange because the old system of barter only works on a small, local level. If I can only produce one thing, and no-one wants that one thing, how am I to survive?

A lot of people will fear and oppose this change though.
Maybe. Maybe not. When you word it that way it sounds like more defensiveness, rather than an honest argument. It also sounds like a sales pitch. Note that the term "sales pitch" doesn't necessarily mean "selling something for money". It also means selling ideas, such as religious or political.

The alternative to a moneyless society is a world rife with enslavement, discrimination, and persecution. Any authoritarian government is only a manifestation of the fear-based world we are co-creating that stems from an unequal and unfair distribution of money and thus, influence and power.
People need things. People have things. If you have something I want, how do I get it (not yours, but one of my own)? Is everyone to produce whatever they can for no reason? Whether it's greed, lust, or an honest desire to have stuff, whether it's cool stuff or just the basic essentials needed to survive. how exactly do we get that stuff?

Don’t mistake this with a lazy unproductive society. On the contrary, in the absence of hoarding money, humanity can strive to pursue what really matters and to strive to live their lives to the fullest of their potential. If people could get anything they wanted, completely free, there would be no reason to hoard anything at all and to destroy the planet just to hoard money.
A nice idea, but how do you propose to make it happen? What would you change?

This is not extremism. This is not a crazy, unrealistic idea. This is no propaganda. If you think this through, it is very workable.
Possibly. I'm still curious as to how.

[Rockin Robbins]

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/viewpost.gif (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2480050#post2480050) Man is infinite consciousness manifested as flesh and blood. The nature of man is divinity. The natural mode of being is non-duality.
Not only is this meaningless psychobabble, holy cow, we have a new religion here, not dealing with man, but with some mythical, idealized creature that man has never been, is not now, and never will be. Money is freedom: the only true measure of societal likes and dislikes, the only honest vote, the only opinion poll that matters.

Remove money from mankind and you require ironfisted, completely oppressive and totalitarian government. Honeybees don't need money because they live in such a society. People, thank God, will never do so.

Money is a terrible thing. Like republican government, it is worse than anything except for all the alternatives. Money is freedom.

[Von Due]

The devil's advocate is on the phone, asking if someone can give a technical description of the mechanisms that force a society to have, exclusively, iron fisted, oppressive and totallitarian goverments, like we have today in parts the world where they do have money?

[Skybird]

The devil's advocate is on the phone, asking if someone can give a technical description of the mechanisms that force a society to have, exclusively, iron fisted, oppressive and totallitarian goverments, like we have today in parts the world where they do have money?
Please think a minute about the differences between coincidence, correlation and causality. That are three very different things.

----

Money is no tool of the devil to lead man on a wrong path. It is a ordinary commodity, it gets traded on the - hopefully free - market liek any other commodity. As an ordinary commocity like any other, it has a value, a price that market participants negotiate over. Money is bought by you when you sell stuff of your own, money is sold by you when you buy stuff you want. It is in the end nothing else but bartering. Money allows you to store "bartering value" that you possess, you must not barter the milk for something you do not want immediately after you have milked the cow, you must no barter the fish immediately for something that you do not need, else it starts to smell. You barter your milk and fish for money - and barter your money later for somethign different, once the situation is in your favour. With money you can sell your stuff even if during this deal you do not get from the other what you want. You take what the others gives you (money), go to somebody else who has what you want (but who did not want the stuff you wanted to barter), and then buy stuff you indeed want from him. Without this simple possibility, complex production chains would be impossible. Imagine what that would mean for building a civilization if nio complex trade chains and production would be possible!

Paper/FIAT money is no such commodity, and that is where the real problems come from, and that's why I say we do not even have a real money anymore - we have many people with illusions, that is the only reason why they give you material stuff and material value for your snippets of paper whose "value" get arbitrarily inflated and devalued by governments as they want it - to handle the immense debts they have managed to pile up high into the sky.

Once people understand this, you will see a massive bank rush, and collapse, and nobody will give you something of material value for your banknotes anymore. Banknotes without material securities backing them (every single one of them!) - are no money. They are fraud.

See Venezuela. Maduro too thought that money just can be printed and must not have material securities backing it - another brilliant smarthead in a long line of socialist brilliant smartheads all making the same mistakes over and over and over again. A money that is no commodity, has no material inherent value, and thus banknotes wihtout a material security backing every single one, are just notes of debt - again, without any securities backing them. Worthless gimcrack once the illusions have been busted. We have been there. Oh yeah, we have been there. Repeatedly. Globally, there have been 50 hyperinflations in the past 100 years, roughly. FIFTY HYPERINFLATIONS. Hyperinflation usually it is called when the MONTHLY inflation rate is above 50%.

So again: money is and needs to be an ordinary commodity, like any other. And it must be subject to market interactions, without interference by the state cartel. This is not understood, governments want to "control" it. And that is where all financial-economic evil of the present is coming from. A planned economy is similar to a planned economy - it just does not work. Prime example for a - failed again - planned money is the Euro, but this truith holds for ecery single paper money there ever has been since the Chinese tried it first in the 12th century: 30 years later that Chinese kingdom had a collapsed economy, and was almost destroyed by civil war and famine.

[Peter Cremer]

Read "Voyage From Yesteryear" by James P. Hogan, if you can find it. It is science fiction but it shows what can happen when a 'money' society runs into a 'moneyless' society. You can't 'buy' anything. Entertaining if you care for science fiction, a waste of your precious time if you don't.:hmmm:

[Sailor Steve]

If men were inclined to do evil then our laws and constitutions would reflect that.
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
-James Madison, Federalist #51.


Everyone finds murder unacceptable. Everyone finds rape unacceptable. Everyone finds lying unacceptable.
Except the murderer. Except the rapist. Except the liar. People justify their evil by calling it good. Anything is acceptable if it promotes a further good. At least that is the justification.

We have evolved to do good and to be good simply because we are social creatures. A selfish man has no place in a natural society. A natural society takes care of its weak and impoverished.
All men are inherently selfish. It comes from having to live inside our own heads. Those who recognize that others are the same as themselves are able to work together, recognizing that what benefits others benefits ourselves. The sociopath, the person who cannot recognize that others are the same as himself, is incapable of seeing the benefit of helping others, so he acts as if only he matters. Unfortunately, all of us suffer from this to some degree or another, and so we work for our own benefit. If the way to that end is to help others, then we do so.

Evil is not a terminology. It is a philosophy of life that puts the self over all other things. It's a philosophy of the fearful.
Evil is harming other people unnecessarily. We can try to avoid that, but to one degree or another it is a part of all of us. We don't do good automatically, but because we recognize the benefit to ourselves in doing so.

[Von Due]

Please think a minute about the differences between coincidence, correlation and causality.

It was stated in the post above mine that if we remove money from society, the result would be a society that required an iron fisted and so on goverment. I question whether or not it is required, as it was stated. Money have been around for less than 20,000 years. Societies have been around for 100s of 1000s of years. The Hadza people are very much alive today. Do they live in an oppressive society? What I am questioning is precisely correlation vs causation but also if the statement I referred to isn't rooted in the application of rules of one game to a fundamentally different game.

[em2nought]

No money, no honey. End of discussion. :D

Fiat currency will collapse someday though, Fiat's were never any good. :03:

[Rockin Robbins]

It was stated in the post above mine that if we remove money from society, the result would be a society that required an iron fisted and so on goverment. I question whether or not it is required, as it was stated. Money have been around for less than 20,000 years. Societies have been around for 100s of 1000s of years. The Hadza people are very much alive today. Do they live in an oppressive society? What I am questioning is precisely correlation vs causation but also if the statement I referred to isn't rooted in the application of rules of one game to a fundamentally different game.
Just like all utopians, you are blind. Blind to the fact that moneyless societies are stone age societies. What gave us quality of life, medical care, houses not of mud and straw, where people live beyond the age of 25, where the weak are protected and the innocent are not defenseless, where people meet the needs of others because it is worth their while and improves their own lives. The "enlightened" philosophers of the moneyless society would create a society where their useless ilk would be cast aside and allowed to die. And I would not argue with that decision.

Personally, I like being in a non-stone age society. I like being over 60 and feeling young. I like electricity and automobiles, planes, restaurants, grocery stores, the ability to give to the charity of my choice and the freedom to be responsible for my own prosperity of failure.

You mention there is tyranny in monied societies. The cruelty and oppression of a moneyless society makes that look like a trip to the county fair. A moneyless society sentences its most productive people to an early grave and no chance to improve the status of their fellow man.

Your moneyless society is a cruel lie--just waiting to be adopted by people too foolish to know what it entails. It spells death for billions and the loss of every gain in lifestyle over the past thousand years. And the utopians wouldn't feel responsible for the inevitable universal tragedy of their malevolent fantasies. Some of them think living in grass and mud huts would be fun. Until they die at the age of 25.

[Von Due]

First: If you read my first post, I make it very clear that I have no illusions of a global moneyless society. Quite the opposite, in fact but I do question the arguements for money being absolutely neccessary for humans as a species coming out of evolution. I also question whether it is valid to use, as you certainly do, our society as some form of base society all other modern society must be based on. I question things, it is healthy to question things. Religious-like fanatics don't need to be religious, all it takes is a hostility towards the question "is this the best we can do or can we do better?".

[mapuc]

I have the feeling by reading the comments here and in other places on the Internet

Something we have been taught through our life-A money free world is not going to work and therefor impossible to imply to a future society.

Maybe these people/economist who have claimed these things are right or maybe they are talking out from a theoretical thoughts

Markus

[ikalugin]

https://media3.giphy.com/media/aLU0jzGwypUbu/giphy.gif

[Rockin Robbins]

First: If you read my first post, I make it very clear that I have no illusions of a global moneyless society. Quite the opposite, in fact but I do question the arguements for money being absolutely neccessary for humans as a species coming out of evolution. I also question whether it is valid to use, as you certainly do, our society as some form of base society all other modern society must be based on. I question things, it is healthy to question things. Religious-like fanatics don't need to be religious, all it takes is a hostility towards the question "is this the best we can do or can we do better?".
In other words, faced with the truth, you back off everything you said and now pose it in a purely theoretical, fun/experimental manner. And you recast my position into "this is the best of all possible worlds." Both sides of your new stance are vacuous. People are practical beings who do what works. If thuggery works then we tend to do that. And we love to pretend to be a higher being than what we are and benevolently prescribe cyanide for mankind as some kind of kindness. Philosophers often do that. It's one of the tricks of the trade: never be responsible for the consequences of what you contend.

In your model society you'd be the first one off the island.

[Von Due]

This is just silly. Backing off? Care to show how that is?

[em2nought]

In your model society you'd be the first one off the island.

Rule #1 The fatties are always the first to go. :03:
https://moderncombatandsurvival.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/zombie_survival_fitness.jpg
...or he guy that bought silver and is dragging it with him. lol

[Castout]

This is an interesting topic, and I'm glad to see it. I'm curious, though, as to why you chose to start it with an argumentative and defensive attitude. Claiming that you will be called names and derided seems to me to be begging for a fight. That said...


It's your perception that tells you I'm being defensive. I was merely stating an opinion that I was likely to be thought of as a fool and were crazy.
The reason being we are really the products of our age and money is a big part of our second industrial revolution. So, expectedly, most people will defend money.
But I will only be derided as a fool and being crazy or a communist ONLY if the idea has begun to gain a traction or a foothold in society. In the absence of traction, the idea will simply be ignored.

If you really observe the world today, most of our problems can be attributed to money, directly and indirectly. Money makes us discriminate people. It takes away power from many groups of people and hands it to a few small groups of other people. Democracies are failing because money takes over genuine concern for people's interests.

For economical reason (money), we justify polluting our world to the brink of our own extinction with climate change. Even money works against the effort of mitigating our folly in ruining our planet, one which we can't escape from, yet.

Today, just 6 persons own half of the world's entire wealth. 62 persons probably own as much as 80-90% of the world's entire wealth (money).
This means our world is pandering to just so few people. The rest of us have been made irrelevant and are forced to scrape a living off the marginal 5-10% of the world's wealth. This is the perfect recipe for enslavement in one form or another, for injustice, persecution, and oppression.




Is it the primary problem? Does it have to go? I don't have an answer to that, but the first question that comes to my mind is "How?" How did money come about in the first place? Skybird's link offers a good explanation. It seems to me that we have money as a common means of exchange because the old system of barter only works on a small, local level. If I can only produce one thing, and no-one wants that one thing, how am I to survive?

We did small barters only because we didn't have the technological capacity for mass production. It had nothing to do with money.
A moneyless society is termed a resource-based society that would enable us to produce what we CAN produce instead of what is affordable.
There can be no hunger in such a world because foods will be produced according to the needs of all people instead of affordability or prices. Foods would also be produced in the highest level of quality now that cost is out of the picture.
We would be able to mine deep sea on a massive scale now that cost is out of the picture, according to our need since we wouldn't need to destroy the planet just to hoard money. Likewise with mining the moon on a massive scale, even other planets. There isn't even enough money in the entire world to mine our moon on a massive scale. Even if we had we would still not do it on a massive scale since the profit and cost consideration would not appeal to entrepreneurs even when there's demand for it. People would still form enterprises but out of a common passion and purpose rather than chasing after profits. It would be a world based on value and purpose rather than profit.



Maybe. Maybe not. When you word it that way it sounds like more defensiveness, rather than an honest argument. It also sounds like a sales pitch. Note that the term "sales pitch" doesn't necessarily mean "selling something for money". It also means selling ideas, such as religious or political.

It sounds like a sales pitch to you because it appeals to you. I'm merely stating an idea which I believe will work and will work for the betterment of us all by us dreaming a better dream than this nightmare somewhat of being controlled by money (or moneyed groups/people).


People need things. People have things. If you have something I want, how do I get it (not yours, but one of my own)? Is everyone to produce whatever they can for no reason? Whether it's greed, lust, or an honest desire to have stuff, whether it's cool stuff or just the basic essentials needed to survive. how exactly do we get that stuff?

