And I think it's easier to dismiss what want to rather than actually think about the questions.

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.

What exactly would you work for? What would you contribute? Would you collect garbage or dig ditches just because it needs to be done?

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?

And you repeat the same homily again without thinking about the real question. Not even the people you refer to can answer that.

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.

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.

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

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.


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.

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.

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...

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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..

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...adzabe_Hut.jpg

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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