Meditations

[zombyrus]

I don't think I have faith in anything anymore. This past year I have realized that everyone (and every institution) is willing to help others, but only if it also helps themselves. I figure that for each of us there are probably a small handful of groups that we want to help unconditionally, and at that point we consider their interests to be our own. By that I mean that we take the priorities of the few groups and people who matter to us and set them as our priorities, thus setting general well-being as a second-tier interest. The amount of people who take general well-being as their top priority is, I would imagine, very small, because doing that would mean setting individual well-being as a second-tier interest. People instead choose to think that their interests coincide with the general well-being.

By that whole spiel I mean that institutions only do what they think benefits society, and what they think benefits society is essentially only what benefits them. Even though everyone and every institution tells itself that they are working toward the general welfare, it is in fact only working toward its own welfare, which leads to all the conflicts of interest in society. I guess what I'm saying is that I believe that everyone thinks they are helping the world, but nobody actually is.

At one point in The Brothers Karamazov, the characters speculate how many men of real faith there are in the world, and their guess is no more than two, living in the desert somewhere. That sounds just about right to me. I don't think anyone really knows what is going on inside themselves or in the world.

I don't know if any of that really makes any sense. It's pretty late where I am and I'm tired.

[Anteroinen]

Being I still don't know that much about Private Schools other than that, I'd say I'd like a Private School (like going to College) where you can learn at your own pace and learn what you want to learn. Like a Vocational School.

What do you mean by vocational school? In here 'vocational school' refers to a specific school that educates people to do certain jobs: nurses, mechanics, etc.. There is nothing about that that is intrinsically "private" (or colleges and universities for that matter).

Public education needs competition. People need the freedom to choose how they want to raise their kids. Who the heck are you to tell parents how they should raise their kids? Competition is a good thing; it is greed that is bad not competition.

Choose? Are you kidding me? Would it not be best if schools were all equal? Would that not mean that students can compete equally within the school system, without the stigmata of a "bad school"? If schools have different standards then people are forced to move to get to better schools, which further increases inequality, because not everyone can. Also, schools aren't supposed to raise the children, hence the school the kid goes to should be irrelevant for the child's raising.

Creationism is a belief with not scientific underpinnings, so there is zero logic in teaching it as science, but plenty of reason to teach what it is. Why keep people in the dark about it or anything?

Because there is only so much time, and this really shouldn't be all that relevant. I mean, should we also teach the kids about every conspiracy theory, just to tell that it is bollocks? It sounds counter-productive. I'd much rather see people teaching the real science better, so that people would not only recognize poppycock, but also see exactly why it is such hogwash without someone explaining it them step-by-step.

Why do some of you have so much faith in the state as it stands today? Why do you seem to defend our system and how education works?

I don't know about USA, but I defend it because I've seen it work.

Well, as much as I'd like to throw around what the Plan is, we know only as much as what Sub8 gave us, maybe parts of the other

I think Mateusz's new definition "the concept of intertwined layers" could be interpreted a bit, since now that I've thought about it, it sort of debunks my theory, not confirms it. My theory proposes that the plan is built on the layers, not that layers themselves actively form the plan.

I wasn't here when you debated about the Edge, so if you could give an example (or maybe a link), we could try to work off that and actually give free-flowing debate/discussion on a range of ideas that could take place.

It was in the old forum and I could've sworn you were present. I don't remember the name of the discussion, I'll try to find it later though.

History of the Series: We have the timeline on the Wiki. Speaking of which, I disagree with the idea that "We the King" is actually a King in history. While they may be, and it's all a conspiracy that they were part of a secret organization creating the SubNet and whatnot, it makes more sense that the King is a monarch in their own mind. Perhaps it being We the King, it's an organization - Perhaps the Company? Perhaps the Company (of Mur's) has changed hands through generation to generation, just like the Marauder's Map in Harry Potter?

I don't think he is a king from our realm either, if that's what you mean. Although I'd contend that the We doesn't reflect on the king's plurality, but is rather the customary majestic plural or royal we i.e. he calls himself "Us". There having been four dynasties, I'd say it isn't far fetched to say he was some sort of a monarch. After all countries were also mentioned, with "art circles", which mere companies don't really have. And about Murtaugh inheriting his company? That sounds unlikely, as the company would've resided in the Core prior to the creation of the outer rim and Murtaugh abandoned them.

The question of who exactly did Murtaugh find on his travel around the rim is an interesting question. Who, for instance, were the nincompoops who had missed that there were many Submachines? The unlucky first cartographers of the rim?

[Oleander]

Man, the conversation is moving fast tonight.

I'm really amazed how statist some of you guys are. Public education needs competition. People need the freedom to choose how they want to raise their kids. Who the heck are you to tell parents how they should raise their kids?