Obviously, there needs to be a council to allocate resources according to our needs as a collective species but even those in the council don't get paid anything.



A nice idea, but how do you propose to make it happen? What would you change?

Mainly through the above but in such a system, everything is free including us (our work). In the absence of toiling for money, with time, men grow ambitious and can focus on improving himself according to his passion and on improving his environment and society, all without for money.


Possibly. I'm still curious as to how.

The technical details need to be worked on but it's basically producing what WE CAN produce according to our needs without the need to destroy the planet just to accumulate money for influence and power (thus, security)

[Sailor Steve]

It's your perception that tells you I'm being defensive. I was merely stating an opinion that I was likely to be thought of as a fool and were crazy.
Your opinion is based on your own perceptions. It's still defensive. If I say you're going to tell me I'm greedy and stuck in a rut, I'm being defensive, because you have done neither of those. I do believe you're looking toward an end that you believe will save mankind, but not seeing any way to make it happen that's not worse. I believe the same thing about the men in the videos.

The reason being we are really the products of our age and money is a big part of our second industrial revolution. So, expectedly most people will defend money.
It's easy chide someone negatively while not seeing the same thing in yourself. Dreams are fine, but practicality demands a workable solution, not just saying it's so.

But I will only be derided as a fool and being crazy or a communist ONLY if the idea has begun to gain a traction or a foothold in society. In the absence of traction, the idea will simply be ignored.
I'm not calling you anything but a believer. I don't know what will work and what will not. "Communist?" I happen to think Communism and Democracy are two sides of the same coin, and I believe both could be made to work...on a very small level. Both require absolutely willing participation from everyone involved, and both require that everyone involved be perfect. That's a problem.

If you really observe the world today, most of our problems can be attributed to money, directly and indirectly. Money makes us discriminate people. It takes away power from many groups of people and hands it to a few small groups of other people. Democracies are failing because money takes over genuine concern for people's interests.
The Bible doesn't say "Money is the root of all evil," it says "The love of money is the root of all evil." It's not money that does those things, it's greed, and greed isn't necessarily just for money. Most dictators, starting the first Pharaohs, weren't after money, they were after power. Not the same thing. Controlling the money can be a part of that, but controlling other people is what it's really about.

Today, just 6 persons own half of the world's entire wealth. 62 persons probably own as much as 80-90% of the world's entire wealth (money).
This means our world is pandering to just so few people. The rest of us have been made irrelevant and are forced to scrape a living off the marginal 5-10% of the world's wealth. This is the perfect recipe for enslavement in one form or another, for injustice, persecution, and oppression.
And how do you propose to change that? One of the videos shows people living in mansions and the people living on the streets. If all money disappeared tomorrow Bill Gates would still live in a mansion and I would still live in a one-bedroom apartment and consider myself lucky to do so, considering how a great portion of mankind lives. How would you change that?

Talk is cheap.

"There can be no hunger in such a world because foods will be produced according to the needs of all people instead of affordability or prices. Foods would also be produced in the highest level of quality now that cost is out of the picture.[/quote]
Produced by whom? Farmers would still have to lead the cows to the milking machines and I saw one clip in the video of several threshing machines driving side-by-side across a field. Will some drive those machines for free while others of us live off of their labors, for free?

We would be able to mine deep sea on a massive scale now that cost is out of the picture, according to our need since we wouldn't need to destroy the planet just to hoard money.
And who would do this mining? And how? By magic? Somebody has to do the work, and if they choose not to do it because somebody else tells them to, how do you make them?

Likewise with mining the moon on a massive scale, even other planets. There isn't even enough money in the entire world to mine our moon on a massive scale. Even if we had we would still not do it on a massive scale since the profit and cost consideration would not appeal to entrepreneurs even when there's demand for it.
So without money we would just willing devote our entire lives to building the technology do accomplish this without any motivation other than the purity of our hearts? The work has to come from someone, and you have to convince them that it is to their benefit to give their entire lives over to making this happen. We're not talking about the designers and engineers, who tend to be dreamers anyway, but about the laborers and workers, who have nothing to gain themselves and will likely never see the fruits of their labors.

It sounds like a sales pitch to you because it appeals to you. I'm merely stating an idea which I believe will work and will work for the betterment of us all by us dreaming a better dream than this nightmare somewhat of being controlled by money (or moneyed groups/people)/
No, it sounds like a sales pitch because you didn't look at both sides, positive and negative, but you pitched it at us to convince us of its correctness. That's what a pitch is, trying to convince people to believe what you believe.

Obviously, there needs to be a council to allocate resources according to our needs as a collective species but even those in the council don't get paid anything.
Put another way: There needs to be a group of people to tell us all what to do, and to tell us they're doing it for our own good. Now we have an unpaid dictatorship trying to make us do what they deem best. Still a dictatorship.

Mainly through above but in such a system, everything is free including us (our work). In the absence of toiling for money, with time, men grow ambitious and can focus on improving himself according to his passion and on improving his environment and society, all without for money.
A noble sentiment, but it still depends on men being perfect, or at least mostly so. You may convince the artist or musician to embrace a world like that, but how do you convince the common worker? Someone has to build your big-screen TV an your car, and he needs to believe there is a reason for him to work hard all day to produce things. Someone has to haul away your garbage and build your roads. How do you convince them?

The technical details need to be worked on but it's basically producing what WE CAN produce according to our needs without the need to destroy the planet just to accumulate money for influence and power (thus, security)
Money may aid influence, but it is not equal to power. Rulers control societies by force. They make people obey, not pay them to. Strong men have always ruled weak men. Money is the system we use to allow us to have food, clothing and shelter, and then to have better things. Many of the people in the world are starving, and we won't stop that simply by declaring money to be a non-entity.

The modern world has enabled its citizens to have greater luxury than ever dreamed possible by past generations. We've shortened the hours we work and allowed ourselves to obtain things formerly only dreamed of by kings. You're right, money wasn't absolutely necessary to accomplish that, but it has been a means to an end. That said, the West has attempted to feed some our less advanced neighbors, and often those attempts have been blocked; not by people who see money in it, but by rulers who see that withholding that food subjugates their people and increases their power.

Some people seek wealth, others seek power. Removing money from the equation may or may not change that, but looking at the way the world operates indicates that the answer is "not." The first objection you need to answer, though, is "how?"

[Castout]

I'm not calling you anything but a believer. I don't know what will work and what will not. "Communist?" I happen to think Communism and Democracy are two sides of the same coin, and I believe both could be made to work...on a very small level. Both require absolutely willing participation from everyone involved, and both require that everyone involved be perfect. That's a problem.

True.

And how do you propose to change that? One of the videos shows people living in mansions and the people living on the streets. If all money disappeared tomorrow Bill Gates would still live in a mansion and I would still live in a one-bedroom apartment and consider myself lucky to do so, considering how a great portion of mankind lives. How would you change that?

Talk is cheap.

"There can be no hunger in such a world because foods will be produced according to the needs of all people instead of affordability or prices. Foods would also be produced in the highest level of quality now that cost is out of the picture.
Produced by whom? Farmers would still have to lead the cows to the milking machines and I saw one clip in the video of several threshing machines driving side-by-side across a field. Will some drive those machines for free while others of us live off of their labors, for free?

And who would do this mining? And how? By magic? Somebody has to do the work, and if they choose not to do it because somebody else tells them to, how do you make them?

By getting rid of money altogether.
Do you expect me to figure out all this on my own and sell the idea to the world? That is is my sole responsibility? I'm throwing this idea to make people rethink the world we live in. It's our world, we can change whatever rules we have, including money.

A resource-based world isn't a work-free world. People still work. They don't do it for money, that's the difference.

So without money we would just willing devote our entire lives to building the technology do accomplish this without any motivation other than the purity of our hearts? The work has to come from someone, and you have to convince them that it is to their benefit to give their entire lives over to making this happen. We're not talking about the designers and engineers, who tend to be dreamers anyway, but about the laborers and workers, who have nothing to gain themselves and will likely never see the fruits of their labors.

Like I said, we are the products of our age.
Laborers and workers in today's world has no place in society. Their jobs being taken over by robots. The majority of them are laborers and workers simply because they couldn't afford higher education. So, basically they are not living up to their full potential.

Money may aid influence, but it is not equal to power. Rulers control societies by force. They make people obey, not pay them to. Strong men have always ruled weak men. Money is the system we use to allow us to have food, clothing and shelter, and then to have better things. Many of the people in the world are starving, and we won't stop that simply by declaring money to be a non-entity.

The modern world has enabled its citizens to have greater luxury than ever dreamed possible by past generations. We've shortened the hours we work and allowed ourselves to obtain things formerly only dreamed of by kings. You're right, money wasn't absolutely necessary to accomplish that, but it has been a means to an end. That said, the West has attempted to feed some our less advanced neighbors, and often those attempts have been blocked; not by people who see money in it, but by rulers who see that withholding that food subjugates their people and increases their power.

Some people seek wealth, others seek power. Removing money from the equation may or may not change that, but looking at the way the world operates indicates that the answer is "not." The first objection you need to answer, though, is "how?"

And how in the world authoritarian government rule by force? Through money. If the police don't obey they lose their paychecks. If a judge wouldn't comply, he or she would lose his livelihood. Dissidents are known to be impoverished by the state. They can't find employment. No one will accept them.

Money had worked but in the long run it has become a mere transfer of wealth from all the people to just dozens of people. Money is setting us up for a tyranny-based world. Money disempowers most people and empowers so few of us.

[Castout]

I think in a resource-based economy the question we should ask ourselves is 'if we had everything we needed or if we had all the money in the world, what would we do?'

Perhaps our minds picture traveling the world, others may picture playing games all day, other perhaps sailing the world's oceans in a big yacht
but then what will we do...

Keep asking then what will we do and you will find that in each man there's a natural drive to improve himself, to make a better world.

[Sailor Steve]

By getting rid of money altogether.
How?

Do you expect me to figure out all this on my own and sell the idea to the world? That is is my sole responsibility? I'm throwing this idea to make people rethink the world we live in. It's our world, we can change whatever rules we have, including money.
No, I don't expect you to have answers that I don't have myself. The problem I see is that none of these preachers seem to have an answer for that either. The dream is fine. The reality seems to be much different.

A resource-based world isn't a work-free world. People still work. They don't do it for money, that's the difference.
Why would anyone work when there's nothing in it for them? People used to farm so they could eat. They also made their own clothes. That was about the limit of the technology. The man who could make a plow or a wagon could barter it for a pig or a cow, but how many pigs and cows can one man deal with, especially if he'd rather be making plows. Or clothes. A medium of exchange is needed, hence money.

Laborers and workers in today's world has no place in society. Their jobs being taken over by robots.
Who builds the robots? Other robots? That technology can only take us so far. Mining and farming can be greatly aided by machines, but machines can't do it all.

The majority of them are laborers and workers simply because they couldn't afford higher education. So, basically they are not living up to their full potential.
And what will they do when they don't have to do anything? Some will thrive, but others will not. Can we build a society structured to support us all? Again, a nice dream, but nobody is telling us how it can be done. So far it's all talk.

And how in the world authoritarian government rule by force? Through money.
Not really. A strong man who can convince other strong men to follow him doesn't need money. Ancient armies were supplied by force - they took what they wanted. They would follow the man who could guarantee them what they wanted. They didn't pillage, rape and kill because they wanted money (though that was a part of it), they did it because it was fun. Exercising power is an end in itself. Taking away the means of exchange won't change that. Gold didn't become a precious commodity because of the money it represented, but because of its rarity. The man strong enough to take it will try to do so, whether you say it's worth anything or not.

If the police don't obey they lose their paychecks. If a judge wouldn't comply, he or she would lose his livelihood. Dissidents are known to be impoverished by the state. They can't find employment. No one will accept them.
And if there are no paychecks? Why will people become policemen at all? Why judges? Because they have decent hearts? Or because they like to have power over others? Probably a bit of both, but money doesn't make men bad. The bad ones are already that way.

Money had worked but in the long run it has become a mere transfer of wealth from all the people to just dozens of people. Money is setting us up for a tyranny-based world. Money disempowers most people and empowers so few of us.
Most of the world is already tyranny-based. Some of the tyrants want money. Others want power for its own sake. Still others believe they are doing what is best, even as they slaughter whole populations.

Money isn't the problem. People are.

[Sailor Steve]

Keep asking then what will we do and you will find that in each man there's a natural drive to improve himself, to make a better world.
None of the examples you mentioned involve improving the world, or ourselves. They all involve self-gratification. When you can convince the world that none of those things are necessary, or important, then maybe you can convince them that money isn't either.

[August]

I'd venture to say that the technology for mass production, indeed the whole industrial revolution itself would have never existed without money. There is just no way to gather the many resources, equipment and trained personnel required by any factory by barter alone. Therefore human society without money is limited to small agrarian and hunter gatherer groups where life is both difficult and short.

[Castout]

I think trying to explain this is a moot point when people don't want to think and keep asking the same thing. Plus, there's so much hostility when none is needed. The unwillingness to really think through this and repeating the same questions made it obvious that men have been so perverse that they believe money is a goal unto itself. We work for money so if there's no money we won't work....it's pathetic...the conditioning has been thought of being natural. The tyranny of money.

So let this thread be read and be reflected upon.

Money is what leading to self-gratification.

How? again by getting rid of money altogether and making everything free so we can produce what we can not what's affordable.

There's no such thing as reality in space-time. This is a dream. An interactive movie of sort. Don't ask. If you have to, you just won't get it. If you can't get a moneyless society you won't get that you're not real and that this is a merely interactive movie (or a dream, both the same thing) where nothing real can be imparted by us or to us.

[Nippelspanner]

Ugh, enough already!

"Listen, idiots, I'll tell you how things are, because reasons and some sketchy pseudo-philosophical yadda-yadda.
If you challenge my completely unfounded claims that I support by pulling things out of thin air, you are only blinded and corrupted by the lust for moneyz and therefore proof me right - no matter your argument! PS: God!"


