|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 23, 2021 9:30:16 GMT -5
Other animals do recognize relative value. [...] There's a really funny video online, of a monkey that get's pissed when he's given a cucumber while his neighbor monkey keeps receiving grapes. He then throws the cucumber back at the human running the experiment. Here it is. I love it: haha yeah, I remember now I've seen it, very good. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 23, 2021 9:38:30 GMT -5
 This is true. That doesn't mean that a) one desires a castle (I have no interest in one), or that b) one has mastered the art of deliberate focus and allowing (I don't consider myself a master, I'm probably just a bit better than most) In a collective in which these universal principles are integrated, the idea of 'buying and selling' would be laughably absurd. I suspect we will one day look back and laugh. I suspect that we are probably very good comedy for any other beings watching us! |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 23, 2021 10:04:27 GMT -5
Well, capitalism is a collective system born out of collective false belief...a belief in lack, a belief that 'having an advantageous edge over others' is useful and necessary. It is true in this context that having our cell phones and laptops caused suffering. If you are in any doubt about that, ask yourself if you would buy something which you knew was created in an abominable sweat shop where kids are physically suffering a lot, and that your purchase would contribute to that suffering. In a spiritual (LOA) sense, I agree they are wrong. It is possible for people to have wonderful things and others not suffer, but the spiritual truth of the matter is not yet one that we have collectively....or even individually....manifested. That's where 'the golden age' comes in...'the age of aquarius' etc. In the meantime I would say it IS useful to be conscious of how our purchases and actions in general affect the planet. I guess you don't throw plastic in the ocean, even though the spiritual truth of the matter is that you are not hurting the fish. (In case it's not clear, that's not saying that communism is the answer). That's not what the dictionary says: See, no mention of lack. What I don't like about their message is that they (knowingly or unknowingly) want to make you feel guilty about your own state of abundance. And that's counterproductive if the goal is to make everyone live in abundance. Ever seen someone who felt unworthy and powerless teaching others successfully how to become rich and famous? It doesn't work like that. So in that sense, since you mentioned communism, I'd say capitalism is much closer to just letting LOA sorting things out (aka ask and it is given) than communism. Wouldn't you agree? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 23, 2021 10:15:37 GMT -5
In regard to transhumanism, transhumanism is materalism on steroids. It expresses an absolute disconnect from who we are as organic and spiritual beings, in a relationship of giving and receiving with the world around us. Transhumanism is about conquest and control, it's about getting an edge over....and colonizing.... the human body. It's actually an inevitable extension of capitalism (really quite close to Marx' predictions) The video quite strongly addresses some of these themes imo. Yes, transhumanism means a total disconnect, see the BBC's "We are data" video.  However, I don't see it as related to capitalism gone bad. I see it more as idealism gone bad. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 23, 2021 10:24:39 GMT -5
In a universe known to be abundant, and in accordance with LOA principles, there is simply no need to ever compete over resources, or seek advantage over another. There is NEVER any lack, nor perception of lack. There would be no profit, no accumulation, no savings, no 'business', no insurance. In truth, a grain of sand is 'worth' as much as a mansion, and both can be as easily manifested. 'Ask and it is Given''. (The concept of 'worth' is actually a false concept itself) In its essence, capitalism, as a system, goes back to the allegory Cain and Able, and the fall of the Garden of Eden. We have lived in a system of false belief for probably thousands of years, but things change. A great many are learning to consciously create and consciously manifest, based on true principles. That signifies quite a big evolutionary change in itself. To be clear, 'capitalism' isn't a thing like an 'apple' is, it's more a system of functioning. It's quite an abstract one, because it requires us to 'weigh up' how much something is worth, and then 'trade' based on our perception of how much something is worth. It's all false. I'd be surprised if many animals engage in bartering based on arbitrary relative values. They'll fight for what they want obviously, but don't weigh up its worth for trading purposes. I would argue that the belief in a 'lack' universe is the deepest false belief, for deeper than the belief in a 'separate self'. I would even say the belief in 'lack' perpetuates and underpins. the 'separate self'. In an abundant universe, there's just no NEED for a 'separate self'. What would you need it for? It's essentially a protective and defensive device. In the absence of lack, that device no longer serves any purpose at all. Perception of lack is an individual choice (consciously or unconsciously). You see, if you only have to choices, you can feel like your are in a bind because there are only two choices (lack) or you could feel blessed, because at least you can choose (abundance). Abundance or lack of abundance is entirely perceptual, or better said, a state of being. And to that state of being you get corresponding experiences which you then can point at and talk to other people about and regard as 'facts'. But in reality, those 'facts' are just what you chose to manifest (knowingly or unknowingly, directly or indirectly). And competition isn't necessarily an indicator of lack. Only if it is a zero-sum game. Which would mean a closed system. But there are no closed systems. That's the flaw in the thinking. So again, perception makes all the difference. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 23, 2021 10:32:39 GMT -5
