The Future of Money: None

[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]

Originally Posted by Castout

@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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by Castout

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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?




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).

[Rockin Robbins]

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.

[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.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Castout

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.