|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 24, 2021 15:03:46 GMT -5
Well, I just want to be clear that in criticizing capitalism, I'm not defending or supporting ANY other model. In a sense, I think every model is inherently flawed. The way I am defining capitalism is extremely basic. It's the idea of weighing up what I have to offer (whether it's a thing, a skill, or anything else), in relation to what I want, and then offering what I have, to get what I want. It requires us to think in terms of 'having an edge'. From an LOA perspective, there are false assumptions within this approach. According to LOA, you never have to weigh up, or measure, what you have, in order to 'trade' it. You just have to 'ask' (focus) and 'it is given' (allow). If I accept LOA as true, which I do, I have to see capitalism as untrue, and I think the effects of this 'untrueness' are easy to observe. As capitalism has intensified, the exploitation, colonization and commodification of every aspect of life has intensified. I see it as an intensification of falsity. Nevertheless, of course I engage with this myself. And I can freely admit, there are times when I find it fun, especially when we bring creativity and play into it. In a sense, it's probably better that I do find it fun than constantly experience being at war with it. But by the same token that I allow it to be fun, I also allow myself to experience 'shame' or 'guilt' if I buy something which I know was made in a sweat shop. I'm reminded of "God helps those who help themselves". Perhaps one way to think of profit-seeking is simply a way that people attract. But this is beyond what my initial interest was here, which was to draw a distinction between the destructive effects of commercial/socio-economic systems, and the potentially positive effects of genuinely free-market action. It's all quite abstract, and, of course, any genuinely free markets never stay that way for long. Conversely, as every communist experiment seems to have demonstrated, there's no way of completely suppressing the emergence of markets, especially by brute force. Yes, for sure, I think engaging in business is currently one way that the LOA operates currently. If our intuition is to set up a business, then we should follow that. We have to work with the systems we are given, the systems in front of us. It doesn't really serve us to be at war with these systems, so for me there's a delicate balance to be found in all this. I guess my approach is to engage with the systems in a fun and responsible way, while retaining a degree of awareness that the systems aren't generally aligned to higher universal principles. There was a huge protest in London today, I saw a report that there were up to 500000 people there (doubt this will be shown on MSM). I didn't go, but I support this protest fully, so I support this 'war'. I also donate to some of the groups that are protesting. Contributing to a 'protest' is not aligned to LOA principles, but...I'm just fumbling through all this too, I'm no LOA master! I'm just working with the system in front of me, the best I can. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 24, 2021 15:05:47 GMT -5
Well, at no point since humans have begun trading...even in its most basic form....have we ever lived in alignment with universal principles. We have been bound to work 'by the sweat of our brow, to eat our bread'. Capitalism has been inevitable, necessary and useful for our evolution, and I'm definitely not suggesting we should suddenly stop, or suppress commerce. What I do believe is that a 'quantum leap' of some sort is possible...perhaps even inevitable...at some point. At which point we stop valuing and measuring what we have to offer, instead we begin a period of synchronistic giving and receiving. Yes, well, I do admire your optimism in this regard and always have, even when I was mocking it.  .. (** hangs head in shame **)  I probably wouldn't actually wish my optimism on anyone....I blame Jenn for me having such hopeless/hopeful ideals |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 24, 2021 15:08:06 GMT -5
Yes, well, I do admire your optimism in this regard and always have, even when I was mocking it. .. (** hangs head in shame **) I probably wouldn't actually wish my optimism on anyone....I blame Jenn for me having such hopeless/hopeful ideals heh heh just like the dudes who wrote Genesis blamed Eve. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 24, 2021 15:09:11 GMT -5
Oh okay, yes that definition works fine with me. Just want to add to something I said in previous message....although I don't believe any human cultures have been in a position to live fully in alignment with true universal principles, I DO think some have probably been much closer than others. I really shouldn't start naming them because I'm no anthropologist and so to an extent I'd been making them up, but I'm thinking in terms of Aboriginal culture for example. Cultures with deeper spiritual connection (which is very similar to how I perceive Russell Brand and what he wants). Yes, I see your point here and don't dispute it - although I can imagine some of the criticisms and can see the validity in some of them as well. But, it brings us back to the notion of how big a population an aboriginal life can support. So then, we have to imagine something different .. something ... "next" .. Yes, in a sense, evolution does seem know what it's doing. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 24, 2021 15:10:34 GMT -5
I probably wouldn't actually wish my optimism on anyone....I blame Jenn for me having such hopeless/hopeful ideals heh heh just like the dudes who wrote Genesis blamed Eve. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Apr 24, 2021 16:02:17 GMT -5
I'm reminded of "God helps those who help themselves". Perhaps one way to think of profit-seeking is simply a way that people attract. But this is beyond what my initial interest was here, which was to draw a distinction between the destructive effects of commercial/socio-economic systems, and the potentially positive effects of genuinely free-market action. It's all quite abstract, and, of course, any genuinely free markets never stay that way for long. Conversely, as every communist experiment seems to have demonstrated, there's no way of completely suppressing the emergence of markets, especially by brute force. Yes, for sure, I think engaging in business is currently one way that the LOA operates currently. If our intuition is to set up a business, then we should follow that. We have to work with the systems we are given, the systems in front of us. It doesn't really serve us to be at war with these systems, so for me there's a delicate balance to be found in all this. I guess my approach is to engage with the systems in a fun and responsible way, while retaining a degree of awareness that the systems aren't generally aligned to higher universal principles. There was a huge protest in London today, I saw a report that there were up to 500000 people there (doubt this will be shown on MSM). I didn't go, but I support this protest fully, so I support this 'war'. I also donate to some of the groups that are protesting. Contributing to a 'protest' is not aligned to LOA principles, but...I'm just fumbling through all this too, I'm no LOA master! I'm just working with the system in front of me, the best I can. She doesn't know how right she is:  Nice pictures, including clear statistics. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9507223/Thousands-anti-lockdown-activists-march-central-London.html
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Apr 25, 2021 1:00:15 GMT -5
Can I dream myself being a robot? Having a personality as I have now, but attached to an inorganic body? In an organic, or in an inorganic world?