This is true. That doesn't mean that a) one desires a castle (I have no interest in one), or that b) one has mastered the art of deliberate focus and allowing (I don't consider myself a master, I'm probably just a bit better than most) In a collective in which these universal principles are integrated, the idea of 'buying and selling' would be laughably absurd. I suspect we will one day look back and laugh. I suspect that we are probably very good comedy for any other beings watching us! Yes. Yes. Well, you know that the new agers instead of 'money payment' talk about 'energy exchange', hehe. And because our world is so diverse, so many people with so many different ideas and talents, and expansion being natural, there will probably always be something that you would like to exchange with someone for something else. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 23, 2021 16:35:31 GMT -5
Well, capitalism is a collective system born out of collective false belief...a belief in lack, a belief that 'having an advantageous edge over others' is useful and necessary. It is true in this context that having our cell phones and laptops caused suffering. If you are in any doubt about that, ask yourself if you would buy something which you knew was created in an abominable sweat shop where kids are physically suffering a lot, and that your purchase would contribute to that suffering. In a spiritual (LOA) sense, I agree they are wrong. It is possible for people to have wonderful things and others not suffer, but the spiritual truth of the matter is not yet one that we have collectively....or even individually....manifested. That's where 'the golden age' comes in...'the age of aquarius' etc. In the meantime I would say it IS useful to be conscious of how our purchases and actions in general affect the planet. I guess you don't throw plastic in the ocean, even though the spiritual truth of the matter is that you are not hurting the fish. (In case it's not clear, that's not saying that communism is the answer). That's not what the dictionary says: See, no mention of lack. What I don't like about their message is that they (knowingly or unknowingly) want to make you feel guilty about your own state of abundance. And that's counterproductive if the goal is to make everyone live in abundance. Ever seen someone who felt unworthy and powerless teaching others successfully how to become rich and famous? It doesn't work like that. So in that sense, since you mentioned communism, I'd say capitalism is much closer to just letting LOA sorting things out (aka ask and it is given) than communism. Wouldn't you agree? We can't reasonably expect to find a dictionary definition that explains capitalism and also says ''and it's born out of a belief in lack''. Maybe if I should begin a spiritual dictionary project  Yep, I'd say capitalism is much closer to just letting LOA sort things out. But, because of the structures of capitalism and, actually, LOA....the logical end result of capitalism HAS to be basically as Marx described, and it's what we are seeing today i.e wealth and power in the hands of a tiny minority, a corporate coup so powerful that it basically IS communism. The commodification and colonization of every aspect of life, including the air that we breath, the space we inhabit, and even our bodies. Communism was meant to be the 'solution' to capitalism (a terrible solution in my view), but actually, it's more that capitalism has been morphing itself into communism. Capitalism always seeks 'an edge'. 'An advantage'. It's a competitive system, so it requires 'attack' and 'defence'. What aspect of the human being does this system reflect, express and speak to? The ego aspect that seeks separation and control. To reiterate though, I do see good in it....we can bring play, fun and joy into the system, and I believe that it has brought a lot of good things. But it also inevitably invokes ego...or 'the separate self'. And the 'separate self' by its nature always seeks separation and control. I can understand your perspective in regard to their message. In an ideal world, I would wholly agree with you. But I think there's something to be said for wisely responding to the context we find ourselves in. What I mean is, that in a system that is underpinned by false belief....a system that I function and participate in....I'm actually okay to experience a bit of guilt. I can even say I find the guilt a bit useful, it's a good bit of contrast that returns me to my true desires. I don't just throw trash on the ground, I guess you don't to. I am also sure you wouldn't throw plastic in the ocean. As spiritual folks, we probably have an even stronger love for the planet than most people, a deeper connection to the trees, oceans, mountains. Commodification of the planet goes against our nature as human beings. Turning animals, plants, water, air...into 'things' to be 'used' and 'sold'. I believe we can do better, and that we are moving into something better. (The weird capitalist-communism thing will fail at some point). |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 23, 2021 16:46:37 GMT -5