So let this thread be read and be reflected upon.
Ok - you first, please.


Seriously. I love topics like this - but not if your way of argumentation is the tactic chosen.
All you do is make the wildest claims and when challenged to explain how they'd work, you deny responsibility to do so, while trying to mark anyone who disagrees as some sort of a blind fool, unable to understand your, as rockin Robbins put it so brilliantly, "meaningless psychobabble".
Not how it works.

So far you, in my opinion, failed completely to deliver the slightest sort of argument to actually support your ridiculous claims, while others were able to challenge your claims with simple and solid arguments based on facts, not wishful thinking about utopia.

Reflect on that...

[Castout]

I haven't even argued anything...I let you live in your bubbles. I'm sorry for you.

There are no questions or argument worth discussing from my point of view. All I did was trying to explain the idea. There has never been any argument in the first place just people perceiving there are some arguments.

Back to my ignore list. What an uninspiring man.

[Nippelspanner]

I haven't even argued anything...I let you live in your bubbles. I'm sorry for you.

Thank you for supporting what I just said...

[Nippelspanner]

Back to my ignore list. What an uninspiring man.
Ugh, even worse.

"My views are criticized, ignore-list to the rescue!"

[Castout]

I can prove [to a degree] that we aren't real. It's no psychobabble. The psychobabble is believing you a person.

[Skybird]

Planned economy.

Abolition of private property.

One-party rule.

All people turning into reasonable, altruistic saints and messiahs.

Denial of all variety in man.

Denial of all shadow-sides in man.

Deindustrialization.

Thats what you talk about, Castout. And there is a name for all this except the last point: communism. Needless to say that freedom would be another victim of yours.

History has already given a substantial empirical judgement on communism. It failed, and terribly so.

[Skybird]

Once again, for a basic and quickly-to-gain basic overview on what money is (must be):

https://mises.org/system/tdf/What%20Has%20Government%20Done%20to%20Our%20Money_ 3.pdf?file=1&type=document

Its a brief and short read only.


Many textbooks say that money has several func-
tions: a medium of exchange, unit of account, or
“measure of values,” a “store of value,” etc. But it
should be clear that all of these functions are simply
corollaries of the one great function: the medium of
exchange.

[Dowly]

Back to my ignore list. What an uninspiring man.I find it hilariously ironic how you of all people silence people you don't agree with. :har:

[Skybird]

I can prove [to a degree] that we aren't real. It's no psychobabble. The psychobabble is believing you a person.
Oh-oh. As a psychotherapist, a red light went up on my desk. As a practitioner of Zen-like meditation, I know that meditation experiences cannot be proven. As a logican I now that logic cannot prove the non-existence of something.

Before you can deconstruct an ego, you have to form one. Lack of stable frameworks for an ego or a per-sona, are of psychopathological relevance. Not because an ICD or DSM manual says so, but because such patients usually suffer, or are a danger for themselves or to others. Thats why we have several diagnostical categories for describing this.

[Nippelspanner]

Oh-oh. As a psychotherapist, a red light went up on my desk.

Wanna reach DEFCON 1?
Check his other posts.

[Skybird]

Wanna reach DEFCON 1?
Check his other posts.

I have, but leave it there. I do not feel like wanting to write another encyclopedia. Its quite escapist what he says, really, and in denial of reality. Also, lack of knowledge on certain fundamental things regarding how econoym works, why an economic system is even there in the first, and what money is - and what it is not.

The same book as before, just the HTML-version which might be found more comfortable to use.
https://mises.org/library/what-has-government-done-our-money/html

13. Summary (of part II of What Government has done to our Money?)

What have we learned about money in a free society? We have learned that all money has originated, and must originate, in a useful commodity chosen by the free market as a medium of exchange. The unit of money is simply a unit of weight of the monetary commodity—usually a metal, such as gold or silver. Under freedom, the commodities chosen as money, their shape and form, are left to the voluntary decisions of free individuals. Private coinage, therefore, is just as legitimate and worthwhile as any business activity. The "price" of money is its purchasing power in terms of all goods in the economy, and this is determined by its supply, and by every individual's demand for money. Any attempt by government to fix the price will interfere with the satisfaction of people's demands for money. If people find it more convenient to use more than one metal as money, the exchange rate between them on the market will be determined by the relative demands and supplies, and will tend to equal the ratios of their respective purchasing power. Once there is enough supply of a metal to permit the market to choose it as money, no increase in supply can improve its monetary function. An increase in money supply will then merely dilute the effectiveness of each ounce of money without helping the economy. An increased stock of gold or silver, however, fulfills more non-monetary wants (ornament, industrial purposes, etc.) served by the metal, and is therefore socially useful. Inflation (an increase in money substitutes not covered by an increase in the metal stock) is never socially useful, but merely benefits one set of people at the expense of another. Inflation, being a fraudulent invasion of property, could not take place on the free market.
In sum, freedom can run a monetary system as superbly as it runs the rest of the economy. Contrary to many writers, there is nothing special about money that requires extensive governmental dictation. Here, too, free men will best and most smoothly supply all their economic wants. For money as for all other activities, of man, "liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of order."You cannot understand economics and politics, if you you do not understand the nature of money, and instead fall for the Keynesian fallacies.

[Jimbuna]

I can prove [to a degree] that we aren't real. It's no psychobabble. The psychobabble is believing you a person.

I sincerely hope that last sentence was not meant in a derogatory context...

Name calling and insults are a definite 'no no' around these parts http://i.imgur.com/7Yif8iA.gif

http://i.imgur.com/NNsOVAh.gif

[Nippelspanner]

Jim, I'm not certain either - but I believe he meant no one of us is a person, because... We don't exist, obviously. Something like that?

I don't know, this is crazy talk on a whole new level, I rather stay out of it. :D

I didn't feel insulted, though.
Strangers cannot insult me.

[Skybird]

Jim,

I think he meant it not to offend somebody, but he referred to spirtual arguments, philosophies claiming that our idea of our ordinary everyday-self is just a construction, is an illusion. That also is why I referred to that reply of his myself above, in the way I did (#49). Ideas about the illusory nature of self and ego as expressed in for example Christian mysticism and Buddhism, point at something important, which nevertheless is easy to be misunderstood and taken as something luring people on a false track. Radical constructivism, Buddhist psychological models, Christian mystic "heresies" - all that are two-sided swords that can both cure or cut all too easily. Many people walk into the many traps left and right of these things. If I assess right what he wanted to aim at with his words, he is right in so far that we in the West indeed base on a osychology that overrates the meaning and reality of an individual ego.

However, just declaring the ego void and meaningless, also does not cut it. It serves a vital purpose.

It's - difficult... while at the same time it is not difficult at all. :D

[Jimbuna]

I note both of your responses and thank you both but felt the need for clarification so as to maintain a semblance of consistency regarding the forum rules.

[Castout]

I find it hilariously ironic how you of all people silence people you don't agree with. :har:

He started with his insult. I was never disrespectful toward anyone it seems Subsim gang is doing its best. There cannot be a healthy discussion without agreeing in this forum.

[Castout]

Planned economy.

Abolition of private property.

One-party rule.

All people turning into reasonable, altruistic saints and messiahs.

Denial of all variety in man.

Denial of all shadow-sides in man.

Deindustrialization.

Thats what you talk about, Castout. And there is a name for all this except the last point: communism. Needless to say that freedom would be another victim of yours.

History has already given a substantial empirical judgement on communism. It failed, and terribly so.

Communism didn't do away with money and people were still paid money.

All those things you mentioned already exist in this world with money.

Deindustrialization? How?

I say revitalizement of industrialization with sustainability in mind.

[Castout]

Jim,

I think he meant it not to offend somebody, but he referred to spirtual arguments, philosophies claiming that our idea of our ordinary everyday-self is just a construction, is an illusion. That also is why I referred to that reply of his myself above, in the way I did (#49). Ideas about the illusory nature of self and ego as expressed in for example Christian mysticism and Buddhism, point at something important, which nevertheless is easy to be misunderstood and taken as something luring people on a false track. Radical constructivism, Buddhist psychological models, Christian mystic "heresies" - all that are two-sided swords that can both cure or cut all too easily. Many people walk into the many traps left and right of these things. If I assess right what he wanted to aim at with his words, he is right in so far that we in the West indeed base on a osychology that overrates the meaning and reality of an individual ego.

However, just declaring the ego void and meaningless, also does not cut it. It serves a vital purpose.

It's - difficult... while at the same time it is not difficult at all. :D

I note both of your responses and thank you both but felt the need for clarification so as to maintain a semblance of consistency regarding the forum rules.

Skybird got it right. That the ego is a construct. I was referring to individuality as an illusion (along with space and time). That there is nothing real except God. Not men, not animals, not the unseen.

The ego serves the purpose of immersing oneself in experiencing being and to realize infinite potentiality in the finite (how far that infinite potentiality is realized however, depends on the individuals). That's true. With the ego weakened, life can be felt impersonal. Then again when the ego is weakened life can also be truly enjoyed without all the severe seriousness of an egoic existence.

Transcendence can be proven. I have been countless people across space-time, some animals (most revealing were a bee and a lobster), and some of the unseen. Transcendence or non-duality is a natural state of being. I don't even come to it through meditation. Meditation is just one of the ways, primarily to quieten the mind and weaken the stranglehold of the ego. I can prove non-duality in a lab condition. It's becoming my nature with continual experiential self-remembrance (non-dual glimpses).

[August]

Deindustrialization? How?

I say revitalizement of industrialization with sustainability in mind.

This is the part I have trouble seeing.

I'm no expert but it seems to me that the complex industrial operations required for the manufacture of modern technology just cannot be set up or maintained without some for of monetary compensation.

After all without it how do you persuade a factory worker to spend his life on a factory floor making something, the supplier for the time and effort it takes to deliver him the parts and materials to make it with, the inventor who created the item or any of the other people involved with getting a product from drawing board to the consumer?

You might say they'd be compensated with food and healthcare and housing and other basic human needs for them and their families but how is that all coordinated and by who?

[Skybird]

Transcendence can be proven.
Okay, go ahead - present your evidence then, if you please.

Objective evidence. That is what "proving" is about.

Transcendence means to go beyond something, in this case to go beyond "my self". You cannot prove that to somebody else. The other always will just get a subjective claim made by that what is labelled your "self". And that claim is no evidence, but a subjective claim. ;)

Subjectivity, and objectivity... don't mix these. Evidence always is objective, and independent from subjective factors.

And for somebody claiming he has transcended himself - and can "prove it under lab conditions" - you pay a lot of attention to your self and its claims about itself, still. ;)

What you in fact talk about, is the model you have formed of yourself. Your belief. Your faith. Your "I-want-to-be-like-this". I have had many people like this, it is a common, wide-spread trap people walk into. Heck, in my younger years I even stepped into this trap myself - with great enthusiasm! - , and until today I am not certain I really managed to escape it. Its mistaking the pointing finger for the moon.

In all my life (I'm 50 now), I have met just two people, amongst what must have been 150-200 students of mine, them wanting to learn meditation, and maybe as many other people I met in other contexts and learned to know a little bit closer, even Lamas and ordinated scholars, who came close to something I would describe as that they had transcended themselves. Two candidates in maybe 300-400 people. No Lama amongst them, btw. :haha:

Under lab conditions, eh? Hope you can laugh about yourself - that would show not all is lost already! :)

[Sailor Steve]

I think trying to explain this is a moot point when people don't want to think and keep asking the same thing.
And I think it's easier to dismiss what want to rather than actually think about the questions.

Plus, there's so much hostility when none is needed. The unwillingness to really think through this and repeating the same questions made it obvious that men have been so perverse that they believe money is a goal unto itself. No hostility on my part, whatever you may tell yourself. I keep repeating the same questions because you keep repeating the same sermon without the slightest hint of how it's to be accomplished.

We work for money so if there's no money we won't work....it's pathetic...the conditioning has been thought of being natural. The tyranny of money. What exactly would you work for? What would you contribute? Would you collect garbage or dig ditches just because it needs to be done?

Money is what leading to self-gratification. Not at all. People see cool stuff like a boat or sports car and want one for themselves. If they can't have one they'll steal it...or work for it. "I'll work for you doing whatever you want for a specified period if you'll give me your boat." "I only have one." So how does the person go about getting his own? And guess what? If the other guy wants a boat it isn't money that motivates his desire, it's his longing for the boat. How does he get one?

How? again by getting rid of money altogether and making everything free so we can produce what we can not what's affordable. And you repeat the same homily again without thinking about the real question. Not even the people you refer to can answer that.

I haven't even argued anything...I let you live in your bubbles. I'm sorry for you.
No, you've preached, and expected people to accept without question. And now you stoop to accusing others of doing what you do yourself, i.e. "live in bubbles". Sorry for us? That's exactly the same as the Believer saying "I'll pray for you". It's arrogant and dismissive. As with any religion, I neither believe nor disbelieve, neither accept nor reject. But I do question everything, because without questions you can't get to the answers. You need to figure out exactly how this is supposed to work. Otherwise it's simple preaching and nothing else.

There are no questions or argument worth discussing from my point of view. All I did was trying to explain the idea. There has never been any argument in the first place just people perceiving there are some arguments. Oh, but you have argued, over and over. Stating an idea and being willing to discuss it is one thing. Proposing that idea as "the only solution" is an argument in itself. You don't seem to have an answer for any of the hard questions, so you go back to repeating the same one idea. You accuse anyone who disagrees as lacking logic or not thinking it through, yet you don't seem to have actually thought about it at all, just repeated the Gospel that you've recently heard.

As for this all being a dream, I'm with Skybird. Please show us some evidence. Real, empirical evidence.

[em2nought]

No money? You make just end up eating your wife for dinner, and not in a pleasant way. :03: https://mises.org/library/great-thanksgiving-hoax-1http://

[Castout]

This is the part I have trouble seeing.

I'm no expert but it seems to me that the complex industrial operations required for the manufacture of modern technology just cannot be set up or maintained without some for of monetary compensation.