Surely: I can!
There is the possibility of such a reality, that could originate from a reality like this, or in a different way.
The purpose of such a reality could be identical with the purpose of our reality. There is nothing that mandates that our souls have to incarnate in this kind of human form, in this kind of environment. There is nothing specific to this form, or to this environment that is sine-qua-non to our purpose of being.
After all, there is nothing wrong with imagining this humanity changing course form wise, more or less gradually. Imagining en mass may set such a course.
You'd still have an identity, an existence, a form of movement toward the fulfillment of your potential.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 25, 2021 8:31:54 GMT -5
Can I dream myself being a robot? Having a personality as I have now, but attached to an inorganic body? In an organic, or in an inorganic world? Surely: I can! There is the possibility of such a reality, that could originate from a reality like this, or in a different way. The purpose of such a reality could be identical with the purpose of our reality. There is nothing that mandates that our souls have to incarnate in this kind of human form, in this kind of environment. There is nothing specific to this form, or to this environment that is sine-qua-non to our purpose of being. After all, there is nothing wrong with imagining this humanity changing course form wise, more or less gradually. Imagining en mass may set such a course. You'd still have an identity, an existence, a form of movement toward the fulfillment of your potential. Are you a personality? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 25, 2021 8:34:37 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. Yes, in LOA terms, it's really simply: expectation and focus is all what is required. That applies to the billionaire as well as to the pauper. And no economic system can give you that or take that away from you. Some are aware of it, some are not. Those who are aware of it and apply it sometimes learned it the hard way, sometimes they've learned it by observing other successful people, some maybe just learned it by assimilation because they were born into wealth. Different people get there thru different paths. So if someone who doesn't know about this loses everything, it's unlikely he'll recover. But if someone who knows about this loses everything, he'll recover in no time. I remember A-H once telling a story about a very wealthy business magnate who lost his entire business empire in a stock market crash. And he was devastated because it took him so long to get there and he felt he was too old to start all over again. And Abe told him that what he had lost wasn't anything of value, it was just money. Money follows our state of being. And he hadn't lost that state of being and mindset of a very rich and successful individual. So it would just be a matter of time until he would be back to where he was before that stock market crash. And so it proved. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 25, 2021 9:15:53 GMT -5
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). We are talking about the idea of capitalism, right? And the original idea of capitalism is pretty close to just letting LOA sorting it all out. Now, what people then do with that idea is a different story, especially people who believe in lack or have all kinds of other psychological issues. Then it all gets distorted and you get an unbalanced and unhealthy system that collapses regularly and needs to be rebooted regularly. Also, I think that different political and economic systems naturally appeal to different kinds of people, depending on their individual personalities, mental predispositions and overall life purpose. Some people are just better suited to thrive in a capitalist system, some are better suited to thrive in a community oriented system - just by virtue of how they are wired from birth. So that the question about which economic system is the best, is somehow not the right question to ask, because it is asked from a flawed premise. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 25, 2021 9:25:35 GMT -5
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. Well, 'the best' by what standards anyway? And as you may have noticed, your personal standards keep changing. First you want a bigger room. When you have a bigger room, you want a bigger apartment. When you have a bigger apartment, you want a house. When you have the house, you want a bigger house with more rooms. When you have that house with more than enough rooms, you want an even bigger house with a big garden. When you have that huge house with a huge garden, you notice that's a lot of work. So you want a smaller house with just a small garden. And when you've got that downsized house, you realize that you are always stuck in one place with a house, so now you can really appreciate just renting an apartment that makes it easier to move around... |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 25, 2021 10:29:17 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. If you reduce it to the essentials, it really is simple. However, you cannot rail against the injustices of a system and then expect to succeed in that system. That's a self-defeating attitude (contradictory vibrations). As I mentioned in my reply to ZD, in terms of LOA, it really is just about expectation and focus. And actually much much more about expectation than focus. Not hard work or playing by the rules or against the rules or knowing the right people or being born into the right family or in the right country - although all of that might help initially and make things a lot easier. Napoleon Hill, who studied highly successful people, trying to find out the rules that made some successful and others not, had an interesting list in his book about the 30 major causes of failure: Now, this is a rather long list, with lots of good points and I'm sure Hill had the statistical data to prove it. But this is an entirely intellectual and action oriented perspective on success/failure, so going thru that list after almost 30 years not having looked at it, it now seems rather convoluted to me. In comparison, the A-H perspective on success/failure is just so simple and elegant - alignment/misalignment and following/not following your inner guidance. That's it. Now, a lot of people who mostly have calibrated to the lower half of the emotional scale will not like this and probably ridicule it as too simplistic. But I've never seen highly successful people do that. Mostly it's people who are not successful who find fault with this. Those who are successful intuitively know that this is true. A-H once said that if you would confiscate everybody's money worldwide and then distribute it evenly again, in less than 10 years, you would have the exact same rich/poor disparities again that you had before the great redistribution. Because it is not really about external circumstance. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 25, 2021 10:30:32 GMT -5
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). We are talking about the idea of capitalism, right? And the original idea of capitalism is pretty close to just letting LOA sorting it all out. Now, what people then do with that idea is a different story, especially people who believe in lack or have all kinds of other psychological issues. Then it all gets distorted and you get an unbalanced and unhealthy system that collapses regularly and needs to be rebooted regularly. Also, I think that different political and economic systems naturally appeal to different kinds of people, depending on their individual personalities, mental predispositions and overall life purpose. Some people are just better suited to thrive in a capitalist system, some are better suited to thrive in a community oriented system - just by virtue of how they are wired from birth. So that the question about which economic system is the best, is somehow not the right question to ask, because it is asked from a flawed premise. yes, the idea of capitalism is somewhat closer to LOA than the idea of government control, but I went into some depth to illustrate that at the core of capitalism is lack consciousness, and a false belief about the way the universe works. So...I think there's always been, and will be, a limit to how well capitalism can go...as said, it's brought some cool stuff with it, but now more than ever, we are seeing the problems that it causes. Essentially, capitalism respects the material over the spiritual, it HAS to. It's a good thing for people to do to bring spiritual ideas INTO the material...and that can produce some relatively good results, and we might see some good 'ethical' businesses, but the driving force of capitalism is 'advantage', and so in the end, materialism wins....and the inevitable result of that is commodification of everything...the air, the the water, the land, even our bodies. They would fight over who owns Mars and Jupiter if they could. They would try and 'own' the whole universe if they could. But I do agree that the question of 'which economic system is best' is intrinsically flawed. In a sense, LOA is beyond systems and models. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 25, 2021 10:34:19 GMT -5
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. Well, 'the best' by what standards anyway? And as you may have noticed, your personal standards keep changing. First you want a bigger room. When you have a bigger room, you want a bigger apartment. When you have a bigger apartment, you want a house. When you have the house, you want a bigger house with more rooms. When you have that house with more than enough rooms, you want an even bigger house with a big garden. When you have that huge house with a huge garden, you notice that's a lot of work. So you want a smaller house with just a small garden. And when you've got that downsized house, you realize that you are always stuck in one place with a house, so now you can really appreciate just renting an apartment that makes it easier to move around... I guess I just mean 'the best' that I know if in this moment. For example, I know the difference between a cheese sandwich and a Michelin star restaurant, but sometimes, I'd much rather have a cheese sandwich than a gourmet dinner. And I think there's a common misconception that if we were given everything we wanted, then we would all want 'the best things'...all of the time...and that we'd all want the same things. But everyone has different personalities, proclivities, interests, desires. Reminds me of a guy I spoke to working in McDonalds a few years ago....an old guy, just doing a bit of work because he wanted to....and he loved the job. We are an incredibly diverse bunch, and even one person has many different facets. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 25, 2021 10:51:58 GMT -5
How many people did the world support before the agricultural revolution, and how many after? How many people did the world support under a feudal agricultural system that suppressed commerce, and how many after that changed? How many people would die within a year if we suddenly somehow eliminated all commerce? How many people could the world support without some form of it? Well, at no point since humans have begun trading...even in its most basic form....have we ever lived in alignment with universal principles. We have been bound to work 'by the sweat of our brow, to eat our bread'. Capitalism has been inevitable, necessary and useful for our evolution, and I'm definitely not suggesting we should suddenly stop, or suppress commerce. What I do believe is that a 'quantum leap' of some sort is possible...perhaps even inevitable...at some point. At which point we stop valuing and measuring what we have to offer, instead we begin a period of synchronistic giving and receiving. You've already got that to some extent thru the internet and crypto. But even the best and ideal economic system can't work as it should if you populate it with the wrong people. What you suggest requires a populace that is wide awake in terms of knowing who they are, what they are here for and what their own value in that system is. |
|
.. (** hangs head in shame **) 