This is true. That doesn't mean that a) one desires a castle (I have no interest in one), or that b) one has mastered the art of deliberate focus and allowing (I don't consider myself a master, I'm probably just a bit better than most) In a collective in which these universal principles are integrated, the idea of 'buying and selling' would be laughably absurd. I suspect we will one day look back and laugh. I suspect that we are probably very good comedy for any other beings watching us! Yes. Yes. Well, you know that the new agers instead of 'money payment' talk about 'energy exchange', hehe. And because our world is so diverse, so many people with so many different ideas and talents, and expansion being natural, there will probably always be something that you would like to exchange with someone for something else. Yeah, I think 'exchange' is a good word there....and what I'm seeing is a kind of 'synchronistic exchange', a natural flow of giving and receiving. I'm not weighing up what this 'thing' is worth to me and you. If you want it, I want you to have it, and there would be no loss of sense that I am 'missing out'. Because equally, if I want something, others want me to have it. In this sense, I see individuality as a brilliant thing, because we all have our own ever changing desires and interests. We don't all want a castle, or a Porsche. We don't all want to eat caviar. I had a filet o fish tonight hehe (where's Farmer?) and it was perfectly satisfactory. Not everything always has to be 'the best'. Sometimes 'the best' is what is distinctly and perfectly average. Sometimes a cheese sandwich is just perfect. Other times we might want a gourmet dinner and that's fine too. I think there's often an assumption that our desires always want 'the very best of everything', and it's just not true. In this sense, there can still be beautiful contrast even if/when we are all getting what we want. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 24, 2021 11:50:16 GMT -5
Russell's new video is excellent and relates quite strongly to this topic imo It addresses particularly the difference between a spiritual approach to living and a materialist approach to living (the title of the video strikes me as being a 'clickbait' title, and the video is better than the title suggests). I'm not sure what this had to do with transhumanism or solipsism, but this here caught my attention: "You cannot accumulate massive wealth without a deficit. Whenever you see huge wealth it indicates a deficit. Even for me on a personal level, for me to have this phone and this laptop means other people had to suffer..."Such a bogus belief! These people believe in shortage, not abundance. In order create abundance for all you have to first believe in abundance yourself. The zero-sum-game model of economy is such a bogus model. It assumes that economy is a closed system. But it never is. There will be new inventions and the economic pie keeps growing and growing. That woman is teaching nonsense. Gates is not in the way of more abundance for the people. The people are in the way of more abundance for the people because they entertain bogus beliefs. The first step is to take Gates out of the equation. He is not the problem. The problem is to think that he is the problem by taking more than his fair share and since there is only so much to go around, the more he takes the more remains for all the others. Bogus! Sometimes people get rich playing the zero-sum game - say, by deliberately putting a competitor out of business. Sometimes people get rich by innovating or expanding a market, but it's rarely done without some aspects of the zero-sum games. Mostly, people who are rich stay rich and get richer, and why that is isn't really simple, say, as in terms of LOA. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 24, 2021 11:55:53 GMT -5
I'm not sure what this had to do with transhumanism or solipsism, but this here caught my attention: "You cannot accumulate massive wealth without a deficit. Whenever you see huge wealth it indicates a deficit. Even for me on a personal level, for me to have this phone and this laptop means other people had to suffer..."Such a bogus belief! These people believe in shortage, not abundance. In order create abundance for all you have to first believe in abundance yourself. The zero-sum-game model of economy is such a bogus model. It assumes that economy is a closed system. But it never is. There will be new inventions and the economic pie keeps growing and growing. That woman is teaching nonsense. Gates is not in the way of more abundance for the people. The people are in the way of more abundance for the people because they entertain bogus beliefs. The first step is to take Gates out of the equation. He is not the problem. The problem is to think that he is the problem by taking more than his fair share and since there is only so much to go around, the more he takes the more remains for all the others. Bogus! Well, capitalism is a collective system born out of collective false belief...a belief in lack, a belief that 'having an advantageous