Why shouldn't we tell parents how to raise their children? Producing a person does not make you a good candidate for taking care of one. I don't think it is arguable that there aren't things that are inherently harmful, and if you know that there are harmful things going on, why wouldn't you try to stop them?

But here is my question: Why do some of you have so much faith in the state as it stands today? Why do you seem to defend our system and how education works? Are you not at all skeptical? Are you really so certain that government runs the way it was intended to?

I haven't seen a single person so far in this conversation say "The government is perfect right now, keep it the way it is."

Sure, ideally we would be living under a perfectly benevolent representative government, but it the USA at least, the government is far from representing the will of the people. That seems so painfully obvious I can't even understand why so many of us in the US are still voting at all, other then shear intellectual laziness.

The *point* of voting is to bring in people who do represent the will of the people. What would you say the benefits of not voting are?

[The Abacus]

They are all already a problem: water level has risen due to warming, acidic rain has been a thing for a while and then there are the debris masses floating in giant whirlpools in the Pacific...

I forgot to say very disastrous and common effects when I wrote that.

I think Mateusz's new definition "the concept of intertwined layers" could be interpreted a bit, since now that I've thought about it, it sort of debunks my theory, not confirms it. My theory proposes that the plan is built on the layers, not that layers themselves actively form the plan.

Mateusz's definition has always been my interpretation.

I haven't seen a single person so far in this conversation say "The government is perfect right now, keep it the way it is."

That's because all governments have a lot of room for improvement, simply for the reason that the available systems of government don't work if we are aiming to reach an "ideal" world.

[Redafro]

By that whole spiel I mean that institutions only do what they think benefits society, and what they think benefits society is essentially only what benefits them. Even though everyone and every institution tells itself that they are working toward the general welfare, it is in fact only working toward its own welfare, which leads to all the conflicts of interest in society. I guess what I'm saying is that I believe that everyone thinks they are helping the world, but nobody actually is..

I think that all makes a great deal of sense. The direction I've been thinking is to create social systems (not necessarily centralized government ones) which use reason and commitment to define how we can see the interests of all as the interests of the individual. We have a system mainly of violent disincentives, but we need to work more on the SOCIAL incentives. There are so many ideas that use to be a part of our culture which we have lost, like Henry Fords idea that he would pay his employees so well so they can afford to buy his cars. We are a greed centric society now, and so we do whatever crappy thing we can to achieve our bottom line. The truth, however, is that we can be both self benefiting and society benefiting in our goals if we would just lesson our dedication to greed. The great thing about it being social systems is you don't have to worry about trying to influence government before there are changes, rather you can begin with the people around you. However, the main problem, as I see it, is to correctly define virtue and then package that understanding in various popular mediums of communication so that message has the capacity to become widespread and easily accessible.

Choose? Are you kidding me? Would it not be best if schools were all equal? Would that not mean that students can compete equally within the school system, without the stigmata of a "bad school"? If schools have different standards then people are forced to move to get to better schools, which further increases inequality, because not everyone can. Also, schools aren't supposed to raise the children, hence the school the kid goes to should be irrelevant for the child's raising.

But don't you see? Competitions is what raises standards! You don't get a better football team by training all the teams the same, you have to innovate, to push forward harder, to keep trying, and to never rest on your past accomplishments! Public eduction might mean we all know the same stuff, but it equally means the quality of what we know is potentially equally poor. Now, I do agree with you on your last two points, and I'm fine to some degree with publicly funded competing schools, but there is a larger issue...

Why shouldn't we tell parents how to raise their children? Producing a person does not make you a good candidate for taking care of one. I don't think it is arguable that there aren't things that are inherently harmful, and if you know that there are harmful things going on, why wouldn't you try to stop them?

The larger issue is what you mean by "tell." Do you mean educate? Then yes, we should always educate people, including our selves. Government is like a parent itself, and as such should be constantly raising all its kids with the capacity to be its replacement. As it is, governments all too often seem to aim at keeping the people in a state of perpetual dependence. And THAT is my problem, when the "tell" becomes violence and the control of opportunity. Are there times when violence is acceptable? I think so. Yes, child prostitution warrants any rescue possible, even the most violent. And yes, parents incapable of truly preparing their children for the world need help. That is all of us to some degree. I'm not against socially (not necessarily governmentally) funded education, just it's homogenization and control by a central government.

Because there is only so much time, and this really shouldn't be all that relevant.

