The Future of Money: None

[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.

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!"

Originally Posted by Castout

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.

Originally Posted by Castout

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...

[Castout]

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

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Castout

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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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

Wanna reach DEFCON 1?
Check his other posts.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Castout

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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Castout

Back to my ignore list. What an uninspiring man.

Ugh, even worse.

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

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Castout

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.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Castout

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.

Originally Posted by Castout

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. https://mises.org/library/great-than...-hoax-1http://

[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.