edge over others' is useful and necessary. It is true in this context that having our cell phones and laptops caused suffering. If you are in any doubt about that, ask yourself if you would buy something which you knew was created in an abominable sweat shop where kids are physically suffering a lot, and that your purchase would contribute to that suffering. In a spiritual (LOA) sense, I agree they are wrong. It is possible for people to have wonderful things and others not suffer, but the spiritual truth of the matter is not yet one that we have collectively....or even individually....manifested. That's where 'the golden age' comes in...'the age of aquarius' etc. In the meantime I would say it IS useful to be conscious of how our purchases and actions in general affect the planet. I guess you don't throw plastic in the ocean, even though the spiritual truth of the matter is that you are not hurting the fish. (In case it's not clear, that's not saying that communism is the answer). There's no human system - economic or otherwise - that's perfect, and economic systems in particular have many facets that directly express the existential error of mistaken identity. But the flip side is that human beings aren't really equipped to survive in the wild on our own, and to be generally anti-business is to (ultimately) be anti-human-life. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 24, 2021 11:59:10 GMT -5
In regard to transhumanism, transhumanism is materalism on steroids. It expresses an absolute disconnect from who we are as organic and spiritual beings, in a relationship of giving and receiving with the world around us. Transhumanism is about conquest and control, it's about getting an edge over....and colonizing.... the human body. It's actually an inevitable extension of capitalism (really quite close to Marx' predictions) The video quite strongly addresses some of these themes imo. My current critical view on Marx is that he became what he was railing against and he ultimately reduces the human condition to the mechanics of it. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 24, 2021 12:05:01 GMT -5
I doubt it. That statement itself sounds like a false belief about a thing called capitalism. In a universe known to be abundant, and in accordance with LOA principles, there is simply no need to ever compete over resources, or seek advantage over another. There is NEVER any lack, nor perception of lack. There would be no profit, no accumulation, no savings, no 'business', no insurance. In truth, a grain of sand is 'worth' as much as a mansion, and both can be as easily manifested. 'Ask and it is Given''. (The concept of 'worth' is actually a false concept itself) In its essence, capitalism, as a system, goes back to the allegory Cain and Able, and the fall of the Garden of Eden. We have lived in a system of false belief for probably thousands of years, but things change. A great many are learning to consciously create and consciously manifest, based on true principles. That signifies quite a big evolutionary change in itself. To be clear, 'capitalism' isn't a thing like an 'apple' is, it's more a system of functioning. It's quite an abstract one, because it requires us to 'weigh up' how much something is worth, and then 'trade' based on our perception of how much something is worth. It's all false. I'd be surprised if many animals engage in bartering based on arbitrary relative values. They'll fight for what they want obviously, but don't weigh up its worth for trading purposes. I would argue that the belief in a 'lack' universe is the deepest false belief, for deeper than the belief in a 'separate self'. I would even say the belief in 'lack' perpetuates and underpins. the 'separate self'. In an abundant universe, there's just no NEED for a 'separate self'. What would you need it for? It's essentially a protective and defensive device. In the absence of lack, that device no longer serves any purpose at all. The Buddha said that "the world is on fire". Consumption, you see, is a fact of life. A fact of time, and change. The toxic and violent aspects of the way people relate are because of the prelude in Genesis to the fratricide: the garden, the snake and the apple. An even bigger picture is available though. One that doesn't dismiss all the collateral damage and suffering of the people-peep, but that sees it clearly, and impersonally, for what it is .. just .. "the world on fire" ... |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 24, 2021 12:07:08 GMT -5
I'm not sure what this had to do with transhumanism or solipsism, but this here caught my attention: "You cannot accumulate massive wealth without a deficit. Whenever you see huge wealth it indicates a deficit. Even for me on a personal level, for me to have this phone and this laptop means other people had to suffer..."Such a bogus belief! These people believe in shortage, not abundance. In order create abundance for all you have to first believe in abundance yourself. The zero-sum-game model of economy is such a bogus model. It assumes that economy is a closed system. But it never is. There will be new inventions and the economic pie keeps growing and growing. That woman is teaching nonsense. Gates is not in the way of more abundance for the people. The people are in the way of more abundance for the people because they entertain bogus beliefs. The first step is to take Gates out of the equation. He is not the problem. The problem is to think that he is