|
Post by topology on Aug 7, 2013 10:38:18 GMT -5
Do you own property or does property own you? Does society, technology and education make you freer or does it shackle you? Being "poor" is only disgusting to the rich, provided the necessities are covered. Shelter, food, clean water, sanitation. Wanting to project a higher standard of material existence into a stable culture which is "less advanced" destabilizes the culture and the psyches that developed within that culture. I'd seriously like to know what that really means, top. I'm not being negative - I just don't understand what you said there. A person's relative happiness is a function of how well they cope with daily living and the random events that arise. Low ability to cope means perceiving threats to continued bodily existence, higher stress levels and lower quality of life. Food, shelter, water and sanitation is all a body needs to continue for any significant length of time (provided it starts out healthy and doesn't encounter a disease.) How we obtain those necessities is part nature and part nurture (cultural habituation). I have grown up in a technological society where the acquisition of those necessities are through working a job to earn money and then pay for them. The sanitation practices I employ are dependent on highly processed chemicals (soap) and running sanitized water. I speak English and know how to interact with other people who have been raised similarly. Take me out of this culture and plop me down in the Sahara or a Jungle and I wouldn't know what to do to acquire the necessities for bodily existence. I have some idea from doing an intro survivalist course a few years ago, but that's just enough to keep me from being paralyzed by fear of not knowing how to cope. When an industrialized nation does "philanthropy" to a non-industrialized nation, in addition to bringing food, clean water, medical supplies, they are also bring with them a cultural and economic shift. Unless people are skilled at adapting to the invading cultural paradigms, they may find themselves without a means or know-how of surviving in the new culture. A barter system for trade of goods and services gets replaced by a monetary system. Now the chicken farmer can no longer trade eggs and chickens directly, he has to trade for money which he doesn't know how to value his chickens and eggs for. Money is a very abstract concept. Soon there is a commericial grocery store opening up and people can buy imported frozen chicken which was raised on an industrial chicken farm and the local chicken grower can't compete on the price. So he loses his way of living and now has to learn a new set of trade skills. As the economy and culture shift to greater industrialization, he needs to learn to read, write, think abstractly, learn new skills as a laborer in another trade. All of this takes time and money to invest in. Social dynamics become less personable, people become more focussed on acquisition of money and less on their interdependence with each other. To the chicken farmer, he feels like he would know how to survive better in the wilderness than in the jungle of society. Along with the shift in economy and culture comes a reset on tacit wisdom. The previous culture had generations to become stable. The newer cultures are so fast paced and changing that it is harder to access wisdom. It takes a few generations for the wisdom to seep into behavior patterns that people mimic from each other. But when the culture is perpetually in upheaval, everything is new, experimental and people are more caught up in the novelty of the experience. Fast cultural shifts mean those that can adapt succeed and those that can't become obsolete. Access to tacit wisdom is lost or becomes more difficult. People lose sight of their interdependence. And then general movement of awareness is out of the physical body and into the mental body. Bringing aid to the "less fortunate" very often means permanently changing their way of life. For people who's current way of life is dysfunctional, that can be an improvement. But it's possible to do as much harm as good, despite the good intentions. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The imperative is learning how to see clearly and suspend your own cultural biases to see if the existing culture is functional unto itself. I agree that the video was massive propaganda, a trumped up scenerio. However the only thing wrong in the girl's life circumstances as it was depicted was the quality of her drinking water. The video was probably an add for a filtration company, that would be my guess. But when I see the girl and the circumstances she's living in, I don't see poverty. I see a different culture, a different way of life that likely doesn't need fixing apart from having clean drinking water and good sanitation services. Spinning a story about this girl's "plight" and motivating a change in her culture can lead to unforeseen and unpredictable harm.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 7, 2013 10:43:18 GMT -5
I'd seriously like to know what that really means, top. I'm not being negative - I just don't understand what you said there. A person's relative happiness is a function of how well they cope with daily living and the random events that arise. Low ability to cope means perceiving threats to continued bodily existence, higher stress levels and lower quality of life. Food, shelter, water and sanitation is all a body needs to continue for any significant length of time (provided it starts out healthy and doesn't encounter a disease.) How we obtain those necessities is part nature and part nurture (cultural habituation). I have grown up in a technological society where the acquisition of those necessities are through working a job to earn money and then pay for them. The sanitation practices I employ are dependent on highly processed chemicals (soap) and running sanitized water. I speak English and know how to interact with other people who have been raised similarly. Take me out of this culture and plop me down in the