It should be up to the community. I'm actually fine with it not being taught, so long as that is the will of the community. But my problem is that ignorance is always disastrous. America's war with the Islamic world is a bloody disaster because we don't understand their religion. If we did, we would know that putting military bases on their sacred lands will ALWAYS provoke terrorism. Instead, we are trying the absolutely insane: to wage physical warfare on an idea. This can only bankrupt our whole economy, which is EXACTLY what the terrorists are trying to do. We are the perfect terrorist target: instead of acting wisely and carefully, we freak out and spend more and more money, and give up more and more of the rights our country stands on in order to protect ourselves. We are a very scared society.

I don't know about USA, but I defend it because I've seen it work.

So far as I can tell, it is far from working in the USA. Maybe it is where you live. Maybe the individuals in your culture haven't succumbed to the selfishness, greed, ad laziness of mind that most of us in the US have fallen under. If you have, then I can see why you would think democracies work. The point I'm trying to make, perhaps poorly, is that the only way ANY government can work is if the people are virtuous to begin with. If they are not, they can easily be manipulated into voting greedy hucksters into office.

The *point* of voting is to bring in people who do represent the will of the people. What would you say the benefits of not voting are?

Not voting isn't really my point. Doing something more is. My point is that we are NOT bringing in people who represent the will of the people by voting in America. We are voting on hucksters who have told us what to believe, who have control over the streams of communicating the candidates to the people (sense Ross Perot ran for president, it has become virtually impossible for a third party candidate to be on the presidential debates because the two parties have set the requirements so high. Why? To control the competition; to have a monopoly of power, to control this republic of the USA.), who are using the two party system to heard us into easily controllable polarized folds, and who are only interested in the APPEARANCE of benefiting the people.

[Oleander]

Not voting isn't really my point. Doing something more is.

And what is this greater thing to do?

It's really coming off like you have an extremely negative view of the government as a whole which is pretty unwarranted. The government has done a lot of good things and plenty of bad things as well, but we are way better off than you are saying we are. Really, I can't think of one example of a freedom that's been taken away in the last few decades.

[Rooster5man]

It sounds like you have more of a socialist approach, Red, am I correct? Not that I'm trying to offend you or anyone, I like the concept of it, but, like Communism, I don't believe it's always worked (unless I'm mistaken, anyone can feel free to correct me.)

I think what we need is a mixed economy - I don't understand people who don't want to pay taxes, but want all the benefits of the Government yet scolding the Government for being "too big" (does the Tea Party come to mind?)

As much as it seems that there's trying to be compromise in Government, the so-called "Fiscal Cliff" came way too close and we're letting these officials that WE elect run amuck in office and bullshit with our tax dollars while there seems to be no real progress, only more bickering.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate the Government, but Government's meant to benefit the people, and where's the real benefit when all we hear is there's no change? We need people who are just the right amount of stubborn to accomplish goals FOR the people that elected them into office, but aren't too stubborn to firmly hold their beliefs and make no significant change, and that's sometimes where the problem with party lines comes in. The last President (and only President I've heard) to be voted from a third party was Teddy Roosevelt, and all he did was split the Republican Party and let Wilson come into office. Why can't other officials today have such an impact on the voting scene from a third party? It seems it's always down to Democrat v Republican, but there's so much more potential out there and their voices aren't being heard.

By that whole spiel I mean that institutions only do what they think benefits society, and what they think benefits society is essentially only what benefits them. Even though everyone and every institution tells itself that they are working toward the general welfare, it is in fact only working toward its own welfare, which leads to all the conflicts of interest in society. I guess what I'm saying is that I believe that everyone thinks they are helping the world, but nobody actually is.

This pretty much sums up this world - Every organization thinks what they're doing benefits society, and it only seperates us more.

Enough about Politics and world view for now:

I think Mateusz's new definition "the concept of intertwined layers" could be interpreted a bit, since now that I've thought about it, it sort of debunks my theory, not confirms it. My theory proposes that the plan is built on the layers, not that layers themselves actively form the plan

Why can't it be both? The Layers form the Plan just as much as The Plan is the grand scheme of how the Layers are built, isn't it?

It was in the old forum and I could've sworn you were present. I don't remember the name of the discussion, I'll try to find it later though.

No problem. I don't quite remember those days as clearly because of Pastel War.

I don't think he is a king from our realm either, if that's what you mean. Although I'd contend that the We doesn't reflect on the king's plurality, but is rather the customary majestic plural or royal we i.e. he calls himself "Us". There having been four dynasties, I'd say it isn't far fetched to say he was some sort of a monarch. After all countries were also mentioned, with "art circles", which mere companies don't really have. And about Murtaugh inheriting his company? That sounds unlikely, as the company would've resided in the Core prior to the creation of the outer rim and Murtaugh abandoned them.

I remember reading on the Wiki someone believed the King to be Henry V or something, it seems uncertain to say it's a King from history though (as we both seem to agree on.)

