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.

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

https://mises.org/system/tdf/What%20...&type=document

Its a brief and short read only.

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

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.

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-g...our-money/html
You cannot understand economics and politics, if you you do not understand the nature of money, and instead fall for the Keynesian fallacies.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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?

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! :)