Sahara or a Jungle and I wouldn't know what to do to acquire the necessities for bodily existence. I have some idea from doing an intro survivalist course a few years ago, but that's just enough to keep me from being paralyzed by fear of not knowing how to cope. When an industrialized nation does "philanthropy" to a non-industrialized nation, in addition to bringing food, clean water, medical supplies, they are also bring with them a cultural and economic shift. Unless people are skilled at adapting to the invading cultural paradigms, they may find themselves without a means or know-how of surviving in the new culture. A barter system for trade of goods and services gets replaced by a monetary system. Now the chicken farmer can no longer trade eggs and chickens directly, he has to trade for money which he doesn't know how to value his chickens and eggs for. Money is a very abstract concept. Soon there is a commericial grocery store opening up and people can buy imported frozen chicken which was raised on an industrial chicken farm and the local chicken grower can't compete on the price. So he loses his way of living and now has to learn a new set of trade skills. As the economy and culture shift to greater industrialization, he needs to learn to read, write, think abstractly, learn new skills as a laborer in another trade. All of this takes time and money to invest in. Social dynamics become less personable, people become more focussed on acquisition of money and less on their interdependence with each other. To the chicken farmer, he feels like he would know how to survive better in the wilderness than in the jungle of society. Along with the shift in economy and culture comes a reset on tacit wisdom. The previous culture had generations to become stable. The newer cultures are so fast paced and changing that it is harder to access wisdom. It takes a few generations for the wisdom to seep into behavior patterns that people mimic from each other. But when the culture is perpetually in upheaval, everything is new, experimental and people are more caught up in the novelty of the experience. Fast cultural shifts mean those that can adapt succeed and those that can't become obsolete. Access to tacit wisdom is lost or becomes more difficult. People lose sight of their interdependence. And then general movement of awareness is out of the physical body and into the mental body. Bringing aid to the "less fortunate" very often means permanently changing their way of life. For people who's current way of life is dysfunctional, that can be an improvement. But it's possible to do as much harm as good, despite the good intentions. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The imperative is learning how to see clearly and suspend your own cultural biases to see if the existing culture is functional unto itself. I agree that the video was massive propaganda, a trumped up scenerio. However the only thing wrong in the girl's life circumstances as it was depicted was the quality of her drinking water. The video was probably an add for a filtration company, that would be my guess. But when I see the girl and the circumstances she's living in, I don't see poverty. I see a different culture, a different way of life that likely doesn't need fixing apart from having clean drinking water and good sanitation services. Spinning a story about this girl's "plight" and motivating a change in her culture can lead to unforeseen and unpredictable harm. All I can say is the native americans didn't call the white man a scourge for nothin'.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 7, 2013 11:44:14 GMT -5
What's obvious is what top pointed out -- the definition of wealth is arbitrary. Who is more needy -- the NY bond trader who wakes up everyday at 4AM and spends his day on a floor getting an ulcer for the sake of his next half mil or some farmer in East Bumfuk that's satisfied with his lot? Even conceiving of the question is TMT. well sure, but the cost of living in east bumfuk is really quite reasonable when compared to lower Manhattan .. so its all relative man. :-) and any bond trader worth his salt knows that a rising tide lifts all boats but its wise to be nimble when the tide goes out. hehe Yes, the cost of living differential is really high ... but the nature of either individual, and the way toward finding that, is the exact same in either case. -- they'll say different things, they'll have different customs and by outward appearance which one is actually acquainted with that nature might even be the reverse of common expectation ... but there are ducks quacking and walking in both the Hudson and the pond on the EBF farm -- and the animals that walk and talk like ducks are, in both places, ducks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2013 11:59:40 GMT -5
and any bond trader worth his salt knows that a rising tide lifts all boats I'm not a bond trader, and not even sure if I'm worth my salt, but I see the rising tide lifts all boats thing as a myth. Most folks don't have boats. Most peeps live close to the water and a rising tide just means lots of flooding. And, as we've seen, if the incentive is just to increase one's share of bonds, the whole ocean can go whacko at any moment. I'm for forcible acquisition of all yachts and equal distribution.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 7, 2013 12:02:50 GMT -5
and any bond trader worth his salt knows that a rising tide lifts all boats I'm not a bond trader, and not even sure if I'm worth my salt, but I see the rising tide lifts all boats thing as a myth. Most folks don't have boats. Most peeps live close to the water and a rising tide just means lots of flooding. And, as we've seen, if the incentive is just to increase one's share of bonds, the whole ocean can go whacko at any moment. I'm for forcible acquisition of all yachts and equal distribution. *get's in line for his 1/5th of a yacht, freshly sawed off from the rest of the boat* I don't know what I'm going to do with my 1/5th of a yacht, but It's my due dammit. *props his 1/5th of a yacht up on concrete bricks in the front yard*