But I can agree with "We" being a royal formality, saves me time from thinking the Company's somewhere behind it.

The question of who exactly did Murtaugh find on his travel around the rim is an interesting question. Who, for instance, were the nincompoops who had missed that there were many Submachines? The unlucky first cartographers of the rim?

Shot in the dark: The Mutations copied people already living the Layers, Mur met these alternate-dimension clones and used them to get back to the Core?

[Redafro]

And what is this greater thing to do?

To correctly understand how and why we should each be virtuous. My point is that no government system can guarantee moral (what we refrain from doing to others) and virtuous (what we do voluntarily to help others) laws and behavior, but almost any government system can be moral and virtuous if the people influencing and controlling government are moral and virtuous. Ultimately, I believe in self governance, not government. In that sense, I'm almost an anarchist, but while an anarchist says the problem is all government, I say the problem is self governance. It is a subtle difference. For me, sure you can have government, but it will only be as moral and virtuous a system as the degree of self governance of the governing, and the degree to which they train the governed to self govern. And ultimately, the goal, even if it can never practically be reached, is for all of the human race to graduate to a state of self governance in which government is unnecessary. This ultimate goal is obviously almost pie in the sky, but the point is to recognize that as the goal of government, and if we do, that will completely change the goals of governing.

I am packing a lot into the concept of virtue, to the point where I'm attempting not simply to define virtue, but to propose a systematic theory of virtue, one which includes philosophical, social, psychological and basic practicality of virtue in our lives. A tag line I came up with is "empowerment by education, increase through virtue." I'm seriously considering doing some kind of web site/book/podcast on the subject. I haven't decided exactly what yet.

It's really coming off like you have an extremely negative view of the government as a whole which is pretty unwarranted. The government has done a lot of good things and plenty of bad things as well, but we are way better off than you are saying we are. Really, I can't think of one example of a freedom that's been taken away in the last few decades.

I can understand why it would seem that way, but 1. as I've said it's the lack of morality/virtue of our politicians that I'm so negative towards, not government per se, 2. we are not as well off as we have the potential to be. I attack government because we need to understand that government is not what is going to make things better; we are. Finally, it is not so much freedoms we have lost as a whole, but rights we have lost, evils we have done in the name of our freedoms, and rights which have never been given in the first place. The current American president, for instance, has given himself the ability to execute Americans without a trial. This in the name of the unwinable War on Terror. Only 3 such executions have been acknowledged, but it has been estimated that this privilege which violates our constitutional right of a trial has been used upwards of 300 times. Perhaps this has kept us safe to some degree, but is it really worth eroding our constitutional rights? What about when this power is given to future presidents? Government powers always become greater historically speaking.

Rooster, I'll respond as soon as I can. Got a fussy baby. XD

[Rooster5man]

That's absolutely fine, I think you answered my question though:

In that sense, I'm almost an anarchist, but while an anarchist says the problem is all government, I say the problem is self governance. It is a subtle difference. For me, sure you can have government, but it will only be as moral and virtuous a system as the degree of self governance of the governing, and the degree to which they train the governed to self govern. And ultimately, the goal, even if it can never practically be reached, is for all of the human race to graduate to a state of self governance in which government is unnecessary. This ultimate goal is obviously almost pie in the sky, but the point is to recognize that as the goal of government, and if we do, that will completely change the goals of governing.

So, really, in the end, you want what every free-thinking individual with common sense wants, where this idea hasn't been able to reach the minds of all politicians: Give welfare to those who need it, and when they find a job, take them off welfare, so on and so forth. I think Reagan was for that more or less: "We should measure welfare's success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added."

I wouldn't say you're so much of an anarchist - You want Government, but in a sort of moderation, only until people who don't need the Government's help as much can finally move on with their lives.

The current American president, for instance, has given himself the ability to execute Americans without a trial. This in the name of the unwinable War on Terror.

Wasn't that Bush's doing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorizat ... Terrorists

Congress approved, there's been bills to repeal it which seemingly haven't passed. That's not Obama's doing, as far as I'm aware, unless I'm missing something.

At any rate, I'd be interested in reading a book of yours about these views, you always come up with something interesting

[Oleander]

I think what we need is a mixed economy - I don't understand people who don't want to pay taxes, but want all the benefits of the Government yet scolding the Government for being "too big" (does the Tea Party come to mind?)

We *do* have a mixed economy.
---
Red, I understand what your point is now, and that sounds like a reasonable ultimate goal. I still think, though, that a central government body is an important thing to have, but solely for the purpose of being a public service organization. I don't think the issues that you have a problem with are a result of, or even correlated with, the existence of a 'large' government. I just believe several of the things they are doing right now are completely unnecessary and unhelpful; that doesn't mean they should be smaller, just a lot different.