After all without it how do you persuade a factory worker to spend his life on a factory floor making something, the supplier for the time and effort it takes to deliver him the parts and materials to make it with, the inventor who created the item or any of the other people involved with getting a product from drawing board to the consumer?

You might say they'd be compensated with food and healthcare and housing and other basic human needs for them and their families but how is that all coordinated and by who?

That's because you're seeing still with money in your perspective.
Factory workers are obsolete now in a money-ruled world.

Like I mentioned the purpose of living today is making money. The purpose of living in a money-less society is purpose and value.

People will still work but they will work for purpose and for value/meaning that they believe in.

Education will be free. People will compete not for money but for positions instead that bring NO money but meaning and purpose. Thus, elevating oneself in value becomes the new game instead of the accumulation of money. This means striving to realize one's full potential unhindered by prerequisite of money.

Without money, no corporations or lobbyists could steer public policy or laws.
The world ceases to belong to just 6 or 62 or some 200ish people.

When you take out costs, we will have enough food for everybody and we can produce what we can produce instead of what's affordable.

This all being said, I'm impressed by how the creator of Star Trek also envisioned an advanced world without money. He knew that money hinders progress.


Okay, go ahead - present your evidence then, if you please.



I have, to people nearest to me. Provide me with a lab facility and scientists and some subjects to help monitor me and them and I'll prove transcendence. Transcendence can be demonstrated. That's why Maslow recognized it. That's why psychology acknowledges it and studies it under the field of transpersonal psychology.

I do not know where you read your stuff from but transcendence can be demonstrated.

I have some videos that demonstrate the potentiality of omniscience but they are no proof unto themselves. There were too many parameters that were not measured. For proof people like me need lab. There's little point proving it to Skybird but the world? Yeah, it would be worth it. If Skybird wanted a proof he would need to spend time with me, about a week. Well, a day is enough but it won't still convince Skybird.

Transcendence can be proven through demonstrable realization of the potentiality of omnipresence and omniscience. They both are two sides of the same coin though.

Yes, you're right I'm drawing [dangerous] attention to myself with this but I could die any day anyway if Singapore wanted that. The attention of wrong people is already there. I'm just broadening it with this. My dream is to make transcendence as common as sneakers. Demonstrable useful transcendence that's becoming humanity's nature. First, by demonstrating that their feelings and minds aren't just their own. Then saying they too can transcend individuality (and space and time) since it is an illusion.

I'll help even China if I can or when I can and if I think that's justified and to put pressure on Singapore's regime. A unipolar world can be bad for humanity. The China today will probably not be the China of tomorrow. Things change. Just need to make sure China survives any potential major military conflict with the US. It only needs to avoid conflict in the first place.

[August]

Like I mentioned the purpose of living today is making money.

Maybe to some but that's certainly not my purpose in life. I earn money only to improve my standard of living not as a goal in of itself.

Education will be free. People will compete not for money but for positions instead that bring NO money but meaning and purpose. Thus, elevating oneself becomes the new games instead of the accumulation of money.

Free? How? Who provides the school building and the heat and the air conditioning and the books and the computers? Who convinces the teachers to spend their lives instructing a bunch of rowdy kids.

And what about the people who don't care to compete for jobs with meaning or purpose? How are you going to force them to do the non elevating dirty jobs that will still have to be done?

You need to explain how people will be able to obtain the things they need to keep them out of the stone age without money. Tossing out platitudes like purpose and meaning without defining just what they will mean make them anything but purpose filled or meaningful.

You're never going to get rid of money, ever. I'm not talking about just government script but also everything else that can and has and will be used in its place. Monetary systems predate government and are not dependent upon government to exist.

[Nippelspanner]

Gentlemen, I don't know about you, but I think today is a good day for tin foil hats.
Jesus, this threads starting to get spooky...

[Castout]

Maybe to some but that's certainly not my purpose in life. I earn money only to improve my standard of living not as a goal in of itself.



Free? How? Who provides the school building and the heat and the air conditioning and the books and the computers? Who convinces the teachers to spend their lives instructing a bunch of rowdy kids.

And what about the people who don't care to compete for jobs with meaning or purpose? How are you going to force them to do the non elevating dirty jobs that will still have to be done?

You need to explain how people will be able to obtain the things they need to keep them out of the stone age without money. Tossing out platitudes like purpose and meaning without defining just what they will mean make them anything but purpose filled or meaningful.

You're never going to get rid of money, ever. I'm not talking about just government script but also everything else that can and has and will be used in its place. Monetary systems predate government and are not dependent upon government to exist.

I mean generally speaking life has become a race to accumulate money. Dictators hoard money from Putin, Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, I'm sure Lee Kuan Yew and his family too all because money commands power. Money is the reason for tyranny.

A moneyless society rests in the conviction that a healthy man is aspired to find purpose and meaning and to be of value.

Teachers who find their purpose is in teaching will teach.
Everything will be produced without cost. The building will be free. Factories run to produce things that are needed not to produce the things that will be sold.

Imagine now, really imagine, you could have everything you wanted, for free. A PC or two? Free, a car or two, free. A home, free. A laptop, free. A cellphone, free. Internet? free, traveling, free. Education, free. Watches, free, health care free and of the best quality possible instead of being constrained by cost.

What would you do if you no longer worry about having to meet your needs? When you have your answer then question yourself then what will you do after that. Keep on asking yourself then what will you do.

This woman got it right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbg2w6wldA0&t=24s

But to put this in practice requires stages, the first one is described in the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-iDUcETjvo&t=10s

And what about the people who don't care to compete for jobs with meaning or purpose? How are you going to force them to do the non elevating dirty jobs that will still have to be done?
There will be no such people. Dirty jobs can be done by robots whenever possible. Today there are no people willing to do dirty jobs either. They are doing it simply because they have no other choice. Given proper education, they could become as successful as anybody.

You need to explain how people will be able to obtain the things they need to keep them out of the stone age without money. Tossing out platitudes like purpose and meaning without defining just what they will mean make them anything but purpose filled or meaningful.
Money in itself has no value. Our monetary system is an agreement. That's all. So does a money-less society. It's an agreement just like money where people work and produce products and services for purpose and meaning, all for free.

If a person cannot truly understand this then I'm afraid he or she is not equipped for such a society being the products of money age.

Younger people can relate to this.

When you take away money, you create a level playing field for anyone to strive to realize their full potential. You take away the reason for tyranny (the accumulation of power). When you take away money, resource allocation becomes the way to govern a human society. Big projects such as deep sea mining, under water cities, massive-scale moon mining, mining of other planets would become possible having been freed from the constraints of money. When you take away money you take away the reason to destroy the planet. Our production will be focused on sustainability.

We can transform anything in very rapid period of time without money holding us back. Rooftops could be installed with solar panels within a year in a single city because they are free.

There isn't enough money in the entire world to even mine our moon on a massive scale.

Star Trek got it right. An advanced spaceship such as the Enterprise would not have been produced in a money-age society.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_VSIdAx4PQ

[Skybird]

I have, to people nearest to me. Provide me with a lab facility and scientists and some subjects to help monitor me and them and I'll prove transcendence. Transcendence can be demonstrated. That's why Maslow recognized it. That's why psychology acknowledges it and studies it under the field of transpersonal psychology.
I have written my diploma thesis on the options - and impossibilities as well - of clinical psychological methods and transcendental meditation. ;) I trained people in meditation for one and a half decade, and I poracticed it since I was a boy. I sometimes pragmatically used methods from this pool in clinical contexts, heck, I even used a bit of hypnosis, tarot card working and I Ging, though the latter not "to read the future", but to give people an alternative tool of communication. I was a pragmatist in counseling, what was of help, was of help, period. I am open, but I am not credulous. Just so that you know I am no newbie to both meditation and clinical psychology. I spend one of my practicals living in a Buddhist centre for months, assessing if and how Western and Eastern psychology can benefit from each other. They can, but not in this simple way of just claiming something , and insisting that that were "evidence".

You mentioned Maslow, and it is no surprise after my explanations above that I can sort him in quite well. Founder of the Western branch named Transpersonal Psychology and a founding father of the Humanistic branches of Psychotherapy in general, he spoke of a human craving in man for transcending himself, a desire to reach beyond oneself. A bit like what Victor Frankl called the hunger for meaning, thus his therapy named Logotherapy focussing on helping man to find a meaning in his life.

Maslow meant by cravinbg for transcendence that humans want to see a meaning in their existence that points beyond themselves. That is something very different than to claim that he has recognised solid evidence for transcendence in a given person, or that you could even demonstrate transcendence under laboratory conditions. That is absurd. You could as well claim you can prove the existence of God under lab conditions. Or Buddhas enlightenment, precisely measured to the 20th numbers behind the decimal. Becasue if somebody is in that state of mind, the others around him nevertheless are excluded from the subjectivity of this event - they have not transcended themselves. If you have evidence, the term "evidence" then implies that it can be shown, that it can be replicated (or falsified) by retesting.

But is this what matters? Why your fixiation to convince others of how transcended youz claim to be, and what use can this have for others if they beleive you? - Origenes was one of the founding fathers of Christian mysticism in I think 3rd century, and he commented once on Galatians 2:20 (Paul: "It's not I who live, but Christ lives in me.") like this: "For what good does it do you that Christ once appared in flesh, if he has not appeared in your soul as well? We pray for his coming to take place in us each day, so that we can say: 'It is no longer I who lives, but Christ lives in me'. And if Christ lived in Paul and not in me, of what good is that to me?"

That relaxation techniques like autogenous training and psychological meditation have physiological correlates like lower blood pressure, lower heart rates, influence on brain waves, is not new. But that is more about biofeedback. But you speak of yourself as that you transcend yourself. Either you mean you alter your physiological status, which indeed can be monitored in a lab, or you give evidence that you indeed have gone beyond - that you have deconstructed - your ego. Since you defend your ego very bitterly in this thread, this is best evidence for that you have not transcended yourself at all. You have learned to relax, to sooth your mind, I assume. Fine, that has its benefits in itself aleady, nobody denies that. But transcendence? You could as well tell me you can walk over water.

Psychology and psychophysiology fights since decades to indeed scientifically prove effects of meditation and altered, higher states of mind. But it has proven to be a very resisting matter. It principle, "evidence" is left to recording changes in physiological variables, thats all. And as such data, it only illustrates recorded changes in physiological status. Not more, not less.

Thanatology and Buddhist psychology, meditation and Eastern models of the mind were my pet themes when I studied psychology. I do not claim that makes me a great master, I am not, but I know this stuff a little bit too well and have a bit too much experience as if just your words could convince me of your claims.

In Zen they have this little story. A student runs to his m aster and says: "Master, I have finally managed to let go my ego." Master says: "Is that so? Then let it go." The student, angrily: "But master, I just told you I already have let it go!" The master: "In this case you seem to need carrying it on a little while longer." - I am certainly not a master. But you are reminding me strongly of the student in this little story.


I do not know where you read your stuff from but transcendence can be demonstrated.

I have some videos that demonstrate the potentiality of omniscience but they are no proof unto themselves. There were too many parameters that were not measured. For proof people like me need lab. There's little point proving it to Skybird but the world? Yeah, it would be worth it. If Skybird wanted a proof he would need to spend time with me, about a week. Well, a day is enough but it won't still convince Skybird.

Transcendence can be proven through demonstrable realization of the potentiality of omnipresence and omniscience. They both are two sides of the same coin though.Monitoring physicological variables is possible. Transcendence, enlightenment, realization - however you call it, it is a bit more than just that. By produsing physiological condensates of an altered state of mind due to meditation - which I do not deny can be shown - is just shpowing the cnage sin these physiollogical variables. It say snothign about the subjective experience of the dsubject, nor the real causes behind it. A correlation cannot be taken for causality, and high correlations in case of your hintings cannot be taken as evidence for you transcending yourself. I have seen people falling off their meditation seats, sleeping - and afterwards saying they felt a mini satori.


Yes, you're right I'm drawing [dangerous] attention to myself with this but I could die any day anyway if Singapore wanted that. The attention of wrong people is already there. I'm just broadening it with this. My dream is to make transcendence as common as sneakers. Demonstrable useful transcendence that's becoming humanity's nature. First, by demonstrating that their feelings and minds aren't just their own. Then saying they too can transcend individuality (and space and time) since it is an illusion.

I'll help even China if I can or when I can and if I think that's justified and to put pressure on Singapore's regime. A unipolar world can be bad for humanity. The China today will probably not be the China of tomorrow. Things change. Just need to make sure China survives any potential major military conflict with the US. It only needs to avoid conflict in the first place.And now I give you some advise, and it comes from good experience, not just from theory and books. Forget about yourself. Forget about transcending yourself. Forget about wanting to convince people, and forget about wanting to forget all this. As I see it, you are a man under very strict and tight rule of your ego, and this ego wants to shine. Free yourself of everything. Even your self-transcending.

You carry your self with both hands in your effort to leave it behind. That will not work. Because that is what the Latin origin of the word transcendence originally means: to go beyond, to grow beyond. Beyond your ego - but also all other of your conceptions. You certainly know what the Buddhist fourfold negation is, yes?

Oh boy, i have seen this so often. Firworks are spectacular and nice to watch, but soon they are over. And they do not serve well in illuminating the long way home through the dark.

That people are so easily obsessed by their enlightenment and spiritual wellbeing, is probably the devil's best trick ever.

[ValoWay]

...On the contrary, in the absence of hoarding money, humanity can strive to pursue what really matters and to strive to live their lives to the fullest of their potential. If people could get anything they wanted, completely free, there would be no reason to hoard anything at all and to destroy the planet just to hoard money...

That's exactly how they explain it in star trek , I approve :Kaleun_Applaud: Before we can go there, though we need more technological advancements like beefed-up 3-D printers (aka replicators) or better ways to create and store energy. Automated drones/robots will do the jobs nobody wants so that we can focus on what we actully wanna do instead of redundant needs like to possess an expensive car only to feel superior to our neighbors..