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2013 12:04:19 GMT -5
and any bond trader worth his salt knows that a rising tide lifts all boats I'm not a bond trader, and not even sure if I'm worth my salt, but I see the rising tide lifts all boats thing as a myth. Most folks don't have boats. Most peeps live close to the water and a rising tide just means lots of flooding. And, as we've seen, if the incentive is just to increase one's share of bonds, the whole ocean can go whacko at any moment. I'm for forcible acquisition of all yachts and equal distribution. move to higher ground
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2013 12:05:11 GMT -5
I'm not a bond trader, and not even sure if I'm worth my salt, but I see the rising tide lifts all boats thing as a myth. Most folks don't have boats. Most peeps live close to the water and a rising tide just means lots of flooding. And, as we've seen, if the incentive is just to increase one's share of bonds, the whole ocean can go whacko at any moment. I'm for forcible acquisition of all yachts and equal distribution. *get's in line for his 1/5th of a yacht, freshly sawed off from the rest of the boat* I don't know what I'm going to do with my 1/5th of a yacht, but It's my due dammit. *props his 1/5th of a yacht up on concrete bricks in the front yard* If you're lucky, you'll get a screw that held down a cleat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2013 12:06:41 GMT -5
I'm not a bond trader, and not even sure if I'm worth my salt, but I see the rising tide lifts all boats thing as a myth. Most folks don't have boats. Most peeps live close to the water and a rising tide just means lots of flooding. And, as we've seen, if the incentive is just to increase one's share of bonds, the whole ocean can go whacko at any moment. I'm for forcible acquisition of all yachts and equal distribution. move to higher ground we're taking the villas too.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Aug 7, 2013 14:12:41 GMT -5
Yeah, I honestly am at a loss for words. This is too much for me. Would someone please point out the obvious to him? What's obvious is what top pointed out -- the definition of wealth is arbitrary. Who is more needy -- the NY bond trader who wakes up everyday at 4AM and spends his day on a floor getting an ulcer for the sake of his next half mil or some farmer in East Bumfuk that's satisfied with his lot? Even conceiving of the question is TMT. On this planet there is no culture left untouched from globalization and capitalism (except perhaps a couple of tribes in a stupid jungle or desert). There is no way back. So the question "do we want to impose our culture on them" is the wrong one. Everyone is impacted by global capitalism, there are extremely few workers who are isolated from it. And the next question abut wealth is cynical and filthy. I really am shocked that something so stupid and evil is being argued on this forum. My God, if such arguments are taken seriously on a forum like ours then what hope can there be? Imagine you noticing that your boss is cheating you out of your money. You confront him and he tells you without blushing that poverty and wealth are in the eye of the beholder, and that wealth creates problems, that it might destabilize your life, so maybe you might consider the possibility that you may be better off without a higher wage. Fúck him, you worked for your money. He is cheating you, and that makes him a thief. He is a criminal. You are entitled to your money, and it's none of his business what you do with it. About the comparison of a bond trader and a farmer from East Bumfuk you should be ashamed. The people in the third world work unbelievably hard and under the worst conditions and they still don't make enough, their life expectancy is much lower than the bond trader's. To compare them to the bond trader is beyond retarded. Both live in different cultures and that's fine, but the question of wealth distribution and plain and simple theft is not a cultural thing. Theft is theft in every culture. And the farmer from East Bumfuk certainly wouldn't object if he were finally to receive what should be rightfully his. What he does with his money is none of your business. 99% of world's population own 20% of the world's wealth. 1% own 80%! ( proof) This is the result of massive organized theft.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Aug 7, 2013 17:37:20 GMT -5
Marx is indeed the second most important philosopher of all time. Hegel is number one.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 7, 2013 17:57:15 GMT -5
What's obvious is what top pointed out -- the definition of wealth is arbitrary. Who is more needy -- the NY bond trader who wakes up everyday at 4AM and spends his day on a floor getting an ulcer for the sake of his next half mil or some farmer in East Bumfuk that's satisfied with his lot? Even conceiving of the question is TMT. On this planet there is no culture left untouched from globalization and capitalism (except perhaps a couple of tribes in a stupid jungle or desert). There is no way back. So the question "do we want to impose our culture on them" is the wrong one. Everyone is impacted by global capitalism, there are extremely few workers who are isolated from it. And the next question abut wealth is cynical and filthy. I really am shocked that something so stupid and evil is being argued on this forum. My God, if such arguments are taken seriously on a forum like ours then what hope can there be? Imagine you noticing that your boss is cheating you out of your money. You confront him and he tells you without blushing that poverty and wealth are in the eye of the beholder, and that wealth creates problems, that it might destabilize your life, so maybe you might consider the possibility that you may be better off without a higher wage. Fúck him, you worked for your money. He is cheating you, and that makes him a thief. He is a criminal. You are entitled to your money, and it's none of his business what you do with it. About the comparison of a bond trader and a farmer from East Bumfuk you should be ashamed. The people in the third world work unbelievably hard and under the worst conditions and they still don't make enough, their life expectancy is much lower than the bond trader's. To compare them to the bond trader is beyond retarded. Both live in different cultures and that's fine, but the question of wealth distribution and plain and simple theft is not a cultural thing. Theft is theft in every culture. And the farmer from East Bumfuk certainly wouldn't object if he were finally to receive what should be rightfully his. What he does with his money is none of your business. 