the problem by taking more than his fair share and since there is only so much to go around, the more he takes the more remains for all the others. Bogus! Sometimes people get rich playing the zero-sum game - say, by deliberately putting a competitor out of business. Sometimes people get rich by innovating or expanding a market, but it's rarely done without some aspects of the zero-sum games. Mostly, people who are rich stay rich and get richer, and why that is isn't really simple, say, as in terms of LOA. There's a reality show or podcast that my daughter told me about that takes an idea I once had and runs with it. From my POV there are some simple financial rules that, once learned, can be used to acquire wealth if that's what someone is interested in. The idea behind the show was to drop off someone who understands the financial game into an unknown town with some minimum amount of money--I think it was $100--, and that individual must show how one can acquire wealth starting out with virtually nothing. In the case my daughter told me about, the guy was a billionaire, and it turned out to be a more difficult exercise than he had anticipated. Nevertheless, within a fairly short period of time he had accumulated real estate and was well on his way to generating significant wealth. FWIW, the guy did not think that the current economic system is a zero sum game. He thought that everything could be win-win if people had sufficient knowledge. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 24, 2021 12:52:54 GMT -5
Well, capitalism is a collective system born out of collective false belief...a belief in lack, a belief that 'having an advantageous edge over others' is useful and necessary. It is true in this context that having our cell phones and laptops caused suffering. If you are in any doubt about that, ask yourself if you would buy something which you knew was created in an abominable sweat shop where kids are physically suffering a lot, and that your purchase would contribute to that suffering. In a spiritual (LOA) sense, I agree they are wrong. It is possible for people to have wonderful things and others not suffer, but the spiritual truth of the matter is not yet one that we have collectively....or even individually....manifested. That's where 'the golden age' comes in...'the age of aquarius' etc. In the meantime I would say it IS useful to be conscious of how our purchases and actions in general affect the planet. I guess you don't throw plastic in the ocean, even though the spiritual truth of the matter is that you are not hurting the fish. (In case it's not clear, that's not saying that communism is the answer). That's not what the dictionary says: See, no mention of lack. What I don't like about their message is that they (knowingly or unknowingly) want to make you feel guilty about your own state of abundance. And that's counterproductive if the goal is to make everyone live in abundance. Ever seen someone who felt unworthy and powerless teaching others successfully how to become rich and famous? It doesn't work like that. So in that sense, since you mentioned communism, I'd say capitalism is much closer to just letting LOA sorting things out (aka ask and it is given) than communism. Wouldn't you agree? Abundance and lack - as abstract terms - are mutually creating, and you can't have one without the other. In contrast, anything we say about the living and feeling of them entangles our sense of them happening, which is a completely different matter, and, ultimately, quite subjective. Relating this to patterns of how people interact is even further removed - in abstract terms - than the initial definition of the dichotomy. At the extremes, it's quite clear how greed is the relative cause of suffering, but that many people who focus on this are really interested in blaming others for their failure to take care of themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 24, 2021 12:55:34 GMT -5
Sometimes people get rich playing the zero-sum game - say, by deliberately putting a competitor out of business. Sometimes people get rich by innovating or expanding a market, but it's rarely done without some aspects of the zero-sum games. Mostly, people who are rich stay rich and get richer, and why that is isn't really simple, say, as in terms of LOA. There's a reality show or podcast that my daughter told me about that takes an idea I once had and runs with it. From my POV there are some simple financial rules that, once learned, can be used to acquire wealth if that's what someone is interested in. The idea behind the show was to drop off someone who understands the financial game into an unknown town with some minimum amount of money--I think it was $100--, and that individual must show how one can acquire wealth starting out with virtually nothing. In the case my daughter told me about, the guy was a billionaire, and it turned out to be a more difficult exercise than he had anticipated. Nevertheless, within a fairly short period of time he had accumulated real estate and was well on his way to generating significant wealth. FWIW, the guy did not think that the current economic system is a zero sum game. He thought that everything could be win-win if people had sufficient knowledge. Sounds like an fun and interesting watch. Much like people can edit a post here on the forum and cut it into fragments in reply, I'm sure I could critique the episode and point to snippets and say "..see! right there! zero-sum-game!" |
|