[August]

Teachers who find their purpose is in teaching will teach.

And what happens if not enough people decide that their purpose in life is to be a teacher? How will you convince others to give up their own dreams and plans in order to make up the shortfall?

Everything will be produced without cost. The building will be free. Factories run to produce things that are needed not to produce the things that will be sold.You can't produce anything without cost. If not in money then in resources and peoples time. Whose building materials are you going to use to build this free school? How are you going to convince anyone to spend their time and effort to assemble it? I don't care about your kids free education. Construction is a dirty job that very few people would ever want to do without some form of compensation. That goes for all dirty jobs (indeed all jobs) including those in factories even if they are producing needed things.

Imagine now, really imagine, you could have everything you wanted, for free. A PC or two? Free, a car or two, free. A home, free. A laptop, free. A cellphone, free. Internet? free, traveling, free. Education, free. Watches, free, health care free and of the best quality possible instead of being constrained by cost.I can imagine all kinds of things but it comes back to the same question. How are you going to create and supply them? Whose resources are going to be used to give me all this free stuff? Whose time and effort is going to create/assemble them?

What would you do if you no longer worry about having to meet your needs? When you have your answer then question yourself then what will you do after that. Keep on asking yourself then what will you do.Well anyone who has ever contemplated winning the lottery has done that particular mental exercise in detail but it's academic unless one actually has a winning lottery ticket in his hand. In your money-less world theory you have an enormous gap between theory and practice and you really need to explain how this could possibly work because so far you haven't convinced anyone the concept is valid.

There will be no such people. Dirty jobs can be done by robots whenever possible. Today there are no people willing to do dirty jobs either. They are doing it simply because they have no other choice. Given proper education, they could become as successful as anybody.Well first off robots can't do all or even most dirty jobs so you have another huge labor gap there that will have to be staffed by human beings for the foreseeable future and you're wrong about people today not being willing to do them either. They do it for enough compensation.

Money in itself has no value. Our monetary system is an agreement. That's all. So does a money-less society. It's an agreement just like money where people work and produce products and services for purpose and meaning, all for free.The problem is you make things far more complicated (to the point of impossibility) by eliminating monetary compensation. You just can't create purpose and meaning out of thin air. Remember it's your purpose and meaning not that of the people who would have to do the actual work.

If a person cannot truly understand this then I'm afraid he or she is not equipped for such a society being the products of money age.So what is the final solution for these people? They're going to keep consuming the free stuff and draining your societies resources. How do you prevent it?

When you take away money ...... You take away the reason for tyranny (the accumulation of power).Since when has power ever been limited to the acquisition of money? Power is about exercising control over others and you can do that like you say below in many other ways but it's the control that's important not the means and the lust for power would be just as present in your money-less society as it is in our present one.

When you take away money, resource allocation becomes the way to govern a human society. Big projects such as deep sea mining, under water cities, massive-scale moon mining, mining of other planets would become possible having been freed from the constraints of money. When you take away money you take away the reason to destroy the planet. Our production will be focused on sustainability.The government that you'd need to force people to go along with this would have to be more ruthless and pervasive than any other ever seen on this earth. Your concept depends on complete cooperation and motivation by everyone and you just won't get it. Human beings are not sheep. They can and will fight back against such tyranny and once they do the whole house of cards will come down. And unlike the barbarians of old you won't even have any way of buying them off!

[Rockin Robbins]

It was stated in the post above mine that if we remove money from society, the result would be a society that required an iron fisted and so on goverment. I question whether or not it is required, as it was stated. Money have been around for less than 20,000 years. Societies have been around for 100s of 1000s of years. The Hadza people are very much alive today. Do they live in an oppressive society? What I am questioning is precisely correlation vs causation but also if the statement I referred to isn't rooted in the application of rules of one game to a fundamentally different game.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/Hadzabe_Hut.jpg/800px-Hadzabe_Hut.jpg

Hazda house. The reason they don't need money is that their lives are worthless.

[Rockin Robbins]

This is just silly. Backing off? Care to show how that is?
I quoth:
First: If you read my first post, I make it very clear that I have no illusions of a global moneyless society. Quite the opposite, in fact but I do question the arguements for money being absolutely neccessary for humans as a species coming out of evolution. I also question whether it is valid to use, as you certainly do, our society as some form of base society all other modern society must be based on.
When you've been spotted lay a smoke screen. You have no illusions your idea would work. Quite the opposite. You do question whether money is necessary for humans to evolve (and I'm going to insert "from stone age hunter-gatherers). And you wonder if our society is some kind of base society.

All meaningless psychobabble. Our society is what it is. Moneyless societies are what they are. Money is how we cooperate and support other people indirectly when we have no direct need for their services. Money is the concrete evidence of the cooperation of person with person. Voluntary, not required.

Let's look at your lofty example of how people should live, the Hazda in Africa:
Hadza men usually forage individually, and during the course of day usually feed themselves while foraging, and also bring home some honey, fruit, or wild game when available. Women forage in larger parties, and usually bring home berries, baobab fruit [1], and tubers, depending on availability. Men and women also forage cooperatively for honey and fruit, and at least one adult male will usually accompany a group of foraging women. During the wet season, the diet is composed mostly of honey, some fruit, tubers, and occasional meat.

That's your example of utopia. No thanks, bub. I enjoy living longer than 25 years.

[Rockin Robbins]

I'd venture to say that the technology for mass production, indeed the whole industrial revolution itself would have never existed without money. There is just no way to gather the many resources, equipment and trained personnel required by any factory by barter alone. Therefore human society without money is limited to small agrarian and hunter gatherer groups where life is both difficult and short.
And people have no rights under rigid authoritarian rule. Looking at American indian tribes before the white man came there were two things that dominated.

First was a destructive slash and burn agriculture. Wonder why we find those cliff dwellings out west with the houses all just abandoned in perfect shape? It's because moneyless societies take from the earth, they give nothing back. These tribes would set up their fields close to the Pueblo until they destroyed the ability of the dirt to raise crops. Then they'd abandon that tract and set up another further away. This went on until the crops were half a day from the city. Then the city was abandoned, the land for 30 miles ruined forever, even to this day. Much of the western desert was made by destructive moneyless societies who of course did not value the land.

Second was a warrior cult, where tribes warred with each other out of hundreds of years of tradition, raiding and killing their enemy tribes to take women and children, food and scalps. War was an everyday good part of life to the American indian, the worthiest man was the man who had killed the most other men in his lifetime. Of course this was not true with every single tribe, but was prevalent. It was very difficult to be a peaceful tribe when the others were looking to kill you.

We have erected fanciful stories of the "noble savage" and sought to emulate their body mutilations and other aspects of tribal life. Now I guess the new craze is the longing for a moneyless society. Stone age society has nothing we would wish for. Only stone age societies are moneyless.

Star Trek and other visions of future moneyless societies are nothing but delusions of madmen. I am richer than the greatest Roman Emperor. I have better food. I have running water in my house without lead poisoning. I live in a nation of laws, not the capricious whim of powerful men who are beyond the law. I can travel two thousand miles just by deciding to do so, and can support myself when I get there. My life expectancy is greater than 25 years. I will not be killed by a tribe that lives 30 miles away just because I am of my tribe. I can type this on a computer that I designed and built because money makes this possible.

The necessary result of no money is a hunter-gatherer society with no health care, no dependable food supply, no refrigeration, no heat, depending on raping the earth because they produce nothing. Show me a single exception.

[Von Due]

Humans are not sophisticated but we are what we are, superstitious, simple minded and stubborn, come hell or high water. We also make the calls so I don't see the moneyless society happening before we are all gone.

What I was saying was, the moneyless global society will never ever happen again. It was moneyless but that's more than at least 6000 years ago, before the first city states, probably much longer.

I quoth:

When you've been spotted lay a smoke screen. You have no illusions your idea would work. Quite the opposite. You do question whether money is necessary for humans to evolve (and I'm going to insert "from stone age hunter-gatherers). And you wonder if our society is some kind of base society.

[...]
That's your example of utopia. No thanks, bub. I enjoy living longer than 25 years.

How you pieced together that this was some kind of utopia of mine, that I thought this would ever happen, is truly a puzzle if I assume you read the posts you respond to. Again, for the last time: No, it is not a utopia of mine nor do I think it could happen again.

However, I do say that all this babbling about how invention of money is "human nature" is verifiably wrong. Human nature is not something we choose or get used to. Money came out of culture, not genetics. Humans 100,000 years ago were practically genetically identical to us. We are not a new species. We have in us the same "nature" as they did way back. That was and still is my point with the Hadza. One more thing: Your, or my culture, is not global or universal. Same species, different cultures. You seem to ignore that completely.

[August]

Well whatever it is society cannot exist without money except in the most primitive manner. To survive without it a community needs to be small enough that everyone knows each other personally and their actual contributions to the group are significant enough for the rest of the community to tolerate their presence.

[Skybird]

How you pieced together that this was some kind of utopia of mine, that I thought this would ever happen, is truly a puzzle if I assume you read the posts you respond to. Again, for the last time: No, it is not a utopia of mine nor do I think it could happen again.

However, I do say that all this babbling about how invention of money is "human nature" is verifiably wrong. Human nature is not something we choose or get used to. Money came out of culture, not genetics. Humans 100,000 years ago were practically genetically identical to us. We are not a new species. We have in us the same "nature" as they did way back. That was and still is my point with the Hadza. One more thing: Your, or my culture, is not global or universal. Same species, different cultures. You seem to ignore that completely.

"What has government done to our money?", part 2: Money in a free society

1. The Value of Exchange

How did money begin? Clearly, Robinson Crusoe had no need for money. He could not have eaten gold coins. Neither would Crusoe and Friday, perhaps exchanging fish for lumber, need to bother about money. But when society expands beyond a few families, the stage is already set for the emergence of money.
To explain the role of money, we must go even further back, and ask: why do men exchange at all? Exchange is the prime basis of our economic life. Without exchanges, there would be no real economy and, practically, no society. Clearly, a voluntary exchange occurs because both parties expect to benefit. An exchange is an agreement between A and B to transfer the goods or services of one man for the goods and services of the other. Obviously, both benefit because each values what he receives in exchange more than what he gives up. When Crusoe, say, exchanges some fish for lumber, he values the lumber he "buys" more than the fish he "sells," while Friday, on the contrary, values the fish more than the lumber. From Aristotle to Marx, men have mistakenly believed that an exchange records some sort of equality of value—that if one barrel of fish is exchanged for ten logs, there is some sort of underlying equality between them. Actually, the exchange was made only because each party valued the two products in different order.
Why should exchange be so universal among mankind? Fundamentally, because of the great variety in nature: the variety in man, and the diversity of location of natural resources. Every man has a different set of skills and aptitudes, and every plot of ground has its own unique features, its own distinctive resources. From this external natural fact of variety come exchanges; wheat in Kansas for iron in Minnesota; one man's medical services for another's playing of the violin. Specialization permits each man to develop his best skill, and allows each region to develop its own particular resources. If no one could exchange, if every man were forced to be completely self-sufficient, it is obvious that most of us would starve to death, and the rest would barely remain alive. Exchange is the lifeblood, not only of our economy, but of civilization itself.


2. Barter

Yet, direct exchange of useful goods and services would barely suffice to keep an economy going above the primitive level. Such direct exchange—or barter—is hardly better than pure self-sufficiency. Why is this? For one thing, it is clear that very little production could be carried on. If Jones hires some laborers to build a house, with what will he pay them? With parts of the house, or with building materials they could not use? The two basic problems are "indivisibility" and "lack of coincidence of wants." Thus, if Smith has a plow, which he would like to exchange for several different things—say, eggs, bread, and a suit of clothes—how can he do so? How can he break up the plow and give part of it to a farmer and another part to a tailor? Even where the goods are divisible, it is generally impossible for two exchangers to find each other at the same time. If A has a supply of eggs for sale, and B has a pair of shoes, how can they get together if A wants a suit? And think of the plight of an economics teacher who has to find an egg-producer who wants to purchase a few economics lessons in return for his eggs! Clearly, any sort of civilized economy is impossible under direct exchange.