99% of world's population own 20% of the world's wealth. 1% own 80%! ( proof) This is the result of massive organized theft. It's retarded to point out that the trader and the farmer are both human beings with the same intrinsic worth that that denotes? Alot of what you say is true and the question that comes to mind is the problem of concocting an economic system that's free of the device of coercion .... hey man, that's both above my pay grade and way off the primary topic of the board. None of what you're focusing on has anything to do with self-realization. This isn't to discourage you from your interest in politics ... I've got my own in that regard, but I don't bring it here.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 7, 2013 18:06:58 GMT -5
On this planet there is no culture left untouched from globalization and capitalism (except perhaps a couple of tribes in a stupid jungle or desert). There is no way back. So the question "do we want to impose our culture on them" is the wrong one. Everyone is impacted by global capitalism, there are extremely few workers who are isolated from it. And the next question abut wealth is cynical and filthy. I really am shocked that something so stupid and evil is being argued on this forum. My God, if such arguments are taken seriously on a forum like ours then what hope can there be? Imagine you noticing that your boss is cheating you out of your money. You confront him and he tells you without blushing that poverty and wealth are in the eye of the beholder, and that wealth creates problems, that it might destabilize your life, so maybe you might consider the possibility that you may be better off without a higher wage. Fúck him, you worked for your money. He is cheating you, and that makes him a thief. He is a criminal. You are entitled to your money, and it's none of his business what you do with it. About the comparison of a bond trader and a farmer from East Bumfuk you should be ashamed. The people in the third world work unbelievably hard and under the worst conditions and they still don't make enough, their life expectancy is much lower than the bond trader's. To compare them to the bond trader is beyond retarded. Both live in different cultures and that's fine, but the question of wealth distribution and plain and simple theft is not a cultural thing. Theft is theft in every culture. And the farmer from East Bumfuk certainly wouldn't object if he were finally to receive what should be rightfully his. What he does with his money is none of your business. 99% of world's population own 20% of the world's wealth. 1% own 80%! ( proof) This is the result of massive organized theft. It's retarded to point out that the trader and the farmer are both human beings with the same intrinsic worth that that denotes? Alot of what you say is true and the question that comes to mind is the problem of concocting an economic system that's free of the device of coercion .... hey man, that's both above my pay grade and way off the primary topic of the board. None of what you're focusing on has anything to do with self-realization. This isn't to discourage you from your interest in politics ... I've got my own in that regard, but I don't bring it here. Go easy on him. This is Q's way of wagging the dog.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2013 20:15:15 GMT -5
Do you own property or does property own you? Does society, technology and education make you freer or does it shackle you? Being "poor" is only disgusting to the rich, provided the necessities are covered. Shelter, food, clean water, sanitation. Wanting to project a higher standard of material existence into a stable culture which is "less advanced" destabilizes the culture and the psyches that developed within that culture. I'd seriously like to know what that really means, top. I'm not being negative - I just don't understand what you said there. rich look-down on people from a height that must be maintained if one is to stay apart from living in the gutter where ordinary people share, heart to heart..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2013 20:22:47 GMT -5
What's obvious is what top pointed out -- the definition of wealth is arbitrary. Who is more needy -- the NY bond trader who wakes up everyday at 4AM and spends his day on a floor getting an ulcer for the sake of his next half mil or some farmer in East Bumfuk that's satisfied with his lot? Even conceiving of the question is TMT. well sure, but the cost of living in east bumfuk is really quite reasonable when compared to lower Manhattan .. so its all relative man. :-) and any bond trader worth his salt knows that a rising tide lifts all boats but its wise to be nimble when the tide goes out. hehe what goes up gotta come down, otherwise the ego becomes stationed where it sets out from an realises it was only being the librarian in its self-created mind. When non-duality is awoken to....everyone shares the same feelings as though humanity is one person.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2013 20:27:35 GMT -5
I'd seriously like to know what that really means, top. I'm not being negative - I just don't understand what you said there. Yeah, I honestly am at a loss for words. This is too much for me. Would someone please point out the obvious to him? 'too much' an 'me' are great places to begin with understanding the obvious.
|
|