3. Indirect Exchange

But man discovered, in the process of trial and error, the route that permits a greatly-expanding economy: indirect exchange. Under indirect exchange, you sell your product not for a good which you need directly, but for another good which you then, in turn, sell for the good you want. At first glance, this seems like a clumsy and round-about operation. But it is actually the marvelous instrument that permits civilization to develop.
Consider the case of A, the farmer, who wants to buy the shoes made by B. Since B doesn't want his eggs, he finds what B does want—let's say butter. A then exchanges his eggs for C's butter, and sells the butter to B for shoes. He first buys the butter no: because he wants it directly, but because it will permit him to get his shoes. Similarly, Smith, a plow-owner, will sell his plow for one commodity which he can more readily divide and sell—say, butter—and will then exchange parts of the butter for eggs, bread, clothes, etc. In both cases, the superiority of butter—the reason there is extra demand for it beyond simple consumption—is its greater marketability. If one good is more marketable than another—if everyone is confident that it will be more readily sold—then it will come into greater demand because it will be used as a medium of exchange. It will be the medium through which one specialist can exchange his product for the goods of other specialists.
Now just as in nature there is a great variety of skills and resources, so there is a variety in the marketability of goods. Some goods are more widely demanded than others, some are more divisible into smaller units without loss of value, some more durable over long periods of time, some more transportable over large distances. All of these advantages make for greater marketability. It is clear that in every society, the most marketable goods will be gradually selected as the media for exchange. As they are more and more selected as media, the demand for them increases because of this use, and so they become even more marketable. The result is a reinforcing spiral: more marketability causes wider use as a medium which causes more marketability, etc. Eventually, one or two commodities are used as general media--in almost all exchanges—and these are called money.
Historically, many different goods have been used as media: tobacco in colonial Virginia, sugar in the West Indies, salt in Abyssinia, cattle in ancient Greece, nails in Scotland, copper in ancient Egypt, and grain, beads, tea, cowrie shells, and fishhooks. Through the centuries, two commodities, gold and silver, have emerged as money in the free competition of the market, and have displaced the other commodities. Both are uniquely marketable, are in great demand as ornaments, and excel in the other necessary qualities. In recent times, silver, being relatively more abundant than gold, has been found more useful for smaller exchanges, while gold is more useful for larger transactions. At any rate, the important thing is that whatever the reason, the free market has found gold and silver to be the most efficient moneys.
This process: the cumulative development of a medium of exchange on the free market—is the only way money can become established. Money cannot originate in any other way, neither by everyone suddenly deciding to create money out of useless material, nor by government calling bits of paper "money." For embedded in the demand for money is knowledge of the money-prices of the immediate past; in contrast to directly-used consumers' or producers' goods, money must have pre-existing prices on which to ground a demand. But the only way this can happen is by beginning with a useful commodity under barter, and then adding demand for a medium for exchange to the previous demand for direct use (e.g., for ornaments, in the case of gold1 (https://mises.org/library/what-has-government-done-our-money/html/p/69#footnote1_atiz1mf)). Thus, government is powerless to create money for the economy; it can only be developed by the processes of the free market.
A most important truth about money now emerges from our discussion: money is a commodity. Learning this simple lesson is one of the world's most important tasks. So often have people talked about money as something much more or less than this. Money is not an abstract unit of account, divorceable from a concrete good; it is not a useless token only good for exchanging; it is not a "claim on society"; it is not a guarantee of a fixed price level. It is simply a commodity. It differs from other commodities in being demanded mainly as a medium of exchange. But aside from this, it is a commodity—and, like all commodities, it has an existing stock, it faces demands by people to buy and hold it, etc. Like all commodities, its "price"—in terms of other goods—is determined by the interaction of its total supply, or stock, and the total demand by people to buy and hold it. (People "buy" money by selling their goods and services for it, just as they "sell" money when they buy goods and services.).





4. Benefits of Money

The emergence of money was a great boon to the human race. Without money—without a general medium of exchange—there could be no real specialization, no advancement of the economy above a bare, primitive level. With money, the problems of indivisibility and "coincidence of wants" that plagued the barter society all vanish. Now, Jones can hire laborers and pay them in... money. Smith can sell his plow in exchange for units of... money. The money-commodity is divisible into small units, and it is generally acceptable by all. And so all goods and services are sold for money, and then money is used to buy other goods and services that people desire. Because of money, an elaborate "structure of production" can be formed, with land, labor services, and capital goods cooperating to advance production at each stage and receiving payment in money.
The establishment of money conveys another great benefit. Since all exchanges are made in money, all the exchange-ratios are expressed in money, and so people can now compare the market worth of each good to that of every other good. If a TV set exchanges for three ounces of gold, and an automobile exchanges for sixty ounces of gold, then everyone can see that one automobile is "worth" twenty TV sets on the market. These exchange-ratios are prices, and the money-commodity serves as a common denominator for all prices. Only the establishment of money-prices on the market allows the development of a civilized economy, for only they permit businessmen to calculate economically. Businessmen can now judge how well they are satisfying consumer demands by seeing how the selling-prices of their products compare with the prices they have to pay productive factors (their "costs"). Since all these prices are expressed in terms of money, the businessmen can determine whether they are making profits or losses. Such calculations guide businessmen, laborers, and landowners in their search for monetary income on the market. Only such calculations can allocate resources to their most productive uses—to those uses that will most satisfy the demands of consumers.
Many textbooks say that money has several functions: a medium of exchange, unit of account, or "measure of values," a "store of value," etc. But it should be clear that all of these functions are simply corollaries of the one great function: the medium of exchange. Because gold is a general medium, it is most marketable, it can be stored to serve as a medium in the future as well as the present, and all prices are expressed in its terms.2 (https://mises.org/library/what-has-government-done-our-money/html/p/70#footnote2_2qpiu5f) Because gold is a commodity medium for all exchanges, it can serve as a unit of account for present, and expected future, prices. It is important to realize that money cannot be an abstract unit of account or claim, except insofar as it serves as a medium of exchange.
Those who have eyes may see, those who have ears may hear. It cannot be much easier explained than like this ^.

P.S.
A GERMAN essay on the future of forged money and a fraudulent banking system (no future there).

https://frankjordanblog.wordpress.com/2017/04/21/die-mutter-aller-probleme/

If Castout would have at least made this difference between real (commodity) money and fraudulent (FIAT) money, this thread maybe would not be what it is, and the tone probably would have stayed calmer.

[Castout]

@Skybird. I'm not trying to convince others of how transcended I'm. I can demonstrate that on daily basis to people closest to me (the potentiality of omnipresence and omniscience). I'm merely stating that transcendence CAN be demonstrated and thus, proven.

By demonstrating transcendence on daily basis I'm inviting others to rethink their individuality, their egoic identities. That's all.

Thank you for all your suggestions but frankly, I do not need them, not at this stage, maybe 10 years ago. I have my own way and it involves no meditation at all. I still need help but I can get that from others who have gone beyond my own stage. I know where to look for that guidance.

It's one thing to know transcendence or write a thesis about it, it's another thing to experience it on a continual basis. Transcendence is NOT an altered state of consciousness. It is THE NATURAL state of consciousness.

[Castout]

@Skybird, the ego cannot be wholly annihilated. If someone told you that was possible he was lying or didn't know better.

The ego can be weakened though, to the point where a person no longer identifies with his ego. So, the person becomes merely a witnessing consciousness.

But the ego is still there, the personal identification is still there but it no longer controls the person meaning his intentions, desires, and anger are no longer caused by personal egoic reasons but they stem from the collective well-being of the whole.

An egoic person may become angry at a jerk who's harassing him. A more enlightened person may become angry to a jerk who's harassing another or he may get angry at a person who's also harassing him but only because that person is going to repeat that behavior to others. The anger isn't personal though so it doesn't linger and there's no thought of 'revenge'. To the eyes of the ignorant, they may seem the same.
That's all the difference.

The only way for the ego to be truly annihilated is in a deep meditation or dreamless sleep where there's no recollection of being. There's awareness without objects. Time passes unnoticed since there is nothing but the Self. One forgets his egoic existence (himself) in that state. There's awareness but not being. But this is temporary as the ego resurfaces in waking state. Well, unless one dies.

A fuller enlightenment is signified by a state of fearlessness and peace. They stem from the weakening of the ego and from knowing one's true nature. That this is all just an interactive movie. A dream of sort where nothing real can be imparted by us and to us. It's only real in being a flow of experience. The experience is real but everything else isn't. Just like in a dream.

[Castout]

@Skybird, in the middle of enlightenment process, the mind becomes quiets then it progressively becomes very quiet. One no longer jumps from one recollection to another. One no longer relives the past when recollecting past events.

This is due to detachment from one's own thought. That the person no longer identifies with his mind.

From that point, one begins to realize that he can take refuge in being. The result is peace when one pulls back from life into being...into pure awareness. One can't pull back into full awareness unless one's mind has been made quiet.

From that point, one begins to realize a distinct sense of fearlessness. There's much less worry of life. Partly because one operates from love. His intentions, desires are no longer self-centric so his 'good will' helps form this sense of fearlessness. However, primarily, this sense of fearlessness is formed through knowing the true nature of life. A dream doesn't scare the dreamer when he knows he's in one. One can may fear some things as the ego can't be fully annihilated such as Jesus being afraid of dying in the cross but aside from those extreme circumstances, one is generally fearless. Ideally speaking, an enlightened man would probably fight either like a Gurkha or a log. Meaning he would either be fighting fearlessly or he would be a total pacifist. It's his choice. If a pacifist then a fearless pacifist, LOL.

[Skybird]

...

It seems you still need to carry your ego a bit longer.

[Castout]

It seems you still need to carry your ego a bit longer.

Thank you. I'll go check.

It seems you still need to carry your ego a bit longer.

it's interesting that you judged me without knowing me at all.

I thought you should know that.

Thesis on transcendence huh? You sure?
I'll go check to see if I'm still transcendent. Will report back within a week.

I suggest you check too. Just in case.

It seems you still need to carry your ego a bit longer.

I'm still transcendent, at least so 5 minutes ago. Please address me as 'The One' from now on. Thank you.

[Skybird]

[Sigh.]

While he entered the assembly hall with the monks, Huang-Po said: "The possession of many kinds of knowledge does not compare to giving up the search for them - that is the best of all things. There are no different kinds of mind, and there are no teachings that could be expressed in words. Since there is nothing to say, the assembly is hereby closed."

Said it, raised, and left.

-----

For somebody saying he transcended his ego, it nevertheless throws a long shadow on your life. ;)

[Rockin Robbins]

If you are transcendent, then you would know that Chairman Mao tried your moneyless idea. It was called "The Great Leap Forward." China suffers to this day and millions, perhaps tens of millions were murdered by foreseeable consequences. Your "transcendent" wish would kill BILLIONS. There is no good in your transcendence, so therefore it is not a goal worth pursuing or a skill worth teaching. It is pure garbage. It is a dangerous psychosis, not wisdom.

[Castout]

[Sigh.]
For somebody saying he transcended his ego, it nevertheless throws a long shadow on your life. ;)

What an arrogance to say that when you don't know anything about my life.

If you are transcendent, then you would know that Chairman Mao tried your moneyless idea. It was called "The Great Leap Forward." China suffers to this day and millions, perhaps tens of millions were murdered by foreseeable consequences. Your "transcendent" wish would kill BILLIONS. There is no good in your transcendence, so therefore it is not a goal worth pursuing or a skill worth teaching. It is pure garbage. It is a dangerous psychosis, not wisdom.

Dangerous psychosis, LOL. So, Maslow's transcendence is a psychosis, and the field of transpersonal psychology is studiying psychosis, LOL. You have a lot of fear, LOL.

Yes, it is so dangerous it made me unable to kill a bee today after knowing it is sentient and intelligent, LOL. Perhaps it is only dangerous to you. Back in 2009/10 I was tailed by an assassin in the Pluit area. A young man of Chinese descent (I suspect he was working for the Singapore's regime). His clothes were expensive looking and it was obvious that he lifted weights regularly. He was addicted to murdering people. He quickly veered to the left as soon as I turned my head towards him. A messed-up regime employing a messed-up man.
I don't know what would happen if I were not transcendent.

Obviously you don't understand transcendence. God is infinite potentiality being manifested in the finite: men, animals, the unseen, ET (though I haven't glimpsed an ET). How much of that infinite potentiality is realized in the finite is up to the individuals themselves.

So men may realize some degree of that infinite potentiality, the most notable is the potentiality of omnipresence and omniscience across space-time but it doesn't mean that those who do have infinite potential...

In a perfectly enlightened man perhaps there could be infinite omnipresence and omniscience (but then the omniscience is just another side of the same coin, it depends on information gained from the potentiality of omnipresence). In short, I haven't met a perfectly enlightened man with a fully realized infinite potentiality of God.

This transcendence or Self-remembrance is usually gained and lost right away. It may happen on a continual basis but it is transient. So, there is a limit to it due to the potentiality not being fully realized.

A moneyless society requires a world government. It cannot be applied to single countries. Otherwise, those countries would end up bartering with one another which is not a resource-based economy is.

[Nippelspanner]

Back in 2009/10 I was tailed by an assassin in the Pluit area. A young man of Chinese descent (I suspect he was working for the Singapore's regime).



http://i.imgur.com/bDyEHrM.gif

[Skybird]

What an arrogance to say that when you don't know anything about my life.

Sorry dude, but I have seen and had many spiritually searching people like you - people who endlessly let their oh so spiritually aware ego babble about how ego-less they are, while the mere fact that they endlessly talk about their ego shows that their ego not only is not gone like they claim, but enjoys formidable health and size, and truly parties while setting up its show.

There is a name for this. False prophets. And they are legions. And since I see them doing real damage and leading people astray with all their intellectual super-dooper laserlight show and esoteric practicing, I am neither very patient nor forgiving in calling them out as what they are. I had to learn a lot from theory and practice just to learn that I must unlearn all this ballast - you mistake monitoring physiology with satori and and claim you could prove enlightenment in a laboratory. Sorry man - no way.

You fish for attention and applaus, that simple it is. And unfortunately, very many half-baken wannabe-messiahs, false prophets do like that. To the disadvantage of those who fall for them.

You know what the following is from, do you.

The One Essence that could be known,
Is not the Essence of the Unknowable.
The idea that could be imagined,
Is not the image of the Eternal.
Nameless is All-One, is inner essence.
Known by names is the All-Many, is outer form.
Resting without desires means to learn the infinite inside.
Acting with desires means to stay by the limited outside.
All-the-One and All-the-Many are of the same origin,
different only in appearance and in name.
What they have in common is the wonder of being.
The secret of this wonder
Is the gate to all understanding.

The name of God is unpronouncable, say the Jews - so now stop making a fool of yourself by endlessly mounting words on words on words about your transcendence. Your ego still casts shadows as dark and undeniable as things can cast shadows. And the brighter you set the light of your transcendence to burn, the more contrasting this shadow will appear on the floor.

There is nothing to gain and nothing to acchieve in enlightenment. Nothing changes when you have enlightenment. More to know is not needed.

Sorry for being maybe rudely open, but you really ask for it.

[Castout]

Many people like me huh? Yet you don't even know me but claimed to have known me? One ignorant statement after another. Did I bruise your ego?
I never claimed about being ego-less. In fact, I wrote that it is impossible to annihilate the ego except in dreamless sleep or deep meditation where one forgets one's ego and time.

Wasn't it you who mentioned about egoless spirituality?

No, I didn't know that poem. It's beautiful.

Sorry for being rudely open? You have from a long time ago near the beginning tof this thread and well before...Don't be sorry, you're not sorry. I'm just reflecting your attitude here. You are not sorry and I'm not sorry...Well, I'm sorry for you but I'm not sorry for whatever I wrote here. You have no respect for me and I don't have any respect for you. So, the feeling is mutual although I don't share your condescending attitude. I don't desire the respect of anyone I have no respect for. So, no sorry is ever needed.

[Skybird]

Many people like me huh? Yet you don't even know me but claimed to have known me? One ignorant statement after another. Did I bruise your ego?
I never claimed about being ego-less. In fact, I wrote that it is impossible to annihilate the ego except in dreamless sleep or deep meditation where one forgets one's ego and time.
Many people like you I have known who did the same thign like you: endlessly trying to cionvnce others how enlighted/satori-satisfied/transcended they are, ofteh in a bid to be accepted as kind of an authority on spiritual things - yes, many people I learnt like this, and you absolutely remind me of many of these. Some were students of mine, some where clients in other contexts, some were peope with whom i studied at university.


No, I didn't know that poem. It's beautiful.
No? Its the very first part of the Tao Te King, reworded in my own (German) words. I have many German and English translations, and millions, literally, are available via the internet, I happened to not really have liked any of these from A to Z, some things all of them seem to do wrong here and there, so I did it again and did it up to my taste. Chinese cannot be easily translated lineraly like French into English. Its a very different thing. I had help by a sineologist, of course.


Sorry for being rudely open? You have from a long time ago near the beginning tof this thread and well before...Don't be sorry, you're not sorry. I'm just reflecting your attitude here. You are not sorry and I'm not sorry...Well, I'm sorry for you but I'm not sorry for whatever I wrote here. You have no respect for me and I don't have any respect for you. So, the feeling is mutual although I don't share your condescending attitude. I don't desire the respect of anyone I have no respect for. So, no sorry is ever needed.You were preaching, both on the economic argument, and on your transcendence thing. Sorry man, if somebody so stubbornly insists on himself being transcended, this is best evidence that he is not, and if he claims he can prove it under laboratory conditions, mistaking the monitoring of physiological variables with transcendence, this revelas a seriosu lack of understanding for the rules of scientifc work and interpretation, and experimental methodology.

For somebody claiming he transcended himself, you simply are too eager to make people believe you and applaude your deep insight and authority on things. I can assure you as a former psychologist: dont worry your ego, its strong and steaming with power. :) But ego and transcendence are mutually exclusive. ;) Because transcendence means much more than altering physiological variables under lab conditions, nor do these "prove" anything more than just what they are: a display of altering physiological variables, the rest is just subjective interpretation, hear-say, wishful thinking at times. Maslow btw had little illusions about this, he would not agree with some of the claims you have made in here. Thats why it is so hard for science to actually prove "spiritualty"-related things and claims and observations. I have serious doubts that it can be done, but I still believe that it should be tried, religion must be an object of scientific examination, due to the enormous power it has over people and due to the poltical authority that is claimed on its grounds - if something has so much power to influence your life for the good or worse, you better have a very very very sharp look at it and leading it on a very short line.

Not favouring the noble,

And people do have no envy.
Not calling possessions a precious,
And people do have no greed.
Not holding what is desired in high esteem,
And people’s hearts stay unattached.

Therefore the wise man:
What people need, he gives.
What people desire, he refuses.
When people’s desires dwindle,
Their true inner strength appears.
Resting with a contented heart
Leaves intelligence innocent.
The deed is well-done,
When it’s wisdom has no ambition.
Acting without ambition,
And all good is caused all by itself

Too many too strong ambitions at your end, buddy.

[Rockin Robbins]

If one were transcendent, he would not espouse an idea which necessarily would result in murdering billions of people, condemning them to life without reliable food supply, without medical care, without decent swelling places, without human rights. The dead would be the fortunate ones. That's a transcendent quote from Robert Lewis Stephenson's Treasure Island.

Therefore you are a dangerous poseur, if anyone were foolish enough to be convinced by you, which is unlikely. It's not even necessary to disagree with you. Your own rants discredit your message, making actual disagreement unnecessary. The worst thing for you would be for a couple of people to encourage you and agree with you. You would convince everyone you're off the reservation then. Skybird and I are actually doing you a favor by exposing flaws in your reasoning.

Just like a nation's first obligation is the safety of its people, the individual's first obligation is to act in his own self-interest. You're not.

[Castout]

@Skybird

Eager? another ignorant statement born out of prejudice...I don't even bother to read the rest.
I see you're living in a fantasy land of your mind.

Judging by how you write stuff out of prejudices, you are exhibiting psychopathic traits. No educated man can write that BS and call it an honest opinion.

Eager how? I was merely stating what I know.

[Castout]

If one were transcendent, he would not espouse an idea which necessarily would result in murdering billions of people, condemning them to life without reliable food supply, without medical care, without decent swelling places, without human rights. The dead would be the fortunate ones. That's a transcendent quote from Robert Lewis Stephenson's Treasure Island.

Therefore you are a dangerous poseur, if anyone were foolish enough to be convinced by you, which is unlikely. It's not even necessary to disagree with you. Your own rants discredit your message, making actual disagreement unnecessary. The worst thing for you would be for a couple of people to encourage you and agree with you. You would convince everyone you're off the reservation then. Skybird and I are actually doing you a favor by exposing flaws in your reasoning.

Just like a nation's first obligation is the safety of its people, the individual's first obligation is to act in his own self-interest. You're not.


My intention was to open this for a healthy discussion but instead most people are hostile. I guess many here just can't have a healthy exchange of ideas.

I espouse the murdering of billions? without human rights, medical care, reliable food supply?

And you talk about the flaws in my arguments. I was merely presenting an idea and to have exchanges of ideas.

You guys need to grow up.

Therefore you are a dangerous poseur, if anyone were foolish enough to be convinced by you, which is unlikely.
That statement is contradictory.....First you mention I am a dangerous poseur then you say it is unlikely for anyone to be convinced by me.
So what is so dangerous about me again?

If I were to say to the world: People, We need to abolish our technological advancement and live purely out of nature, would I be dangerous? Unlikely as it doesn't make sense to abandon technological advancement. The application could be aimed for more sustainability but certainly not abandonment.

You write for just the sake to argue? Like little spoiled children because you're not making any sense. Either you're dishonest or just plain stupid. Your pick.

[Nippelspanner]

I see you're living in a fantasy land of your mind.
Damn, someone's reflecting Hardcore, lol.

[GT182]

Nothing is free. Money might not be in dollars and cents per say, but money will still be needed in one form or another. Even in the future, nothing will be free.

[Castout]

I'm sure Nipplespanner doing his best with his overtly rude remarks, all uncalled for.

I'm only posting some posts on transcendence because I'm passionate about the subject and I saw some of Skybird's posts which I do not agree with. I'm not eager to convince anyone that I'm transcendent because that benefits me nothing. But I'm passionate to share my knowledge in the hope of awakening as many people as possible or at least planting a seed which made them question their belief in reality.
I'm active on my Facebook with regard to the topic and have found several people who are genuinely awakened.

Back to the old days where I'm ganged up for no apparent reason. Probably to kick me out of active participation in the forums.

If you see my posts from the beginning I had been nothing but a gentleman until people somehow without apparent reasons became hostile.

Perhaps my signature conjures up a very negative impression to them. But the person you thought of in your heads about me doesn't exist. It's a sad sad world we live in today. People get very emotional even when no ill-will is intended.

Humanity is not far from the end, I suppose, judging by how people respond to this innocent thread meant to encourage a healthy exchange of ideas and opinions. Instead, people attack another's opinion without stating the why.

[dsawan]

well, I am of the opinion that money is good but for non-basic things. For food and rent, money should not be used for these two survival needs. Anything beyond, ie a car luxury etc money is needed.

[Castout]

well, I am of the opinion that money is good but for non-basic things. For food and rent, money should not be used for these two survival needs. Anything beyond, ie a car luxury etc money is needed.

Yeah, you have a good point. The downside of a completely money-less world is a stark reduction in variety. There wouldn't be 25 different sedan models, for example, there would probably be 1-3 models in each country which would be a shame. but with a modular design and ubiquitous 3D printing, we could still have variety in simpler things such as stereo sets, TVs, cellphones, etc but there would be less or much less variety for more advanced products. But perhaps cars would be considered a simple product in the future so we could still have a rich variety of them.

In the zero-marginal-cost video, the man is saying money is still needed but for much more sophisticated products.

But eventually, if we had a world government, money would ultimately hinder progress.

I'm very impressed by the creator of Star Trek who envisioned an advanced society without money. It dawned on him that StarTrek-like civilization (or an advanced space-faring civilization) would not have been possible with a money-age society. But there were also the Ferengis. That could also be our future model.

Obviously, many here can't see that but there is no need to be hostile. I just want ideas to be exchanged. To improve my understanding of the subject and yours too.

[Sailor Steve]

Obviously, many here can't see that

I just want ideas to be exchanged.
So you say, but when someone thinks your ideas are mistaken you come out with a statement like the one above. Telling people that you are right and if they can't see it then they just don't understand is not exchanging ideas, but as I said earlier, preaching. And when you preach at people, yes, sometimes they take it badly.

To improve my understanding of the subject and yours too.
To be honest, you don't post as if you want to improve your own understanding, but to convince others of your rightness. I understand you may not intend it that way, but that is the way you come across.

[Castout]

Preach, how? I believe I wrote in the beginning that I wished to have a discussion?

Skybird has been doing all the preaching...

The issue is being rude in one's post. It's alright to think the idea isn't workable. but you need to tell us why.

To say a money-less society would bring us back to the primitive age without elaborating why the person held on to such a belief isn't disagreeing. It downright says no, A is bad because A will lead to B without further explanation. it's presumption, one after another. No, your idea is bad, because my presumption is this (without elaboration/explanation). Not only that it devolved into attacking character....I mean what kind of low lives are some of the people here? Seriously?


Nowhere did I preach. I replied to your posts earlier to help try explain the idea I had in my mind to facilitate a better discussion yet people were turning hostile for no apparent reason, simply none. Nippelspanner is the most obvious one.

It's one accusation after another.

Do you even realize how easy some of you were led by one rude poster? Then many people adopted the same hostile tone?
The said poster even overtly try to escalate things by mentioning DEFCON 1....I mean what kind of rocks do you guys live under? Do you not have the decency of SELF-HONESTY? I feel I'm engaging with ISIS religious radicals here. Pack mentality is pretty much evident in some of you here. Such a shame. How do you even look up in the mirror and face yourself?

Now. I'm preaching.

Oh,wait I know the answer, you don't think about it when you see yourselves in the mirror. You never have the courage to face yourself. Ignorance is bliss.

[Castout]

Here, have some education, 20 Diversion Tactics Highly Manipulative Narcissists, Sociopaths And Psychopaths Use To Silence You http://thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-arabi/2016/06/20-diversion-tactics-highly-manipulative-narcissists-sociopaths-and-psychopaths-use-to-silence-you/

BTW Skybird let me read your thesis on transcendence. Let me read it.

[Dowly]

Here, have some education, Persecutory delusion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutory_delusion).

[Castout]

Here, have some education, Persecutory delusion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutory_delusion).

Oh, you don't. I was defamed mentally ill basically saying I was nuts (apparently was hearing voices). A defamation which I have disproved through finishing a bachelor's degree just fine without medication and able to have friends and is perfectly normal at the office/work. No medication at all from the very beginning. Finished a 4-year bachelor's degree with no problem, able to contribute at work and have friends just fine. I have never heard voices.

Don't presume when you don't know a thing.

They would wish they had not defamed me with a mental illness. It has become my weapon. Hey, I'm declared schizophrenic in Singapore but I went on, without any mediation, to finish a four-year bachelor's degree just fine, able to have friends, and contributed well at work. Worked on several freelancing projects too such as translating contract, newspaper article, PhD thesis, science project, and tomorrow, I'll be editing a newspaper article soon to be published on Jakarta Post.

So, another presumption, basically you saying I'm delusional or nuts in another way.

Subsim has a lot of people with issues it seems. A normal person would reserve judgment until he knows better. But not you Dowly, you don't know anything about me but basically saying I'm nuts.

You are not a normal decent person Dowly.

Dictatorial regimes are known to abuse mental illness diagnosis one of which what you mentioned to discredit genuine persecution cases, including schizophrenia diagnosis.

I WAS STARVED IN A SINGAPORE PUBLIC HOSPITAL FOR 3-4 DAYS DESPITE MY REPEATED DEMANDS FOR MEAL until I was emaciated. Had i been really crazy I would not have been starved.

So, **** YOU DOWLY!

[Dowly]

Hit a nerve, eh? :arrgh!:

[Skybird]

well, I am of the opinion that money is good but for non-basic things. For food and rent, money should not be used for these two survival needs. Anything beyond, ie a car luxury etc money is needed.
?? How and why separating the two? Why not let people freely trade according to their desires, wishes and needs? And honestly, I think your idea would not, can not and never has worked.

Please reflect again on the excerpts I gave here:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2480566&postcount=75

Money is no special thing, just an ordinary commodity like so many others. Let peope barter it, and peopel then can freely trade to get what they want.

Possible however that you first have to work, have to produce, have to gain or already have to own something that is yours so that you can offer something when bartering. Because providing somebody a free ride is not what it is about.

What works against this are economic monopolies, and "planned/contrlled" money where states want to fix its value. Planned money, planned economy - it never has and never will work. It cannot, for it violates most profound market rules, which are as damant almst as natural laws. You cannot violate, twist, break or bend them and hoping you can get away with it.

[ValoWay]

well, I am of the opinion that money is good but for non-basic things. For food and rent, money should not be used for these two survival needs. Anything beyond, ie a car luxury etc money is needed.

yea, once humans have figured out how to store energy effectively we're one step closer to real independence! If you can have as much power as u want a whole lot of things become pointless from a capitalistic point of view :yeah:

[Castout]

Hit a nerve, eh? :arrgh!:

That cowardly regime also had NTU sent me a letter declaring that my supposed doctor to have deemed me fit to resume my study there.

The letter didn't specify any specific doctor and it didn't stipulate what I was fit from.

Too bad the letter conveniently disappeared from our home table.

If I were really schizophrenic that doctor would have a name. There has never been any doctor or any medication taken. Schizophrenic doesn't probably heal itself...In my understanding it's pretty much a lifetime debilitation.

[Skybird]

yea, once humans have figured out how to store energy effectively we're one step closer to real independence! If you can have as much power as u want a whole lot of things become pointless from a capitalistic point of view :yeah:
You know that classical capitalists know that the term capital means so much more than just "money"? It means: opportunity (right time and right place), skill and knowledge, infrastructure, availablity of workers and ressources, and so forth. Each of that is a form of "capital".

Food, products, the good life, none of this just rains down from heaven. Somebdy has to create all that. And to do so, he must invest "capital" ^. THAT is capitalism;) Financial speculation is only a - quite abusive, btw - part of that. Speculation for the short term financial profit, and investing in classical capitalist understanding, are two very different things in fact: the one is constructuve for the thing or company or person in which you invest, the other is destructive for it. Classical capitalism and the so-called Austrian economic school know that. So-called Value-Investing, which is a strategy followed by Warren Buffet and some other famous heavy weight investors, takes this into account, too.

Nor rarely is the criticsm voiced against financial overspeculation and monopolism quite justified. Problem is tht those giving this criticsm, all too often aim it at the wroing target: not against monopolism and planned economy ideology, but against 2caoitalism". But capitalism gets hurt by monopolism as well, for capitlaism bases and depends on free market , and the free market is what monopolism wants to limit and control and in the end: wants to get rid of. In the end, monopolism wants the planned eocnomy.

Its a bit like with life and death. Every life includes the ultimate end of it, its death, and before that: aging, becoming ill, becoming weak. When you live, you cannot avoid this, you will become older, ill, weaker, and die one day. Death is the final attractor all life is heading for. But still, what lives fihgts to delay this development, it tries to stay alive as long as it can, and tries to create new life nefore it dies itself.

So it is with caitlaism and monopolism. All capitlaism has an inherent drive for monopolism, for very shop keepr likes the idea that he is without rival in his claimed territory, so hat he must not fear price competiton, instead can dicate the prices as he wants. He wants a monopoly. But monopolies would kill said competition, and thus: the free market where peopel can freely barter and MUST adapt to the competition's level and standards. So like life moves towards death, capitalism moves towards monopolism and planned economy, but both nevertheless try to delay this: life fights for staying alive, capitalism must not allow monopolies to take place. And like life forms new life before the individual life form dies, capitalism creates aloways new competition as long as monopolies are not strong enough to supress the emerging of new competitors: startup kits, inventors, independent producers, and so forth.

We must fight against monopolies. Not against capitalism. and this figgt we effectively do by our wallets. But if you always stick to the herd and follow the massdes and always embrace the latest Microsoft garbage and the latest Apple sensation and the coolest Google app, then these companies' dominant position and their resulting power over your life and your options are what you get - and you deserve nothing better than that unfreedom.

I indeed think that instead of worriyng for cabrin footprints and such hypes,consmers should always ask themselves when choosing a product: "Do I support competition with my choice, or do I support a monopolist to grow even stronger?" - That is not about "fairness" and protecting the weaker competitor, free market always must nclude the option that those who cannot compete and cannot adapt, go bancrupt - its about your own long-termed interest to have a living, healthy free market not controlled and manipulated by the few.

[Dowly]

That cowardly regime also had NTU sent me a letter declaring that my supposed doctor to have deemed me fit to resume my study there.

The letter didn't specify any specific doctor and it didn't stipulate what I was fit from.

Too bad the letter conveniently disappeared from our home table.
Yes, I am aware of this. I remember many of your threads from the past and you've made some rather fantastic claims over the years. Which is why I posted the link to the Wiki article.

Most of your threads play out the same: 1) You make a claim 2) people challenge it 3) you play the victim card.

[Nippelspanner]

I'm sure Nipplespanner doing his best with his overtly rude remarks, all uncalled for.
Not uncalled for at all - just pointing out the obvious.
Don't make others responsible for the echo of your actions, learn to take responsibility.

As others pointed out, you're the one preaching, making the wildest, most silly, still unfounded claims in all kinds of areas, be it on the psychological level, about money, society, mankind... you name it.
Maybe, just maybe, if no one agrees with your nonsensical claims - it's not "all the others" that are the problem/on the wrong side.

No one was 'rude' until you literally went nuts with your stories, and people do tend to become more direct and less bum-kissy when someone claims things over and over and over - without being able or willing to deliver any argument/evidence to support his claims.

And sorry, but the "my government tries to kill me!" nonsense doesn't really help your situation here, but as usual, it's "the others" that are unable to "see".
Not sure if you ignored me for real, or if you can read this - but either way this had to be said.


I'm only posting some posts on transcendence because I'm passionate about the subject and I saw some of Skybird's posts which I do not agree with.
You're not posting, your preaching, you're stating that all you say is a fact and if someone disagrees, he's "rude".
Not how it works.
Skybird delivered solid arguments, he apparently is very educated - professionally - in this field, yet you chose to be an know-it-all and simply dispute his arguments - without delivering your own.
"You're wrong and I am right!" is, again, not how it works.



I'm not eager to convince anyone that I'm transcendent because that benefits me nothing.Pretty much all your posts clearly show otherwise. Either you're lying, or you just don't see it yourself - either way I'm sorry for you.

But I'm passionate to share my knowledge in the hope of awakening as many people as possible
Wait...what...?

1. "I'm not eager to convince anyone"

2. "I'm passionate to share my knowledge in the hope of awakening as many people as possible"

OK, you're lost beyond hope. You call others ignorant, arrogant and rude - while not only contradicting yourself, but also being all of the things you blame others for yourself.
Not how it works, either.

I'm active on my Facebook with regard to the topic and have found several people who are genuinely awakened.
Yup, that's exactly where your 'knowledge' belongs. Some lunatic facebook page where people circle jerk and live in a bubble of "we are right - others are wrong - reasons!".
If you must do that, enjoy.


Back to the old days where I'm ganged up for no apparent reason. Probably to kick me out of active participation in the forums.
Not sure what you're referring to, but I can see many reasons why people disagree with you and are unwilling to listen to your psychobabble (it's just that, if you want it or not). And no, people disagreeing with you has nothing to do with "ganging up" - but that sort of behavior is, again, typical.


If you see my posts from the beginning I had been nothing but a gentleman until people somehow without apparent reasons became hostile.
No, you became pissy when people didn't blindly believe your nonsensical, unproven claims and even delivered counter-arguments. You are the one who's tone shifted immediately, and now people are just getting tired of it.


Perhaps my signature conjures up a very negative impression to them. But the person you thought of in your heads about me doesn't exist. It's a sad sad world we live in today. People get very emotional even when no ill-will is intended.
You are again reflecting tremendously, while again being a complete hypocrite. You claim others assume things based on whatever - personally I judge you on your posts and this thread speaks for itself.
Btw, I don't even see your signature as I deactivated signatures on my end. So much about your theory...


Humanity is not far from the end, I suppose, judging by how people respond to this innocent thread meant to encourage a healthy exchange of ideas and opinions. Instead, people attack another's opinion without stating the why.
No one's attacking your opinion. You're free to believe in Inuit riding unicorns underwater while hunting for whales from outta space for all I care - but don't expect people to swallow your claims without evidence, or at least a solid argumentation when we speak theories.
People here were quite open towards you - you just can't stand anyone disagreeing with you, which also speaks volumes about you as a person - so stop blaming others for the Flakfeuer you receive, you brought this on yourself.


Oh, you don't. I was defamed mentally ill basically saying I was nuts (apparently was hearing voices). A defamation which I have disproved through finishing a bachelor's degree just fine without medication and able to have friends and is perfectly normal at the office/work.
A bachelor's degree in whatever field doesn't prove your not mentally ill.
what nonsense. But at least a good laugh...


Don't presume when you don't know a thing.
OK - you first?


Hey, I'm declared schizophrenic in Singapore but I went on, without any mediation, to finish a four-year bachelor's degree just fine, able to have friends, and contributed well at work. Worked on several freelancing projects too such as translating contract, newspaper article, PhD thesis, science project, and tomorrow, I'll be editing a newspaper article soon to be published on Jakarta Post.
I don't even...


So, another presumption, basically you saying I'm delusional or nuts in another way.
Well, crazy talk causes people to suspect you are indeed crazy.
It's not rocket science...


Subsim has a lot of people with issues it seems. A normal person would reserve judgment until he knows better. But not you Dowly, you don't know anything about me but basically saying I'm nuts.
I'm not Dowly's mom - just his dad - but I'll hijack what you said towards him, because it also applies to me and others, apparently.
Everyone has some sort of issues with whatever.
But not everyone goes online and speaks in tongues like a mad man.
I know about one who does, though...


You are not a normal decent person Dowly.
Eheehee. OK we agree here. :haha:

However, he's honest and his arguments make sense.
Can't say the same about you, to be honest.



Dictatorial regimes are known to abuse mental illness diagnosis one of which what you mentioned to discredit genuine persecution cases, including schizophrenia diagnosis.
Yes, because for some reason, the government really wants to harm or kill you...right?
Because ugh... mh... reasons, I assume. :hmmm:


I WAS STARVED IN A SINGAPORE PUBLIC HOSPITAL FOR 3-4 DAYS DESPITE MY REPEATED DEMANDS FOR MEAL until I was emaciated. Had i been really crazy I would not have been starved.

So, **** YOU DOWLY!
'Starving' a person can indeed have medical reasons, depending on what was, or is, wrong with you. I don't care nor is it my business, but your complete paranoid drivel is getting tiring, really.

[Castout]

Yes, I am aware of this. I remember many of your threads from the past and you've made some rather fantastic claims over the years. Which is why I posted the link to the Wiki article.

Most of your threads play out the same: 1) You make a claim 2) people challenge it 3) you play the victim card.

You challenged nothing. You merely threw insult by suggesting I was crazy.

Play the victim card? It seem the victim is you since I'm the one with infraction. But I can't care less about infraction. So **** YOU DOWLY. Hehehe This will give me infraction again.

[Nippelspanner]

But I can't care less about infraction. So **** YOU DOWLY. Hehehe This will give me infraction again.
I smell a ban here...

[Castout]

THANK YOU NIPPELSPANNER

[ValoWay]

@Skybird

Yea, I do agree with the basic principles! There's nothing wrong with producing something and asking for money in return. However, I think it is obvious to everyone that the trend of methods to accumulate money becomes more and more desperate or as they say even predatory, especially where groups or rich individuals aren't even producing any products but fictitious nonsense e.g. hedge funds (https://www.thebalance.com/how-hedge-funds-created-the-financial-crisis-3306079) etc..

I'm confident that we'll be able to store energy effectively in the not too distant future. Once we can do that it would justify bombing the deserts of this world with solar cell arrays instead of expensive power plants. Energy would become dirt cheap which would make not only food production but almost every aspect in our lives easily affordable which is why I agreed with dsawan's post earlier! :yeah:

Have you heard of monsanto (http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-seeds-of-suicide-how-monsanto-destroys-farming/5329947), for example? They are trying to get the monopoly over freaking seeds to grow food! Other corporations try to get control over the national highway system and wasn't there a few years back also an attempt to get control over the puplic drinking water? What about that trade deal between the US and Germany where US companies can sue the state whenever they think someone interferes with them making profit?

I'm just saying that we better come up with some good ideas in the near future before megacorporations start to take over the world! :03:

[Nippelspanner]

Have you heard of monsanto (http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-seeds-of-suicide-how-monsanto-destroys-farming/5329947), for example? They are trying to get the monopoly over freaking seeds to grow food! Other corporations try to get control over the national highway system and wasn't there a few years back also an attempt to get control over the puplic drinking water? What about that trade deal between the US and Germany where US companies can sue the state whenever they think someone interferes with them making profit?

I'm just saying that we better come up with some good ideas in the near future before mega corporations start to take over the world! :03:
I think they did start to do so quite a while ago.
Look at politics, and how the decisions of those that SHOULD act in our best interest is driven/corrupted by those who actually hold the power.

And this system has established itself so deeply by now, I do not see a way it gets better - it will down-spiral continuously, until rock bottom is hit and we live in a world people like Phillip K. Dick anticipated decades ago.

[Rockin Robbins]

Money is no special thing, just an ordinary commodity like so many others. Let peope barter it, and peopel then can freely trade to get what they want.

The problem with "trancendent" people is that they see everything, so have a compelling need to make everyone elses' choices for them in a benificent, merciful manner, of course.:03:

[Nexus7]

Interesting topic :up:
Unfortunately extremely complex and vaste in intent. Reading the latest articles two points are IMO "nodal": a consciousness of ordinary people in their use of capital, to help maintain diversity in the industry (avoid excessive build up of monopoles). Apple in first istance ang Google are de-facto at the very front in accumulating capital both in form of money and of knowledge (private information on their customers). IMO not deserved, and especially when taking Apple, the fruit of a very successfull marketing strategy. The real value of the sold items is just a minor share of their price.
Energy (electricity) at low cost if not free is a vision I like, together with the shift from fossil fuels to low emissions energy carriers (i.e. energy from the sun again, stored as hudrogen perhaps). Both shifts are huge and touch a massive number of infrastructures and people, if I had to predict when that shift would cross the edge of the mountain I'd say many decades :-(
Another major expectation is IoT and smart factories, highly automated factories that can order, produce, repair themselves and deploy to market with almost no personnel. Hurde here cybersecurity. Again, not the thing for tomorrow IMO :-(

What I consider it to be more tangible evolutions are: explosion of information fruability (internet based). And since I named companies I name Facebook here. If say 20 years ago this amount was 10 now it is 500(?). If 20 years ago the reliable/relevant information was 10% of the whole, being optimistic it remained that much. Doing the maths, the daily spam dosis was 10-1=9 while today it is 500-50=450. Not sure how much sense this makes, but one way or the other it is rather challenging to filter out the RELEVANT news